Religious Evidence and Miracles

[BluffTHIS!]

In another thread David posted in reply to myself, he said that believers might believe themselves to possess additional personal evidence for their religious belief that would not be obvious/credible to unbelieving expert evidence evaluators, and I would like to comment further on this. NotReady gave in one post a partial "testimony", which is what Christians call telling how God brought about their individual conversions and continues to act in their lives. I most certainly believe that God has performed supernatural miracles, many of which are told of in the bible, and that He might from time to time continue to perform such miracles. Of course skeptical non-believers will merely state that in the case of such a miracle that might be reported today, that even if science cannot explain it, it is certainly due to the fact that either enough information has not been gathered regarding such a reported occurance, that the reporters were not credible, or that science merely has not progressed to the point to be able to explain what must surely have a rational scientific explanation. I should also mention that I personally do not believe most such current reports myself for the same reasons, such as a face being seen in the grime on the wall of an underpass, which I believe to be merely wishful thinking and no different than an interpretation of a Rorshach inkblot.

But I do not believe that supernatural means are the primary manner in which God chooses to perform miracles, or "interferences" if you prefer. If a Christian should pray for a safe journey and God chooses in His wisdom and compassion to answer that prayer, then take the case where a person would have taken a plane or a highway route that would have put him in danger. Sure, God possessing infinite power could either send a angel to warn that believer in advance, or could simply snatch him miraculously out of harm's way. But He also could just as simply with infinite power just cause that believer's car to malfunction and cause him to miss that plane or miss being on a highway at the time of a catastrophe. That is in fact how I believe God operates the vast majority of the time. Or in the case where He might want you to meet someone, like your future wife or a friend who will benefit you, He just causes you to happen to meet that person. Thus I believe that coincidences and serendipity are prime means by which God chooses to act.

Although I am religious, I am also highly scientifically and rationally oriented, and so I would not instantly ascribe any such occurance to divine intervention. Nonetheless, my own testimony is that there have been many times in my own life, when the timing of such occurances, when I needed them most and have prayed for help, have been the result of God's benevolent aid. I recognize that to a non-believer this would not be very credible evidence, but such actions on God's part were not meant to persuade others to religious belief, but rather to confirm to me His love and protection. And this is why I would rate the evidence for my religious faith much higher than a non-believing expert evidence evaluator would, with the full realization that such personal evidence would not change such an evaluator's determination of the odds. Even so, as believers, we still have to bear a certain amount of adversity that the gospel might entail, or that is merely the result of being a human living in an uncertain and often dangerous world.

[PairTheBoard]

A "change of heart" is the greatest miracle. There is plenty of evidence such miracles happen. They do not require the breaking of natural laws. If god is involved, they happen in partnership with him. He is not interfering nor violating free will. It's puzzling to me because these are clearly the miracles that matter imo, yet they seem to be considered irrelevant both by the religious and non-religious alike.

PairTheBoard

[BZ_Zorro]

It seems to me that many religious people see the world around them and the events in their own life, and draw conclusions/beliefs from it without looking for contradictory evidence. Example:

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, God possessing infinite power could either send a angel to warn that believer in advance, or could simply snatch him miraculously out of harm's way. But He also could just as simply with infinite power just cause that believer's car to malfunction and cause him to miss that plane or miss being on a highway at the time of a catastrophe. That is in fact how I believe God operates the vast majority of the time. Or in the case where He might want you to meet someone, like your future wife or a friend who will benefit you, He just causes you to happen to meet that person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every time God causes someone to 'miss that plane', a child starves in Africa for want of food or a 50c Vitamin injection. Every time God causes 'someone's car to malfuntion', an innocent child dies of AIDS after a miserable life. Or they get their limbs chopped off as has happened recently in the Congo. Or they get raped by some soldiers. Rather than help them get away, give them a feeling to go somewhere else, God in his infinite wisdom and power lets this happen. Maybe he's busy helping you with whatever desire you have? God will cause your car to malfunction, but he won't redirect the few HIV viruses that slipped through to the baby against the odds and made their short life horrible.

When the Tsunami happened and killed, injured and left homeless tens of thousands, instead of making the plate slip in a slightly different direction (and thus avoiding the tsunami), he was busy making your car malfunction so you'd take the bus instead and meet your future wife who would be 'good for you'.

Do you see the absurdity in your claims?

[ QUOTE ]
I am also highly scientifically and rationally oriented

[/ QUOTE ]
No sir, you are not. From the content of your post it is obvious you fail to understand such basic fallacies as confirmation bias, selective memory, subjective validation, or the nature of coincidence. You don't look for contrary examples of what you claim to be true, as an objective person would. You know them to be true already in your heart. This is neither rational nor scientific.

