Some atheists say they'd believe in God if he arranged the stars to spell out John 3:16–or something like that. Indeed, this has become an atheist trope. Theodore Drange, Jerry Coyne, Evan Fales, Matt McCormick, and Keith Parsons, among others, have used that basic illustration.
Of course, it's a facetious illustration. Because so many atheists have intellectual contempt for Christianity, they easily succumb to thinking there's a quick and easy way to dismiss it. As a result, they resort to glib, shortsighted examples.
The problem with the skywriting example is that it conflicts with how many atheists define a miracle. Taking their cue from Hume, many atheists define a miracle as a violation of natural law.
But on the face of it, a conjunction of starry objects (e.g. stars, comets) to spell out John 3:16 doesn't violate the laws of physics. Rather, it fits the definition of a coincidence miracle.
In principle, God could plan the history of the universe so that in the year 2000 AD (or whenever), there's an alignment of starry objects spelling out John 3:16. That might be in the works from the time of the Big Bang. God could work through natural processes to arrive at that result.
It doesn't require the stars to suddenly rearrange themselves. It only requires a combination of starry objects of absolute or apparent magnitude to spell out that message. It doesn't require any star to change course. This physical conjunction could be physically predetermined from the time of the Big Bang. A delayed reaction.
(I'm not saying I subscribe to the Big Bang–just using that frame of reference for convenience.)
Great points. I also like what William Lane Craig has said in such a situation.
ReplyDeleteHe has said (paraphrase) "Indeed, I could well imagine that in such a world, after a while, people would begin to chafe under such brazen advertisements of their Creator. And in time, eventually come to resent His effrontery for such brazen advertisements of His existence." (paraphrase of a statement he's made in various texts and in debates).
As Craig has said, God isn't interested in just getting more people to believe THAT God exists. God is looking for people to believe IN and trust Him. Into a loving saving relationship.
Besides, if God were to constantly manifest Himself in our bedrooms, work areas, leisure times (etc.), we would (with our fallen depraved nature) not only resent Him but interpret such behavior as a form of neediness and insecurity. We wouldn't deem such a God as worthy of worship but of pity and suspicion. We would think of such a being as a finite creator and not necessarily THE Creator (behind all other creators) who is Transcendent and the source/ground/fountain of all being.
If anyone is interested, I've explored such topics in my blogposts here and here.
It's not a lack of evidence, it's a moral problem. They already know God exists, and they can't escape that knowledge being made in His image.
ReplyDeleteThey chafe under that knowledge even now, as evidenced by their inability to stop talking about Him. I appreciate the irrational anti-theists that run around constantly pointing to God, even in their denials they make much of him.
It's ironic. Plus the irrationally anti-theists are much safer than the rational kind who follow their system to its nihilistic conclusions.
A miracle is something that wouldn't happen if the laws of physics take their natural course. So if skywriting appeared, one would have to verify whether it was consistent with physical laws. If some atheists still think such an event could be explained by natural events, no problem. Just show them something more that couldn't be explained by nature. When all natural explanations have been excluded, the atheist is forced to conclude that supernatural forces are at play.
ReplyDeleteShow me a amputee who re-grows his arm at the behest of a faith healer.
Show me someone who accurately and reliably predicts the future.
Show me a fish that feeds a multitude.
Come on, guys. Use your imagination. There are any number of miraculous events that could convince an atheist - IF THEY EVER HAPPENED.
How about a man being flogged,crucified until dead, buried in a tomb, then rising again three days later and appearing bodily to multitudes of people over a period of weeks afterwards?
DeleteWould that convince you of miracles?
i) You don't know what a coincidence miracle is. An event can be consistent with laws of physics but still be naturally inexplicable. Natural processes are thoughtless and uniform (given the same antecedent conditions). A coincidence miracle is too discriminating to be the result of nature operating on its own, even though a coincidence miracle operates through natural processes.
Deleteii) You need to educate yourself on the literature. Lots of well-attested examples of miracles.
im-skeptical
Delete"A miracle is something that wouldn't happen if the laws of physics take their natural course. So if skywriting appeared, one would have to verify whether it was consistent with physical laws. If some atheists still think such an event could be explained by natural events, no problem. Just show them something more that couldn't be explained by nature. When all natural explanations have been excluded, the atheist is forced to conclude that supernatural forces are at play. Show me a amputee who re-grows his arm at the behest of a faith healer. Show me someone who accurately and reliably predicts the future. Show me a fish that feeds a multitude. Come on, guys. Use your imagination. There are any number of miraculous events that could convince an atheist - IF THEY EVER HAPPENED."
1. It's illogical to think "no miracles" therefore "atheism." At best, one could conclude agnostic.
2. If "no miracles" is merely one of the many reasons you argue for atheism, then why interject atheism in the above? Why allow atheism to be the other choice rather than agnosticism? You're not merely "skeptical" if you are arguing for atheism.
3. The atheist has a burden of proof to discharge when it comes to miracles. What's more, it's a more difficult burden of proof to discharge. Whereas the Christian theist only has to prove a single miracle is possible somewhere and at some time in the entire universe, the atheist posits a universal negative that no miracles have ever happened at any time and any place in the entire universe.
4. Click on the "Miracles" label for more.
How about a man being flogged,crucified until dead, buried in a tomb, then rising again three days later and appearing bodily to multitudes of people over a period of weeks afterwards?
DeleteFlogging, crucifying, and all that are natural events. Rising from the dead is a good trick. Show me.
You don't know what a coincidence miracle is. ...
You can define a miracle any way you like. I'm telling you what I think a miracle is. That's what would be convincing to me.
You need to educate yourself on the literature. Lots of well-attested examples of miracles.
I don't care what some blinkered believer claims they saw. You think the gospels are well-attested. I think they're not. Show me something that's convincing to me - not what is convincing to you.
It's illogical to think "no miracles" therefore "atheism." At best, one could conclude agnostic.
What makes you think you know exactly what I think or how I came to that conclusion?
... You're not merely "skeptical" if you are arguing for atheism.
Perhaps I should have said 'materialist'. If you wan to get all philosophical, we can talk about that. But this post was basically about what it takes to convince someone that supernatural events happen.
The atheist has a burden of proof to discharge when it comes to miracles.
That's your fantasy. I don't have to prove your claims. You say there are miracles. I say "show me."
im-skeptical
Delete"Flogging, crucifying, and all that are natural events. Rising from the dead is a good trick. Show me."
See the New Testament for a historically reliable source which attests to a couple of resurrections.
See Craig Keener's book Miracles as well.
"You can define a miracle any way you like. I'm telling you what I think a miracle is. That's what would be convincing to me."
Fortunately you're not the center of the world, so what's important is not what's "convincing to you," but what's "convincing," period. What's rational to believe.
"I don't care what some blinkered believer claims they saw."
Likewise who cares what some blinkered atheist claims they didn't see.
"You think the gospels are well-attested. I think they're not."
That's probably because you're immune to qualities such as reason, logic, critical thinking, etc.
"Show me something that's convincing to me - not what is convincing to you. "
No one can reason with the unreasonable.
"What makes you think you know exactly what I think or how I came to that conclusion?"
Re-read what you wrote above if it's unclear to you.
"Perhaps I should have said 'materialist'."
