It's Come Down to Andy Fox vs Peter666

David Sklansky · #1 10-23-2005, 01:14 PM

Though both the believers and the unbelievers might have chosen someone else to represent their views, the present conversation between Andy and Peter666 is pretty much all there is to say. It is taking place on the why doesn't God DO something thread. It concerns specific miracles.

Though it is unlikely that a conclusion will be reached, at least the subject they are arguing can in principle actually be resolved. And the winner will pretty much determine which camp is right. Certainly if Peter666 is right, unbelivers will be very hard pressed to stick to their views. If Andy Fox is proven right (that the "miracles" are scientifically explained) a few diehard Christian believers will try to rationalize their way out of it, but no one need any longer take them seriously.

So it has come to this. Andy Fox representing me. And Peter666 representing Not Ready. May God help us.

chezlaw · #2 10-23-2005, 01:22 PM

It can't be resolved. Peter666 view isn't supported by miracles, certainly not any specific ones. Its almost impossible to debunk one to his satisfaction and even if you did it wouldn't harm his belief one iota.

The whole miracle debate is a red herring. No-one believes (or not) in god because they believe (or not) in verifiable miracles.

chez

David Sklansky · #3 10-23-2005, 01:44 PM

"The whole miracle debate is a red herring. No-one believes (or not) in god because they believe (or not) in verifiable miracles."

chez

You are just wrong. At least when we talk about "God" as far as how it matters to most people. You don't think many people are unbelievers mainly BECAUSE they think there has never been a miracle. I'm certainly in that camp.

chezlaw · #4 10-23-2005, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"The whole miracle debate is a red herring. No-one believes (or not) in god because they believe (or not) in verifiable miracles."

chez

You are just wrong. At least when we talk about "God" as far as how it matters to most people. To prove how silly your statement is I ask you how many athiests believe that there are truly miracles?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have it the wrong way round. Peter666 believe in the miracles because he believes in god. He does not believe in god because he believes in the miracles.

The idea that he believes in god because of the suppleness of warm blood, or whatever it was, is obviously nonsense.

chez

David Sklansky · #5 10-23-2005, 01:50 PM

You are right about believers but not non believers.

chezlaw · #6 10-23-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are right about believers but not non believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its true for non-believers as well unless you are talking about miracles no-one is claiming happened (I agree that a bible the size of Mt Everest landing on Louisiana would have an impact).

Nothing anyone says about the Turin shroud or supple saints is going to persuade an athiest that they are miraculous.

chez

David Sklansky · #7 10-23-2005, 02:12 PM

Again you are just wrong. Non belief has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with science. The vast majority of non believers BECOME non believers mainly because they see that 99.9 % of claimed miracles are refuted so they assume the other .1% have an explanation as well. That and the fact that God obviously is not intervening in anyone's life.

When you add in a philosophical basis for non belief you are just playing into believer's hands.

chezlaw · #8 10-23-2005, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Again you are just wrong. Non belief has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with science. The vast majority of non believers BECOME non believers mainly because they see that 99.9 % of claimed miracles are refuted so they assume the other .1% have an explanation as well. That and the fact that God obviously is not intervening in anyone's life.

When you add in a philosophical basis for non belief you are just playing into believer's hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree and whose hands it plays into is irrelevent. No evidence could persuade a non-believer that the Turin shroud is miraculous, at worst the non-believer ends up believing they don't yet know how it came about.

The idea that I don't believe in god because I or others have wasted time refuting miracles is silly.

chez

Peter666 · #9 10-23-2005, 02:48 PM

Ok, let's do it. Here is my ace up the sleeve.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucha.../lanciano.html

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=70440

Try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is not an authentic miracle.

Peter666 · #10 10-23-2005, 02:54 PM

"No evidence could persuade a non-believer that the Turin shroud is miraculous, at worst the non-believer ends up believing they don't yet know how it came about."

This merely proves that non-believers actually do have faith - a faith in nothing. Even with evidence they will not believe because their "faith" tells them that it is impossible. This is illogical and absolutely stupid on their part.

-The fool says in his heart there is no God-