Atheists - A Question...

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wouldn't attribute it to anything at that point since I wouldn't have anything like enough information to reach a conclusion. I certainly don't see any reason to assume anything "spiritual" specifically.

It's also worth noting that "miracle" describes something that literally can't happen, so if something we thought to be miraculous actually did happen, it would prove it wasn't actually miraculous. Similarly, if something perceived as "supernatural" turned out to be real, it would actually be "natural" (something that has happened with all sorts of things in the past).

The entire "natural" vs "supernatural" argument is really just empty semantics. The only relevant questions are; What was the cause of a phenomena or event? And; Whether we currently understand what that cause is or not?

So you know for all times as an absulture that there is no supernatural God? Well, that is not how I understand knowledge.

 

[Alien826]

The subject has been so chewed over I have little to add, so I'll write something lighthearted. This is what really happened.

The man in the doorway had just been to a Indian restaurant where he had a hearty meal. On the way back to his car he felt the need to visit a bathroom, so as he passed the clinic he looked in to see if there was one he could use. As he stood there he farted. It was one of those "silent but deadly" ones. He realized that there was a strong possibility that what had come out was more than just gas. He decided to hurry on to his car and get home as quickly as he could. The smell he left behind defied imagination, and all but one patient left the room. The one left behind had a condition that so blocked his nasal passages that he couldn't smell anything, so he was very puzzled. Being of a spiritual turn of mind, he decided that the man in the doorway was a holy man that had healed everyone, and he hurried off to write about it on the Internet ...

I have a better version of the story that might make me wonder, but I have to go out for a curry ....

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. You are also willing to believe whatever process scientists can creatively imagine.

Not true. It isn't just imagination that gives science its authority. It is the fact that scientists attempt to prove the ideas *wrong* and only those ideas that survive are accepted. People who disagree with an idea are encouraged to find evidence against it. It is then the weight of the evidence that determines what is accepted and what is not.

Also, scientists are usually painfully aware they can be wrong. That is why they are often tentative and cautious about what they say. All too often, that is seen as weakness or uncertainty, when it is actually simple intellectual honesty.

If only religious authorities would have the same humility.

 

[Polymath257]

I have read many, many scientific theories for NDEs. They all come from those without the experience.

Not true. The accounts showing that ketamine produces the same effects, has an analog active at the time of the NDEs, and that analog has protective effects on circulation seems to be good evidence that NDEs are a natural phenomenon.

I have no doubt that the experience and subsequent experiences I have had are totally real. But I don't want to argue about them with those who never had such an experience.

There is plenty evidence to show this for those who wish to know.

I have no doubt that the experiences were real. I just doubt your interpretation of them.

 

[Heyo]

God did not create diseases. Who fooled you with that lie?

Isaiah 45:7

 

[Vinayaka]

The subject has been so chewed over I have little to add, so I'll write something lighthearted. This is what really happened.

The man in the doorway had just been to a Indian restaurant where he had a hearty meal. On the way back to his car he felt the need to visit a bathroom, so as he passed the clinic he looked in to see if there was one he could use. As he stood there he farted. It was one of those "silent but deadly" ones. He realized that there was a strong possibility that what had come out was more than just gas. He decided to hurry on to his car and get home as quickly as he could. The smell he left behind defied imagination, and all but one patient left the room. The one left behind had a condition that so blocked his nasal passages that he couldn't smell anything, so he was very puzzled. Being of a spiritual turn of mind, he decided that the man in the doorway was a holy man that had healed everyone, and he hurried off to write about it on the Internet ...

I have a better version of the story that might make me wonder, but I have to go out for a curry ....

This actually makes a ton more sense than the original insinuation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How could one possibly know that there is no supernatural explanation?

Reason. There can be no supernatural. The concept is incoherent.

Anything that can interact with whatever calls nature is also nature. Reality is the collection of objects and processes that exist in time and which can interact with one another. Nothing that doesn't meet that definition can be called real. What is the nature of this supernatural realm. It can't be found anywhere in time in space, all of which is nature, and we are told that it is undetectable (necessarily, not contingently) - just like everything else that isn't real.

The Bible is true. Design requires a designer.

Those are your premises. Your conclusions drawn from them are on the same foundation as the premises. There is ample evidence that both of those statements are incorrect. Nature is a natural artist. That is your designer:

I'm suddenly reminded of the Aussie JW who used to post these same types of pictures as evidence of a god.

 

[HonestJoe]

So you know for all times as an absulture that there is no supernatural God? Well, that is not how I understand knowledge.

Who said anything about God? The OP question asked generically about "the spiritual side of life", "miracles" and "the supernatural".