For obvious reasons one can only respond to what you've said, not what you didn't say.
"If you wan to get all philosophical, we can talk about that. But this post was basically about what it takes to convince someone that supernatural events happen."
No, this was about you pretending like you care to be convinced, but using it as a pretext to push your own wares.
"That's your fantasy. I don't have to prove your claims. You say there are miracles. I say 'show me.'"
As I said, one can't reason with the unreasonable.
"Perhaps I should have said 'materialist'. If you wan to get all philosophical, we can talk about that. But this post was basically about what it takes to convince someone that supernatural events happen."
DeleteThe "materialist" (commonly) precludes "supernatural events" in advance. If materialism is bedrock fundamental to your worldview, then you're impervious to "convincing." You're just pretending here.
See the New Testament for a historically reliable source which attests to a couple of resurrections.
DeleteI urge you to look up "historicaal method" to get some idea what constitutes objective historical analysis. I'm sorry, but the NT is not, in and of itself, a reliable historical source.
Fortunately you're not the center of the world, so what's important is not what's "convincing to you," but what's "convincing," period. What's rational to believe.
I didn't say I was. This article is about the question: what does it take to convince people like me? I'm only trying to answer that question.
Likewise who cares what some blinkered atheist claims they didn't see.
Certainly, you have nothing that is convincing to me. I can live with that.
That's probably because you're immune to qualities such as reason, logic, critical thinking, etc.
No one can reason with the unreasonable.
OK. Now I'm convinced (that you have nothing).
Re-read what you wrote above if it's unclear to you.
I'm well aware of what I wrote. Are you?
No, this was about you pretending like you care to be convinced, but using it as a pretext to push your own wares.
Exactly what wares to you imagine I'm pushing? I'm only trying to shed some light on the question of what it takes to convince me, or someone like me. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on you. I have offered no arguments. You think it is reasonable to believe in miracles. I say "show me".
The "materialist" (commonly) precludes "supernatural events" in advance. If materialism is bedrock fundamental to your worldview, then you're impervious to "convincing." You're just pretending here.
DeleteNo more impervious than thou, my friend.
So, let me get this straight "im-skeptical"...I'm supposed to provide evidence that will be acceptable to you, but it must conform to your standards of what evidence is. Evidence has been provided, but it doesn't meet your standards, so you reject it out of hand.
DeleteTurn the tables, you have not yet provided a convincing counter argument based on my standards of what a counter argument is. Nothing you have said so far is even remotely close to acceptable in my mind.
See how easy that is?
In my mind, you are not at all skeptical - you are closed minded. Your posture shows me that you are not at all interested in evidence. Evidence has been provided, and yet you say "I don't care that the scriptures are the most accurate ancient historical document ever witten - they say 'God' so they must be wrong."
That's rabid disbelief, not skepticism...
im-skeptical "You can define a miracle any way you like."
Deletei) It's a standard alternate definition to Hume, by philosophers like R. F. Holland, David Basinger, and David Bartholomew.
"I'm telling you what I think a miracle is."
Irrelevant. The post was not about you. The post was about an inconsistency between how atheists typically define a miracle and how they illustrate the kind of miracle that would cause them to believe in God. They usually define a miracle in Humean terms, as a violation of natural law. However, skywriting is not a violation of natural law.
"That's what would be convincing to me."
Irrelevant. It's not incumbent on me to convince you. And you're not a reasonable person to begin with.
"I don't care what some blinkered believer claims they saw."
Not having studied the literature, you have no idea what I'm even referring to.
"You think the gospels are well-attested. I think they're not."
I haven't mentioned the gospels. But as far as that goes, there's abundant evidence for the historicity of the gospels. The fact that you like to make uninformed comments is not my problem.
"Show me something that's convincing to me - not what is convincing to you."
This is not a command performance. I don't exist to pander to an irrational atheist.
"But this post was basically about what it takes to convince someone that supernatural events happen."
No, it wasn't. It was about an inconsistency in how atheists typically define a miracle in contrast to the hypothetical example that some of they say would be convincing. You need to learn how to follow the argument.
"That's your fantasy. I don't have to prove your claims."
You assert there are no miracles, or evidence for miracles. That's a truth-claim with its own burden of proof. You need to learn how to reason.
Jeff,
DeleteIf you wish to convince me of your claims, than yes, you should present convincing evidence. If you don't care whether I'm convinced, then you need to nothing. I'm not making any demands here. As for turning, the tables, that would be perfectly fair, on the assumption that I'm trying to convince you of some claim that I have made. I have made no such claim. And perhaps it is because I am not skeptical that I remain unconvinced of claims of miracles. But I don't think so.
Steve,
DeleteMy explanations of what convinces people like me may be irrelevant to someone who is not interested in getting an answer to the question of what it takes to convince people like me, but that is, after all, what we were talking about. If you don't find this interesting or relevant from your narrow perspective, then why are you involved in this discussion? Or do you wish to steer it to a different topic?
Not having studied the literature, you have no idea what I'm even referring to.
You don't know what I have studied. Or is it your opinion that reading this literature is sufficient to convince a skeptic? And by the way, you don't really need to mention the gospels. I'm well aware that they are the single most important part of the body of literature that Christians use to justify their beliefs.
This is not a command performance. I don't exist to pander to an irrational atheist.
I ask nothing from you. If you wish to participate in discussion, that's your choice.
It was about an inconsistency in how atheists typically define a miracle in contrast to the hypothetical example that some of they say would be convincing. You need to learn how to follow the argument.
Finally, we get to the heart of the matter. Good. Let me explain this to you. Any scientifically-minded person will agree that evidence is the basis of what they believe, and evidence is what it takes to make them change their mind. Otherwise, they would be just like you. Now some atheists have said that nothing you can show them would be convincing. That's correct, because you don't have any such evidence. And in fact, they are convinced that no such evidence exists. Therefore, they think that they will never see any evidence of miracles that convinces them. But that doesn't change the fact that if such evidence did exist and if it was presented to them, they would need to change their beliefs accordingly. The problem from your perspective is that you have no such evidence, or if there ever was a real miracle, you can't show me anything that would provide epistemic justification to believe it.
You assert there are no miracles, or evidence for miracles. That's a truth-claim with its own burden of proof. You need to learn how to reason.
I assert that I have never seen reason to believe that miracles happen in modern times, or at any time in the past. EVER. Therefore I have absolutely no reason to believe that they are real.
im-skeptical
DeleteFirst off, you should really change your moniker from "im-skeptical" to "im-prejudiced" or "im-a-dyed-in-the-wool-atheist" or something along those lines. Judging by what you've written on your own weblog and elsewhere (e.g. Victor Reppert's weblog), that'd be a far more accurate description of you.
"I urge you to look up 'historicaal method' to get some idea what constitutes objective historical analysis."
That's a bit ironic because your weblog is rife with material where you hardly engage in any sort of "objective...analysis." For example, someone points you to Tim McGrew's lectures, but you dismiss McGrew after admitting you've only bothered to listen to the first half hour or so.
"I'm sorry, but the NT is not, in and of itself, a reliable historical source."
Saying so doesn't make it so.
"I didn't say I was."
You don't have to say you are if you act like you are.
"This article is about the question: what does it take to convince people like me?"