[drudman]

Great post Zorro.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that many religious people see the world around them and the events in their own life, and draw conclusions/beliefs from it without looking for contradictory evidence. Example:

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, God possessing infinite power could either send a angel to warn that believer in advance, or could simply snatch him miraculously out of harm's way. But He also could just as simply with infinite power just cause that believer's car to malfunction and cause him to miss that plane or miss being on a highway at the time of a catastrophe. That is in fact how I believe God operates the vast majority of the time. Or in the case where He might want you to meet someone, like your future wife or a friend who will benefit you, He just causes you to happen to meet that person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Every time God causes someone to 'miss that plane', a child starves in Africa for want of food or a 50c Vitamin injection. Every time God causes 'someone's car to malfuntion', an innocent child dies of AIDS after a miserable life. Or they get their limbs chopped off as has happened recently in the Congo. Or they get raped by some soldiers. Rather than help them get away, give them a feeling to go somewhere else, God in his infinite wisdom and power lets this happen. Maybe he's busy helping you with whatever desire you have? God will cause your car to malfunction, but he won't redirect the few HIV viruses that slipped through to the baby against the odds and made their short life horrible.

When the Tsunami happened and killed, injured and left homeless tens of thousands, instead of making the plate slip in a slightly different direction (and thus avoiding the tsunami), he was busy making your car malfunction so you'd take the bus instead and meet your future wife who would be 'good for you'.

Do you see the absurdity in your claims?

[ QUOTE ]
I am also highly scientifically and rationally oriented

[/ QUOTE ]
No sir, you are not. From the content of your post it is obvious you fail to understand such basic fallacies as confirmation bias, selective memory, subjective validation, or the nature of coincidence. You don't look for contrary examples of what you claim to be true, as an objective person would. You know them to be true already in your heart. This is neither rational nor scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

AMEN!

[fluxrad]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

I have a magical ring which protects me from being attacked by tigers. I found it in a box of Lucky Charms. I know it protects me from tiger attack because I have yet to be attacked by a tiger while wearing it.

Where one looks hard enough for causality, one will find it.

[Triumph36]

That's hardly contradictory evidence, and I'm not sure why the chorus has come out to laud this as a result. Are you saying that a just God could not let unjust things happen? This is another one of the snide athiest's standard 'provoking' questions, empty of any content and only placed there to let the theist fumble around, as though he should even have to answer that.

Belief is non-rational. God's will, if it exists, is unknowable. It amazes me how willing so many on this forum are to clap their hands and pat themselves on the back at their own seeming 'rationality', both thiest and athiest.

[David Sklansky]

"Belief is non-rational. God's will, if it exists, is unknowable. It amazes me how willing so many on this forum are to clap their hands and pat themselves on the back at their own seeming 'rationality', both thiest and athiest."

That's fine for Jews and Catholics (I think). But others who stipulate profound punishment for non belief, can't agree with you without admitting that God punishes people simply because they are remaining rational.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine for Jews and Catholics (I think). But others who stipulate profound punishment for non belief, can't agree with you without admitting that God punishes people simply because they are remaining rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as God treats unbelievers justly, any special favor (undeserved and unmerited) that he chooses to confer upon believers cannot be deemed immoral.

[David Sklansky]

And you are talking immoral by human standards. But so what. You have deemed God not immoral for granting special, maybe undeserved, favors to believers but not unbelievers and I'll stipulate that you are right (although I think American Law sometimes deems special favors illegal).

The problem is that you don't really care what humans deem immoral. Because when you say God treats unbelievers justly, you mean send them to hell because Adam ate the apple and they don't acknowledge Christ died for that sin. Since most humans think such a punishment is immoral because it doesn't fit the "crime" and that doesn't concern you, why bother to defend the morality of special favors for believers?

[IronUnkind]

I defend it not against the literal truth of your post but against its innuendo.

[usmhot]

Of course, the point you are really missing is that BluffTHIS' original post is the sort of belief / sentiment that lead us down such wonderful paths as the crusades and the witch-hunts and still brings us world-wide terrorism, torture and murder in many of its most horrendous forms.
When people start to think that God affects their lives in subtle ways to help them avoid death or to introduce them to their spouse then eventually many of them compare the 'good' life God has assured them to the 'bad' life God visits on others and come to the conclusion that if God in his infinite wisdom punishes them then we should help him to do this.

[IronUnkind]

What a slippery slope you describe! You're frightening me into unbelief! The reason people are missing your point is because it's stupid.

[usmhot]

Ahh, a master of reasoned and intellectual debate, I see. In your long 13 years on this planet you obviously believe you have perfected the art of discussion and rebuttal. Pithy, incisive, creative and intelligent are clearly words that have no meaning for you.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Pithy, incisive, creative and intelligent are clearly words that have no meaning for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I've proven my ability to use the word 'stupid' in its proper context.

[coheedandcambria]

Oh yeah? Well I found an "azure amulet of insane Christian creation" in a bejeweled strongbox and I can't get the thing to turn off!!! Help!!!