No, that's not what the article is about. Re-read it since it's evidently opaque to you.
"Certainly, you have nothing that is convincing to me. I can live with that."
Yet several resources have already been cited in response to you which you apparently don't wish to read or otherwise further pursue.
"OK. Now I'm convinced (that you have nothing)."
You can be "convinced" the moon is made of cheese, Jupiter bacon, and asteroids are eggsteroids, but you'd be delusional to start using these to prepare breakfast.
"I'm well aware of what I wrote. Are you?"
Yes, I too am well aware of what you wrote. It included a denial of miracles, a not so hidden predilection for atheism and materialism, irrationality and unreasonableness, a demand to play by your rules of evidence, dismissing your own burden of proof, etc.
"Exactly what wares to you imagine I'm pushing? I'm only trying to shed some light on the question of what it takes to convince me, or someone like me. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on you. I have offered no arguments. You think it is reasonable to believe in miracles. I say "show me"."
See above.
Also, you're deceptive, and keep pretending like you're anything but a militant atheist, even though it's obvious to pretty much everyone here. And yes, your "atheist" as well as "materialist" positions are entirely relevant to your beliefs and arguments against miracles and the "supernatural."
And again, I reiterate, you have your own burden of proof to shoulder.
"My explanations of what convinces people like me may be irrelevant to someone who is not interested in getting an answer to the question of what it takes to convince people like me, but that is, after all, what we were talking about. If you don't find this interesting or relevant from your narrow perspective, then why are you involved in this discussion? Or do you wish to steer it to a different topic?"
Are you so daft? You're the one commenting in Steve's post. Steve framed his post the way he framed it, not the way you framed it.
"I ask nothing from you. If you wish to participate in discussion, that's your choice."
You're like a guest who has been invited to someone's home making demands about what is allowed or not allowed to be discussed in their own home.
im-skeptical
Delete"Any scientifically-minded person will agree that evidence is the basis of what they believe,"
Wrong, for scientists and the scientifically minded likewise rely on other "evidence" for what they believe (e.g. testimonial evidence).
"and evidence is what it takes to make them change their mind."
No, not "evidence" alone. Not "evidence" in and of itself. Rather, it's a particular kind of "evidence." For instance, empirical evidence.
Of course, it depends on what type of science we're talking about as well. Empirical evidence for one type of "science" can look vastly different to empirical evidence for another type of "science."
Obviously you don't think like a scientist.
"Now some atheists have said that nothing you can show them would be convincing. That's correct, because you don't have any such evidence. And in fact, they are convinced that no such evidence exists."
That's stupid, because scientific evidence isn't the only thing that can convince people of truths. There are also things like reason, logic, mathematical truths, moral truths, aesthetic truths, etc.
"Therefore, they think that they will never see any evidence of miracles that convinces them. But that doesn't change the fact that if such evidence did exist and if it was presented to them, they would need to change their beliefs accordingly."
No, because it's not simply the empirical evidence that's ultimately persuasive, for evidence is evidence in a certain context and in play in the matrix of a person's overall worldview. For example, Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins can look at the exact same molecular and cellular biological "evidence" and come to vastly different conclusions.
"The problem from your perspective is that you have no such evidence, or if there ever was a real miracle, you can't show me anything that would provide epistemic justification to believe it."
As I've already said, the problem is you're impervious to reason and rationality.
im-skeptical
Delete"I assert that I have never seen reason to believe that miracles happen in modern times, or at any time in the past. EVER. Therefore I have absolutely no reason to believe that they are real."
I assert (again) that you're not the center of the world. Just because you don't see any convincing evidence for miracles doesn't mean the convincing evidence doesn't exist or hasn't existed or won't exist.
By the way, I don't have any reason to believe that you're a human being, because I have never seen any reason to believe that you are a human being at the present time, or at any time in the past. EVER. Therefore I have absolutely no reason to believe that you are a human being. Instead, I'd wager there's more and better evidence for the fact that you're an ELIZA program suffering from code rot.
rocking,
DeleteI think you should change your moniker to "rockingwithjesus", because I don't think you have much in common with Hawking. At any rate, your personal attacks are not conducive to discussion. As much as you accuse me of having all kinds of attitudes, of dishonesty, of stupidity, lack of skepticism, irrationality, etc, I think you are revealing much more about yourself than about me. All I'm trying to do here is add my point of view to the discussion. I didn't attack anybody. I certainly haven't behaved in the childish manner that you have. So what's your beef?
im-skeptical
Delete"I think you should change your moniker to 'rockingwithjesus', because I don't think you have much in common with Hawking."
So you don't think I've actually "rocked" with Hawking when I was at Cambridge? :-)
"At any rate, your personal attacks are not conducive to discussion. As much as you accuse me of having all kinds of attitudes, of dishonesty, of stupidity, lack of skepticism, irrationality, etc, I think you are revealing much more about yourself than about me."
Actually, you yourself have admitted as much. I don't need to go any further than cite what you've said.
"All I'm trying to do here is add my point of view to the discussion. I didn't attack anybody. I certainly haven't behaved in the childish manner that you have."
On the contrary, you've come in here with a pretty clear agenda. And you've acted quite condescendingly to people here.
"So what's your beef?"
I could go for a filet mignon right now.
im-skeptical "I urge you to look up "historicaal [sic] method" to get some idea what constitutes objective historical analysis. I'm sorry, but the NT is not, in and of itself, a reliable historical source."
Deletei) The historical method can't rule out miracle since the occurrence or nonoccurence of miracles is a metaphysical question, not a methodological question.
ii) A historical methodology that preemptively filters out actual historical events is a flawed methodology. That would be an anti-historical method. Any decent historical method must make allowance for what actually happens.
"If you don't find this interesting or relevant from your narrow perspective, then why are you involved in this discussion? Or do you wish to steer it to a different topic?"
You're the one who's laboring to change course. The topic of the post concerns atheists who unwittingly operate with conflicting concepts of the miraculous.
"Or is it your opinion that reading this literature is sufficient to convince a skeptic?"
They are sufficient to convince reasonable people.
"And by the way, you don't really need to mention the gospels."
I didn't mention the gospels in my post. I was responding to your statement that "the NT is not, in and of itself, a reliable historical source."
You need to keep track of who said what first.
"I'm well aware that they are the single most important part of the body of literature that Christians use to justify their beliefs."
That ignores the evidence for modern miracles.
"If you wish to participate in discussion, that's your choice."
You are only here at my indulgence. And that can change in a heartbeat.
"But that doesn't change the fact that if such evidence did exist and if it was presented to them, they would need to change their beliefs accordingly."
Actually, some atheists reject skywriting as a convincing miracle. In that event, they'd default to hallucination.
"The problem from your perspective is that you have no such evidence, or if there ever was a real miracle, you can't show me anything that would provide epistemic justification to believe it."
i) That's not the topic of the post.
ii) Your denial begs the question.
"I assert that I have never seen reason to believe that miracles happen in modern times, or at any time in the past. EVER. Therefore I have absolutely no reason to believe that they are real."
And to discharge your burden of proof, it would be incumbent on you to engage the counterevidence.
steve,
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I think the reason skywriting was suggested in the first place as a reason to believe is because it would not not what you call a coincidence miracle. It would require that the stars change position to align in this peculiar way, or to suddenly change their brightness. That's something that stars don't do under the laws of physics - at least not on a time scale that would produce such a change any time in the next few millennia. So if we did see this kind of thing happen, it would clearly be an event that we would call a miracle. It would be a violation of physical laws, and there would be no quick, easy way to dismiss it.
The point that I was trying to make in the first place is that we need to see something real in order to be convinced - not just some coincidence - and if we ever did see such a thing, and it was a genuine miracle, that would indeed give us reason to believe. You say it's a facetious illustration or a glib, shortsighted example. Then let us see any miracle that is a real miracle. I'm sure the atheists who suggested that example were just trying to come up with something that they thought would be convincing, and I do think it would be convincing, but only after ruling out natural explanations.
im-skeptical
Delete"Incidentally, I think the reason skywriting was suggested in the first place as a reason to believe is because it would not not what you call a coincidence miracle. It would require that the stars change position to align in this peculiar way, or to suddenly change their brightness. That's something that stars don't do under the laws of physics - at least not on a time scale that would produce such a change any time in the next few millennia. So if we did see this kind of thing happen, it would clearly be an event that we would call a miracle. It would be a violation of physical laws, and there would be no quick, easy way to dismiss it."
You've entirely missed the point of the post. The atheists who argue for skywriting to prove God's existence think it's a miracle inasmuch as the skywriting would be a violation of physical laws. However, it's possible God could have arranged the skywriting without having violated physical laws if he arranged to do so by a coincidence miracle. In this respect, the skywriting would be a naturally explicable miracle.
"The point that I was trying to make in the first place is that we need to see something real in order to be convinced - not just some coincidence - and if we ever did see such a thing, and it was a genuine miracle, that would indeed give us reason to believe. You say it's a facetious illustration or a glib, shortsighted example. Then let us see any miracle that is a real miracle. I'm sure the atheists who suggested that example were just trying to come up with something that they thought would be convincing, and I do think it would be convincing, but only after ruling out natural explanations."
Again, you're failing to grasp the point. A coincidence miracle is "a real miracle."
No, you missed the point. A coincidence is not a violation of physical law. If you want to call it a miracle, that's fine. But it's not the kind of thing that an atheist would suggest as being convincing.
DeleteWhat prompted atheists to use this as an example in the first place? Someone asked them, "What would it take to conince you ...?" The answer was intended to be something that doesn't happen naturally. And what would cause an atheist to dismiss a "miraculous" event as convincing evidence? If it had a natural explanation. Because as far as we're concerned, anything that has a natural explanation is not a miracle.
And just so you understand, there is no skywriting already in our sky. If there were, that would indeed be a coincidence. But as long as physical law holds, we don't expect to see any such thing any time soon. That would be a miracle.
Deleteim-skeptical
Delete"No, you missed the point. A coincidence is not a violation of physical law. If you want to call it a miracle, that's fine."
People can see this entry for a more intellectually sophisticated explication of "coincidence miracle."
"But it's not the kind of thing that an atheist would suggest as being convincing."
As usual, we have to remind you that you're not the center of the (atheist) world. Some atheists may find this convincing, others may not. It depends.
Also, since you're still muddled in mind, Steve explicitly stated the sorts of atheists to whom he's responding in this very post. See the very beginning of his post.
"What prompted atheists to use this as an example in the first place? Someone asked them, 'What would it take to conince [sic] you ...?'"
Once again, you'e not the center of the (atheist) world. Theodore Drange, Jerry Coyne, Evan Fales, Matt McCormick, and Keith Parsons may have similar or different motivations and reasons for why they're pushing this argument, but what makes you think you speak for them?
"The answer was intended to be something that doesn't happen naturally. And what would cause an atheist to dismiss a 'miraculous' event as convincing evidence? If it had a natural explanation. Because as far as we're concerned, anything that has a natural explanation is not a miracle."
It's by turns amusing and pathetic to witness how slow you are to grasp coincidence miracles. But know I'm pulling for you - you'll get there someday, I hope!
"And just so you understand, there is no skywriting already in our sky. If there were, that would indeed be a coincidence."
And just so you understand, no one claimed otherwise. But go ahead and keep sparring with yourself if it makes you feel better.
"But as long as physical law holds, we don't expect to see any such thing any time soon. That would be a miracle."
This is an assertion without an argument.
How do you know you're interpreting the evidence correctly, specifically the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
DeleteGiven your professed worldview (materialist/naturalist/atheist) what account can you give for the existence of these so-called "laws of physics" you keep referring to?
Have you personally ever seen, touched, tasted, or smelled these so-called laws? Have you personally decanted or distilled them and measured or weighed them?
Of what substance do they subsist, and how do you give an account for their existence from within your materialist/naturalist universe?
Think for yourself man, don't let others do your thinking for you.
Ironically nobody living outside of the Christian world you apparently despise really cares anything about you. And only followers of Christ have any reason to.
im-skeptical
Delete"Incidentally, I think the reason skywriting was suggested in the first place as a reason to believe is because it would not not what you call a coincidence miracle. It would require that the stars change position to align in this peculiar way, or to suddenly change their brightness."
No, it doesn't require them to suddenly realign or change magnitude. Rather, that could be the end-result of a process that began with the inception of the universe.
"So if we did see this kind of thing happen, it would clearly be an event that we would call a miracle."
No, that's not what would make it miraculous. Rather, it's vanishingly improbable that stars would spell out a complex, intelligible message on their own.
If John 3:14 was written in the lunar dust, which we discovered during the Apollo 11 mission, that wouldn't be a merely natural occurrence or a coincidence. And the timeframe is irrelevant. John 3:14 needn't suddenly appear in the dust. If that message had been there for billions of years, only to be discovered by the astronauts, that wouldn't make it a merely natural occurrence or a coincidence.
"No, you missed the point. A coincidence is not a violation of physical law. If you want to call it a miracle, that's fine."
A coincidence miracle is not a coincidence. "Coincidence miracle" is a term of art. You show no cognizance of what it means.
To take an illustration, suppose I'm unemployed. I have just enough money to play the lottery. Buy scratch tickets. Suppose I win. And the amount is exactly what I need to pay my bills that month, plus just enough left over to buy another set of scratch tickets next month.
A month later, I do the same thing with the same results. Not a penny more or less than what I need. Suppose that happens sixth months in a row.
On the one hand, that doesn't violate the laws of physics. On the other hand, that's not a coincidence. The fact that I win just enough each time can't be random.
"The answer was intended to be something that doesn't happen naturally."
Which fits the definition of a coincidence miracle. That's consonant with the laws of nature, but the result is more specific than nature would yield on its own.
Likewise, if an anonymous benefactor hacks into the lottery computer to repeatedly issue me winning scratch tickets, that's consistent with the laws of physics. But it's not what the computer would randomly issue.
im-skeptical
Delete"Incidentally, I think the reason skywriting was suggested in the first place as a reason to believe is because it would not not what you call a coincidence miracle. It would require that the stars change position to align in this peculiar way, or to suddenly change their brightness."
No, it doesn't require them to suddenly realign or change magnitude. Rather, that could be the end-result of a process that began with the inception of the universe.