[andyfox]

"I most certainly believe that God has performed supernatural miracles, many of which are told of in the bible, and that He might from time to time continue to perform such miracles. . . skeptical non-believers will merely state that in the case of such a miracle that might be reported today, that even if science cannot explain it, it is certainly due to the fact that either enough information has not been gathered regarding such a reported occurance, that the reporters were not credible, or that science merely has not progressed to the point to be able to explain what must surely have a rational scientific explanation. I should also mention that I personally do not believe most such current reports myself for the same reasons . . ."

Why, then, do you believe the miracles reported in the bible, which was written by a person or persons with an agenda, in an age when science could explain much less than it can today, and when recording information was more haphazard than it is today in the electronic age?

[BluffTHIS!]

Instataneous cures of various maladies not involving the admistration of any medicines or therapies, changing water into wine, and bringing back someone from the dead days after being entombed would qualify today as miracles and be unable to be explained by today's science as well. And regarding such acts being written by people with an "agenda", everything written by anyone, including us posters, is written to advance some "agenda".

[John Cole]

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Instataneous cures of various maladies not involving the admistration of any medicines or therapies, changing water into wine, and bringing back someone from the dead days after being entombed would qualify today as miracles and be unable to be explained by today's science as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are indeed miracles. If there was any proof that they happened, I might rethink my belief system.

Here's a fact you probably didn't know: The first record of anything regarding Jesus was written at least 40 years after he died. THe bible wasn't written by eyewitnesses, it was written long after Jesus was dead. Nothing written about Jesus (biblical or not) was written by an eyewitness or even a contemporary. This is an undisputed fact by most historians, including Catholic apologists.

There is no independent (i.e. not contained in a religious book) proof that any of these miracles occurred. In fact, there is barely any independent proof that Jesus even existed. The Romans were excellent record keepers, but a Millenia of searching has failed to find any writings or records of Jesus, which many consider to be odd. The first appears 70 years after his death, by the Roman historian Tacitus. It is a one line reference and uses his name incorrectly. There is no mention of any purported miracles. This is not atheist propaganda, this is from historians and Catholic apologists who have a vested interest in proving his existence.

By the way, why don't you believe in Muhammed?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a fact you probably didn't know: The first record of anything regarding Jesus was written at least 40 years after he died. THe bible wasn't written by eyewitnesses, it was written long after Jesus was dead. Nothing written about Jesus (biblical or not) was written by an eyewitness or even a contemporary. This is an undisputed fact by most historians, including Catholic apologists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's something you didn't know. What you say ain't necessarily so either. 40 years after Jesus died=73 A.D. Since there is evidence that the apostle John for one lived into his 90's, the period during which apostolic eyewitnesses could have written or dictated the gospels stretches almost to the year 100 A.D. Obviously each gospel was not written entirely by one person and might have had a principal writer plus a couple redactors, but that doesn't change a thing.

[andyfox]

No, not everything written is written by someone advancing an agenda. When I say several bombs went off in London this morning, I am stating a fact. There were eyewitnesses; I saw the victims on TV. There is no agenda in reporting the fact of the bombs' existence. If I say Al-Qaeda is obviously responsible and this is part of their war against the West, and I say this without evidence, then I am advancing an agenda.

There is no proof that anybody has ever been able to instantaneously cure various maladies. There is a lot of evidence to indicate that those who claim do it today are frauds. There is also no evidence that anyone has ever been able to turn water to wine or reenliven a dead person. We have a report of Jesus doing these things written by a person or persons trying to "sell" it.

[andyfox]

Methuselah lived 900 years.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Methuselah lived 900 years.

[/ QUOTE ]


It is with some displeasure that I must dispute this claim. From Genesis chp. 5, v. 25-26 (Good News Bible). "When Methuselah was 187, he had a son, Lemech and then lived another 782 years. He had other children and died at the age of 969."

Lemech, who lived to the very lucky age of 777, was the father of Noah - who had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. So ends the Sunday School Lesson for today.

Please don't make me correct you again dear friend - it is getting tiresome. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Zeno]

George Gershwin is an authority on the Bible? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

So good to have you posting again John.

I can hardly wait for our first disagreement in the Politics Forum. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
From Genesis chp. 5, v. 25-26 (Good News Bible).

[/ QUOTE ]

I always imagined you being a King James man, but now that I think about it, Good News would suit you very well.

Bertie Wooster
Recipient of the Scripture Knowledge Prize.

[Zeno]

Phat,

I have two Bibles - A King James Version, as you rightly guessed, and the 'modern' Good News Bible translation. I find having two Bibles to be very useful. I should also purchase "The New Jeruslem Bible" The Good Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385142641/qid=1120829171/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-7639065-0834201) to round out my Bible collection. This version is well respected and has extra books floating about in it, not found in my other two Bibles, all to expand the reader's general knowledge of God, which is always a good thing for a Christian like myself to have.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years
But who calls dat livin' when no gal'll give in
To no man what's nine hundred years


And don't correct the spelling, syntax, or punctuation, it's Ira Gershwin's, not mine. Pretty racy stuff for the time, no?