"So if we did see this kind of thing happen, it would clearly be an event that we would call a miracle."
No, that's not what would make it miraculous. Rather, it's vanishingly improbable that stars would spell out a complex, intelligible message on their own.
If John 3:14 was written in the lunar dust, which we discovered during the Apollo 11 mission, that wouldn't be a merely natural occurrence or a coincidence. And the timeframe is irrelevant. John 3:14 needn't suddenly appear in the dust. If that message had been there for billions of years, only to be discovered by the astronauts, that wouldn't make it a merely natural occurrence or a coincidence.
"No, you missed the point. A coincidence is not a violation of physical law. If you want to call it a miracle, that's fine."
A coincidence miracle is not a coincidence. "Coincidence miracle" is a term of art. You show no cognizance of what it means.
To take an illustration, suppose I'm unemployed. I have just enough money to play the lottery. Buy scratch tickets. Suppose I win. And the amount is exactly what I need to pay my bills that month, plus just enough left over to buy another set of scratch tickets next month.
A month later, I do the same thing with the same results. Not a penny more or less than what I need. Suppose that happens sixth months in a row.
On the one hand, that doesn't violate the laws of physics. On the other hand, that's not a coincidence. The fact that I win just enough each time can't be random.
"The answer was intended to be something that doesn't happen naturally."
Which fits the definition of a coincidence miracle. That's consonant with the laws of nature, but the result is more specific than nature would yield on its own.
Likewise, if an anonymous benefactor hacks into the lottery computer to repeatedly issue me winning scratch tickets, that's consistent with the laws of physics. But it's not what the computer would randomly issue.
For a moment, I thought that you were willing to come down off that high horse, drop that hostile attitude, and just discuss this topic. I see that it was a stupid mistake.
DeleteIt was stupid of me to think that you are at all interested in understanding the perspective of an atheist.
It was stupid of me to think that you would listen.
Because I'm just a stupid atheist.
What do I know about the kind of evidence it might take to convince an atheist?
What do I know about how stars behave in nature?
What do I know about anything at all?
I bow to your vastly superior intellect, and I sincerely hope that I never have to face you in any kind of discussion or debate again.
Moron.
The previous comment was intended for Mr. Hawking.
Deletesteve,
DeleteNo, it doesn't require them to suddenly realign or change magnitude. Rather, that could be the end-result of a process that began with the inception of the universe.
As I said, if such a process were under way, it couldn't produce those results any time soon.
No, that's not what would make it miraculous. Rather, it's vanishingly improbable that stars would spell out a complex, intelligible message on their own.
If it happened in my lifetime, it would a genuine violation-type miracle, not just an improbable event. Because stars don't just do that.
If John 3:14 was written in the lunar dust, which we discovered during the Apollo 11 mission, that wouldn't be a merely natural occurrence or a coincidence. And the timeframe is irrelevant.
Yes, I get the concept of a coincidence miracle, despite what Mr. Hawking thinks. But the timeframe is relevant. Now listen to this, if you will. The stars don't currently spell anything. If they eventually did spell something by means of a natural process, that couldn't happen any time soon. However, if it happened during our lifetime, it could only be the result of some violation of natural laws. Does that make sense to you?
A coincidence miracle is not a coincidence. "Coincidence miracle" is a term of art. You show no cognizance of what it means.
Yeah. I get it. A vanishingly improbable event. Sheesh.
Which fits the definition of a coincidence miracle. That's consonant with the laws of nature, but the result is more specific than nature would yield on its own.
Now this is where you're wrong. For that to happen as I described, it would not be consonant with the laws of nature. Unless you could explain to me how such a thing could occur in my lifetime.
"As I said, if such a process were under way, it couldn't produce those results any time soon."
DeleteYou're claiming that if the process began 14 billion years ago, it couldn't produce those results as of now?
"If it happened in my lifetime, it would a genuine violation-type miracle, not just an improbable event. Because stars don't just do that."
You're confoudning the time-frame with the nature of the event. "Stars don't just do that" regardless of the time-frame, whether in your lifetime or over eons.
"Does that make sense to you?"
The time-frame is a red herring. Sure, if it suddenly happened, that would be miraculous. Which doesn't make it any less miraculous if it took 14 billion years to happen.
"Yeah. I get it. A vanishingly improbable event. Sheesh."
No, that's not the definition of a coincidence miracle. At best, it would be vanishingly improbable absent external agency.
"Now this is where you're wrong. For that to happen as I described, it would not be consonant with the laws of nature. Unless you could explain to me how such a thing could occur in my lifetime."
That's because you want to substitute an irrelevant example.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletesteve,
DeleteYou're claiming that if the process began 14 billion years ago, it couldn't produce those results as of now?
No. I'm saying that it couldn't get from where it is today to skywriting in a lifetime. That would involve something other than the laws of physics.
The time-frame is a red herring. Sure, if it suddenly happened, that would be miraculous. Which doesn't make it any less miraculous if it took 14 billion years to happen.
The timeframe is not a red herring. If such an event was to cause any of the atheists you mentioned to become a believer, it would have to happen during their lifetime so they could see it. On the other hand, if nature takes it course, and ends up producing skywriting at some time in the future, that wouldn't happen during their lifetimes. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
No, that's not the definition of a coincidence miracle. At best, it would be vanishingly improbable absent external agency.
I get it. A too-improbable event. OK? I never didn't get it. Got it? Sheesh.
That's because you want to substitute an irrelevant example.
Irrelevant? We are talking about what it would take to convince some people. They have said that the appearance of skywriting would do the trick. I have been desperately trying to explain to you that for such a thing to happen in out lifetimes, it could not be due to natural processes, not even those that you describe as a "coincident miracle". Why is this so hard for you to understand?
"I have been desperately trying to explain to you that for such a thing to happen in out lifetimes, it could not be due to natural processes"
DeleteIt's pretty easy to see how it could. Suppose that several supernovas that occurred millions of years ago became visible tomorrow and they happened to spell out "Jesus is Risen. Sincerely, God."
"No. I'm saying that it couldn't get from where it is today to skywriting in a lifetime. That would involve something other than the laws of physics."
DeleteEither you're hopelessly uncomprehending or you just like to repeat the same diversionary tactic. "From where it is today to skywriting in a lifetime" is irrelevant. All that's germane is the end-result. And that can be the product of a very long process.
"The timeframe is not a red herring. If such an event was to cause any of the atheists you mentioned to become a believer, it would have to happen during their lifetime so they could see it."
Only the result would have to happen in their lifetime to be evident. The cause wouldn't have to happen in their lifetime.
"On the other hand, if nature takes it course, and ends up producing skywriting at some time in the future, that wouldn't happen during their lifetimes. Why is this so hard for you to understand?"
You're the one who's suffering from a persistent mental block. The question at issue is not the relationship between the present and the future, but between the distant past and present.
"I get it. A too-improbable event. OK? I never didn't get it. Got it? Sheesh."
No, you still don't get it. That's simplistic. The outcome is "too improbable" if it's the result of nature operating on its own. If, however, the process is divinely guided, then it can and will happen.
"They have said that the appearance of skywriting would do the trick."
Which doesn't require both cause and effect to happen in their lifetime, but only the effect.
Jonathan, excellent point!
DeleteIt's pretty easy to see how it could. Suppose that several supernovas that occurred millions of years ago became visible tomorrow and they happened to spell out "Jesus is Risen. Sincerely, God."
DeleteYou're right. I guess that would make me just another dishonest atheist because I knew all along that when I see this happen I'd just explain it away. So back to my first comment. Just show me a real miracle that can't be explained away, and then I'll be forced to become a believer.
im-skeptical
Delete"For a moment, I thought that you were willing to come down off that high horse, drop that hostile attitude, and just discuss this topic. I see that it was a stupid mistake."
I actually did discuss the topic. Why don't you acquaint yourself with the actual argument?
"It was stupid of me to think that you are at all interested in understanding the perspective of an atheist. It was stupid of me to think that you would listen. Because I'm just a stupid atheist."
From your own lips, no less!
"What do I know about the kind of evidence it might take to convince an atheist? What do I know about how stars behave in nature? What do I know about anything at all?"
Thus far, you haven't actually engaged Steve's argument. Thus far, you keep substituting Steve's argument with your own "argument" and acting as if your own "argument" is the only relevant topic under discussion.
"I bow to your vastly superior intellect, and I sincerely hope that I never have to face you in any kind of discussion or debate again. Moron."
You're upset because we don't play by the rules you want us to play by.
Rather than get upset, emote, throw a tantrum, and so on, it'd be better to activate your reasoning and attempt to interact with what several people in this thread have said to you (not just me).
"You're right. I guess that would make me just another dishonest atheist because I knew all along that when I see this happen I'd just explain it away. So back to my first comment. Just show me a real miracle that can't be explained away, and then I'll be forced to become a believer."
You're either failing to understand what the actual argument is (despite several explanations by several different people at several different times) or you're failing to argue in good faith by engaging with what's actually been said rather than what you want to push - i.e. "show me a miracle based on what I will accept as a miracle" as if your criteria for what constitute a miracle are all that matter.
Could life coming from non-life over the course of billions of years be considered a "coincidence miracle?" :)
DeleteSeems like every atheist I know believes in that one...
im-skeptical
Delete"So back to my first comment. Just show me a real miracle that can't be explained away, and then I'll be forced to become a believer."
It's funny how atheists like you labor to change the subject:
i) The reason I'm discussing a hypothetical miracle rather than a real miracle is because atheists are using a hypothetical miracle (skywriting) as their chosen example. Your problem is with how your fellow atheists are framing the issue.
ii) Moreover, your demand is patently insincere. You've shown no inclination to read case-studies of well-documented miracles, even though that information is publicly available.
im-skeptical, maybe my blogpost Three Kinds of Providence might help. Some theologians distinguish between:
ReplyDelete1. ordinary providence,
2. special providence and
3. extraordinary providence
You're thinking that every kind of miracle is of the third kind. When some miracles are cases of the 2nd kind.
Also, I hope you're not making the mistake of thinking that if Christianity is true that God is doing His very best to provide evidence of His existence in the world. Not even knowledgeable Arminians believe that.
There is a sense in which everything is evidence for the existence of God. But in another sense, God has balanced the evidence in such a way that only those who sincerely seek after God can find Him. [Though, for the sake of full disclosure, from a Calvinistic point of view, only those whom God determines to save and spiritually regenerates will actually want to sincerely find God.]
Blaise Pascal said it this way in his Pensées [which can be interpreted either in a Calvinist-like or Arminian-like way]:
Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications [or "signs"] of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
Elsewhere in his Pensées he wrote:
The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.
If you're interested, I've written more on this in my blogposts: Detecting and Finding God as well as the blogpost "Unveiling" The Hiddenness of God
Just show me a real miracle that can't be explained away
ReplyDeleteAs Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. A smartphone would be positively worshiped by past civilizations. So, why would you assume a regrown limb or successful prediction of the future was a miracle from God, and not a new form of technology (possibly alien) of which you are unaware, or some sort of unknown quantum effect that science has not analyzed and explained yet?
Also, you shouldn't require God of the Gaps evidence to believe in God. I say this because what you would consider evidence for God is only something which science can't explain.
1. Of course, there are things science arguably can never explain (e.g. see here, the hard problem of consciousness).
Delete2. It's often claimed science will one day explain this or that phenomenon, but it could just as well be science will not be able to explain this or that phenomenon. Past discoveries don't necessarily increase the probabilities (or decrease the improbabilities) about future scientific discoveries. What's known cannot necessarily serve as a reliable guide for what's unknown.
3. There are philosophical debates over how to best measure scientific progress, if science progresses, etc.
In addition skeptical's frame of reference is "me, now". So God must be a trick pony that trots out and performs for all the "me, now" unbelievers on command to allegedly satisfy the ad hoc standard of evidence.
ReplyDeleteBecause the ad hoc "me, now" standard isn't met, ergo no miracles, no God. Really poor reasoning.
You're thinking that every kind of miracle is of the third kind. When some miracles are cases of the 2nd kind.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I'm thinking that miracles are of the non-existent kind. This is not a flippant reply. It is based on the evidence that I see, which is none at all.
I understand that you can see miracles or evidence for God everywhere you look if you are inclined to see it. But that only tells me that you have to believe it before you see the evidence. That's what I call blind faith. But the bible says that God provided all kinds of "signs" for the disciples and others so that they would believe. If he could do that for them, why shouldn't he do it for the rest of us? How about a compromise - just a little something once each generation, that can be witnessed by all of us?
As Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Sure. But there are things that would clearly violate the laws of physics regardless of any kind of technological tricks. Predicting the future, for example, or feeding the multitude with a single fish. Technology may seem mysterious to someone who hasn't seen it, but it never violates the laws of physics.
Predicting the future, for example, or feeding the multitude with a single fish.
DeleteWhat about the theoretical concept of dimensional compression? In the movie Ultraviolet flat-space technology was used to enable pistols have a seemingly endless supply of ammo. A "magical satchel" of endless bread is theoretically possible. Also, the theoretical possibility of time travel can account for the ability to predict the future.
In all honesty, I'm thinking that miracles are of the non-existent kind. This is not a flippant reply. It is based on the evidence that I see, which is none at all.
In many cases the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though, there are exceptions as William Lane Craig has pointed out. Your lack of an experience of a miracle is not evidence that miracles don't occur. It's only evidence that you haven't experienced a miracle. You haven't had universal inductive experience. Nor have you investigated all alleged miracles past and present.
If he could do that for them, why shouldn't he do it for the rest of us?
God sometimes does, but He's not obligated to do so. God is too great and majestic to perform magic tricks or jump through hoops at our sinful whims. He's not wringing His hands hoping we'd come to believe in Him. According to the Bible there is sufficient evidence in General Revelation (i.e. nature around us and within us) so that we are without excuse for not knowing God. In which case, miracles are supplementary not, essential to come to know that God exists. Though, the specifics of His attributes can only be learned from Scripture. God promises that those who humbly seek Him with all their hearts will find Him.
You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. - Jer. 29:13
The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. - Ps. 145:18
For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: " I dwell in the high and holy place, With him who has a contrite and humble spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of the contrite ones.- Isa. 57:15
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; - Isa. 55:6
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. - James 4:8
I recommend listening to Mike Licona's interview of Craig Keener. They address the topic of testimonies of miracles in the modern world. It can be freely downloaded HERE
Also, here's my collection of blogposts on the topic of miracles mostly written by Jason Engwer and Steve Hays
Links on the Subject of Miracles in the Context of Craig Keener's Recent Book
Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on Dimensional compression / Dimensional Gallery in the movie Ultraviolet.
DeleteANNOYED PINOY,
DeleteWhat about the theoretical concept of dimensional compression?
I understand the concept, and I agree that if such technology eventually becomes available to us (if it's even possible), then we may be able to see future events. However, there is no such technology now. So given out state of technology, if a person has this amazing capability, I would still regard it as miraculous, because he has a power that no technology would afford him.
Your lack of an experience of a miracle is not evidence that miracles don't occur.
It's not just me. It's all of humanity. There are simply no reliable reports of truly miraculous events. I know steve points out literature on miracles and so forth, but there are some major problems with those: they aren't independently verified, they aren't available for the rest of us to see, they generally are explained as natural events, they often are subjective experiences, and when they aren't subjective in nature, they are usually revealed (or suspected) as fraud.
So I don't necessarily need to see it myself. I just need assurance that it is something more than the kind of miracles that we typically hear about. What happened at Fatima? People saw the clouds part. Some thought it was a miracle (a subjective experience), others didn't. Sorry, but that's not convincing. What about Mother Teresa curing cancer. The evidence tells me that this is a purely fraudulent report of a miracle - the events described by the church are not true.
God is too great and majestic to perform magic tricks or jump through hoops at our sinful whims.
And I have a brain, supposedly given to me by God. I need evidence to believe these extraordinary stories. Please show me, or don't expect me to believe. I'll continue to look at what evidence is available, and I know there are many books about it, but the evidence needs to meet the criteria I outlined in order to be credible, and that's something I have yet to see.
It's not just me. It's all of humanity. There are simply no reliable reports of truly miraculous events.
DeleteYou assume a priori that there are no reliable reports of miracles. But even if there weren't (which I deny), that doesn't necessitate that no miracles actually occur. You're confusing the ontological or metaphysical reality of miracles with the epistemological issue of whether they have been reliably reported. Just because you can't prove to your siblings that your father said you were his favorite doesn't necessitate that he never said it (contrary to your siblings' protestations).
...but there are some major problems with those...
Steve and Jason have address all those objections you've made. That response doesn't advance the discussion because you haven't addressed their rebuttals.
So I don't necessarily need to see it myself.
You're suffering from self-reinforced ignorance and confirmation bias. Don't just read what your fellow skeptics say. Actually read what apologists have written in response to those common and worn out objections.
Also, I'm convinced that there are times when God wants a miracle to be undeniable, while at other times God DOESN'T want it to be undeniable. Depending on the era and/or location, an absolutely undeniable miracle would thwart or short circuit God's providential plan for history. That's why Jesus sometimes told people whom He healed not to tell anyone about it.
cf. Mark 7:36; 1:44-45; 3:12; 5:43; 8:26; 12:16; Matt. 9:30; 12:16-18; 17:9; Luke 5:14; 8:56
Hugh Ross, astrophysicist and Christian apologist in a debate on YouTube (at 1:23:34) said that his Church is in between CalTech and JPL so there are a lot of scientific and engineer minded people who attend his church. In his church they practice praying for the sick by the elders. As they did, they approached it scientifically. Taking notes, they noticed that when they were in the habit of announcing healings from the pulpit (presumably on Sundays) there were significantly fewer healings then when they kept it completely secret when people were healed. Ross connected that with the multiple times Jesus would sometimes tell the people He healed not to tell anyone about it.
im-skeptical "If he could do that for them, why shouldn't he do it for the rest of us? How about a compromise - just a little something once each generation, that can be witnessed by all of us?"
DeleteAgain, that simply illustrates your intellectual duplicity:
i) You ignore evidence for modern miracles.
ii) Even if there was no evidence for modern miracle, you believe in many unrepeatable past events based on historical testimony.
iii) You add the ad hoc condition that it must be "witnessed by all of us." But, of course, you believe in ever so many events that "all of us" didn't witness.
Your response is a studied exercise in intellectual evasion. You don't want evidence. To the contrary, you invent excuses to preemptively disqualify evidence.
"I know steve points out literature on miracles and so forth, but there are some major problems with those: they aren't independently verified, they aren't available for the rest of us to see, they generally are explained as natural events, they often are subjective experiences, and when they aren't subjective in nature, they are usually revealed (or suspected) as fraud."
What books and articles have you actually read? Authors and titles?
"What happened at Fatima?"
I did a long post on that 9 years ago. Try again.
Unless you are prepared to interact with the actual topic of the post, I will begin to delete further off-topic comments from you. Not to mention that your off-topic comments are wholly insincere.
You pretend to be the honest truth-seeker. But you were booted from Reppert's blog as an incorrigible troll. And that's despite the fact that Reppert is very long-suffering.
im-skeptical
Delete"In all honesty, I'm thinking that miracles are of the non-existent kind. This is not a flippant reply. It is based on the evidence that I see, which is none at all."
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Anyway, that's because you don't want to see. As I've said, you're just pretending like you care about the truth, but in reality you don't bother to interact with what we say, the sources we bring up, etc.
"I understand that you can see miracles or evidence for God everywhere you look if you are inclined to see it. But that only tells me that you have to believe it before you see the evidence."
I understand that you wish to put words into other people's mouths. But that only tells me that you're not attempting to argue in good faith.
By the way, if this is an allusion to Anselm's "faith seeking understanding," it's taken out of its actual context.
"That's what I call blind faith."
Atheism itself, of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, is itself blind faith, for if true it undermines our cognitive faculties, it undermines rational justification to subscribe to truth in the first place. See Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism for a start.
"But the bible says that God provided all kinds of 'signs' for the disciples and others so that they would believe. If he could do that for them, why shouldn't he do it for the rest of us? How about a compromise - just a little something once each generation, that can be witnessed by all of us?"
Steve already addressed this here.
"Sure. But there are things that would clearly violate the laws of physics regardless of any kind of technological tricks. Predicting the future, for example, or feeding the multitude with a single fish. Technology may seem mysterious to someone who hasn't seen it, but it never violates the laws of physics."
If God front-loaded skywriting into the universe via natural laws (e.g. the laws of physics), if he so arranged from the beginning of the universe that the starry skies would eventually spell out John 3:16 for people to read today, then it would be a miracle consistent with natural laws.
im-skeptical
Delete"And I have a brain, supposedly given to me by God. I need evidence to believe these extraordinary stories. Please show me, or don't expect me to believe. I'll continue to look at what evidence is available, and I know there are many books about it, but the evidence needs to meet the criteria I outlined in order to be credible, and that's something I have yet to see."
Once again, you're not the center of the universe. The "evidence" doesn't need to meet your "criteria" to be "credible." It simply needs to be credible evidence.
Besides, based on what you've said here and elsewhere (e.g. your weblog), you seem to shift your "criteria" when it suits you to shift it.
im-skeptical
Delete"In all honesty, I'm thinking that miracles are of the non-existent kind. This is not a flippant reply. It is based on the evidence that I see, which is none at all."
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
steve,
ReplyDeleteI'll break off discussion at this point, because you keep threatening to cut me off. So I'll just leave you with a few final comments.
It has been both interesting and frustrating. I've tried to interact in a reasonable manner and respond to the questions raised, but that doesn't mean that I must agree with everything you say. Trying to get you to listen to an opposing point of view is impossible. You just won't do it. You won't even take yes for an answer from me. When I tell you that I understand your definition of 'coincidence miracle', you refuse to accept it. And forget about trying to explain why the alignment of the stars to form skywriting within our lifetime might not be an example of a "coincidence miracle". You just won't listen.
You ignore evidence for modern miracles.
No. I reject that this evidence has sufficient epistemic value to merit belief.
you believe in many unrepeatable past events based on historical testimony.
Yes - events for which there is sufficient evidence to merit belief that they occurred.
You add the ad hoc condition that it must be "witnessed by all of us." But, of course, you believe in ever so many events that "all of us" didn't witness.
You completely ignored what I said about needing to see it in person, and about historical method giving us a means by which to assess the historical truth of various reports of events.
Unless you are prepared to interact with the actual topic of the post, I will begin to delete further off-topic comments from you. Not to mention that your off-topic comments are wholly insincere.
I thought I was interacting with the topic of the post. You want to push the narrative that skywriting is "the chosen example" that atheists use, and that it's a trope, or it's somehow dishonest. No, it isn't. It's just one of many examples of miraculous events that atheists have suggested as something that would give them reason to believe. And you think it's a trope because they know it will never happen. But it was offered in all sincerity. I suggest to you that it's only a trope in your eyes because YOU know it will never happen. Because deep down inside, you know what we all know - that real miracles don't happen. And all your "well-attested" stories of faith healings and cloud partings wouldn't convince a child, if that child is not previously disposed to belief.
The reason I'm discussing a hypothetical miracle rather than a real miracle ... Moreover, your demand is patently insincere. You've shown no inclination to read case-studies of well-documented miracles, even though that information is publicly available.
DeleteThis is revealing. To an atheist, a real miracle is something that obviously requires supernatural intervention - just the kind of thing they never see, but if they did, they'd find it convincing. To you, a real miracle is any natural event that affirms your faith. This is why you keep harping on all those "well-attested" inspirational stories of faith healings and so on. The trouble is, it's just not convincing to someone who is not predisposed to believe. I've been trying to get you to understand the perspective of atheists, and you just won't listen.
You pretend to be the honest truth-seeker. But you were booted from Reppert's blog as an incorrigible troll. And that's despite the fact that Reppert is very long-suffering.
Again, you got it wrong. Victor asked me to stop commenting, not because of what I did or said, but because his own cultists couldn't contain their own bad behavior, supposedly as a result of my presence there (actually, it's because they are trolls). In his own words: "Theists on this site get so used to responding to gnus that they are more likely to respond to non-gnus in the same way as they do with gnus, and I really think some of the theists here would behave better if they weren't so used to responding to gnus." Now I notice that you have you have your own followers who have said some nasty things in this thread. But you don't have any problem with that, do you?
On my blog, people are free to disagree and argue their points with me. But it's the kind of abusive behavior exhibited by Mr. Hawking and CR that I find unacceptable.
Just a quick note or two for now:
Delete1. What's ironic is im-skeptical has been less than honest in his behavior in this very thread. Yet he doesn't appreciate it when we call him out on his behavior, when he receives a taste of his own medicine, and so forth.
2. Also, it's quite likely im-skeptical and Cal Metzger are one and the same person. If so, then it's not as if im-skeptical has left Reppert's blog. Rather, he's been commenting in a different voice - or "sock puppet" as Cal Metzger might put it.
And forget about trying to explain why the alignment of the stars to form skywriting within our lifetime might not be an example of a "coincidence miracle".
DeleteI don't see why with the right alignment, timing, increase in magnitude and just the right angles some newly formed constellations couldn't relay messages. See for example the following sculpture which can look like two giraffes or an elephant depending on the angle at which you look at it.
https://youtu.be/HH-f_7fA8K4
But even if it were impossible for stars to relay messages through ordinary or special providence, the general points Steve made regarding the nature of coincidence miracles is still true. For example, some speculate that a volcanic explosion set off a chain of events that lead to many of the plagues of Egypt. Along with the volcanic activity there were associated earthquakes that caused the eventual parting of the Red Sea just at the right time for the Israelites to cross on dry ground. Many of these miracles (assuming they happened for the sake of argument) may have been front-loaded by God from the time the Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago (assuming OEC). Another example would be the miracle of God's provision of quail in the desert due to the blowing of a wind from the sea (Num. 11:31-15).
Because deep down inside, you know what we all know - that real miracles don't happen.
Here you are merely appealing to your intuition, thinking we have the same intuitions you do.
No. I reject that this evidence has sufficient epistemic value to merit belief.
Steve asked: "What books and articles have you actually read? Authors and titles?" I wonder whether you've actually done due diligence when it comes to actually investigating the matter. It's not incumbent on Christians to prove miracles to believe they occur. However, it is incumbent on skeptics to actually read up on the literature before they can make blanket pronouncements and assertions about how no claimed and reported miracles have epistemic value. When, as a matter of fact there are former skeptics who became convinced of the reality of miracles and/or the paranormal by examining the evidence and/or experiencing it themselves.
im-skeptical
Delete"Trying to get you to listen to an opposing point of view is impossible."
You mean I don't let you derail the thread. I don't let you dodge the issue by swapping in decoys.
"No. I reject that this evidence has sufficient epistemic value to merit belief."
You haven't shown that you have any acquaintance with the salient literature.
"I suggest to you that it's only a trope in your eyes…"
I call it a trope because atheists call it a trope. For instance:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/a-trickster-god/
"Because deep down inside, you know what we all know - that real miracles don't happen."
Instead of grappling with the evidence, you resort to fact-free imputations.
"This is revealing. To an atheist, a real miracle is something that obviously requires supernatural intervention - just the kind of thing they never see, but if they did, they'd find it convincing. To you, a real miracle is any natural event that affirms your faith. This is why you keep harping on all those "well-attested" inspirational stories of faith healings and so on. The trouble is, it's just not convincing to someone who is not predisposed to believe. I've been trying to get you to understand the perspective of atheists, and you just won't listen."
To the contrary, I've been discussing the perspective of atheists by considering the implications of their chosen example–skywriting.
I haven't been harping on well-attested miracles. Rather, you deny the existence of miracles, so I respond to you on your own terms by directing you to sources of evidence that refute your vacuous denial.
im-skeptical
Delete"I've tried to interact in a reasonable manner..."
Hahaha!
"On my blog, people are free to disagree and argue their points with me. But it's the kind of abusive behavior exhibited by Mr. Hawking and CR that I find unacceptable."
ReplyDeleteAwfully thin-skinned fellow, especially for an Internet anti-theist.
*shrug*
Eight months ago, I banned I'm-skeptical from my blog. I have no reason to believe that he and Cal Metzger are the same person. As I pointed out there, if you go onto Debunking Christianity you will find lots of people with the same attitude, who can't possible be the same person. Their name is legion.
ReplyDelete