I'm specifically not claiming to have absolute knowledge of anything. That was the core point of my initial answer - we couldn't reach any conclusion about the events described, spiritual or temporal.

I don't claim to be certain that no god or gods actually exist, but if they did exist (certainly if we ever came to know they exist), they'd be "natural" by definition. The reality of that "nature" is what it is, regardless of how much of it we currently understand. As we discover more, "nature" doesn't change, only our understanding of it.

 

[Heyo]

How about a crushed hand being restored instantly, and there is no advanced medical explanation? Would that convince you of a supernatural explanation?

"Why would you attribute the miracle to some supernatural being rather than a Type 3 advance civilization some billion light years away on Planet X, who are using their tech?"

Or it could be someone with an advanced healing. Or some stage magic that is tricking my perception. Or I'm hallucinating.

Sure, it would baffle me but people have been tricked by "magic healers" throughout the ages and many of them have been debunked - but never has a miracle been scientifically confirmed. So, by all my previous experiences, "miracle" is the last thing I'd consider as an explanation. Even aliens are a more likely explanation.

 

[Tiberius]

Everyone has had that experience.
31 people at the same time... in the same room, is not your normal everyday experience.

I agree.

However, there is no evidence that such has ever happened. Would you care to provide some?

 

[Tiberius]

God did not create diseases. Who fooled you with that lie?

The Bible.

Colossians 1:16: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

It doies NOT say, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him, except for diseases. God didn't make those."

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sounds like a particularly nasty person (sentenced to 63 years for sexual assault) and debunked by James Randi and Joel Nickell according to Wikipedia and numerous other web pages.

João Teixeira de Faria - Wikipedia

Currently watching the netflix show about John of God which reveals the sexual assault. I am concerned about the healing though and not any crimes the person committed. I found it interesting that the women interviewed who were assaulted still believe that he performed miracles on their family members who got healed.

Will check out the pages when I have time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who said anything about God? The OP question asked generically about "the spiritual side of life", "miracles" and "the supernatural".

I'm specifically not claiming to have absolute knowledge of anything. That was the core point of my initial answer - we couldn't reach any conclusion about the events described, spiritual or temporal.

I don't claim to be certain that no god or gods actually exist, but if they did exist (certainly if we ever came to know they exist), they'd be "natural" by definition. The reality of that "nature" is what it is, regardless of how much of it we currently understand. As we discover more, "nature" doesn't change, only our understanding of it.

Well, we disagree. How we would describe a God, if such a being was found, would depend on who does the description.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am sorry, but I don't get the logic in this post either.

Psychosis is an experience.
And you said that you find it strange to think that those who did not have the experience, would know more about it then those that did / do.

This is why I said that you should think it through. Clearly, your sweeping statement has problems.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you.
I tend to use examples or scenarios to help persons better visualize.
Trust me when I say, it's necessary for some audiences.

The problem is that your "examples" are first not actual examples but hypothetical that never happen.
And second, they also show the fallaciousness of it all. Like I pointed out in multiple posts which you completely ignored.

I'll repeat: you are seeing what is at best a correlation and you then jump to the conclusion of it being a causation. And not just any causation.... a supernatural, magical causation.

Nowhere do you explain how to distinguish the magical / supernatural from the natural or the mere coincidence.

You just assume and then ask if it would "convince" us.

There is nothing there to be convinced about. The only reason YOU would find it compelling is because you already believe it, it's pure confirmation bias and jumping to conclusions with fallacious arguments of ignorance and alike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence comes mainly from those who are present while someone else has the experience.

A typical one is where a patient is being operated upon and his heart stops. Eleven seconds after that the brain stops. The patient is clinically dead.

The operating staff rush into action trying the bring the person back. During the rush things happen like a chair may be knocked over or a doctor may say a string of cursing. So then after several minutes the patient is revived. The patient tells the doctor he was out of body watching them work on his body. The patient then tells about seeing the chair knocked over and what the doctor said.

There are numerous cases of this happening.

You mean: there are multiple anecdotes where such is claimed to happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Deductive reasoning is the mental process of drawing deductive inferences.

You might want to read the chapter "validity and soundness".
Note there how it only works and is only as reliable as the validity and accuracy of the premises.
And how do you measure the validity and accuracy of the premises?

Yep. Testable evidence.

So, back to square one.
You are not giving an "alternative method" here.
Deductive reasoning requires evidence in the exact same way, because your conclusion is only as reliable as the premises that lead to it.

And reliability of premises is determined through testable evidence.

An inference is deductively valid if its conclusion follows logically from its premises, i.e. if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

But the premises need to be true.
And to know that, that requires evidence in support of the premises.

 

[AppieB]

I'm getting an answer I should have expected.
Nothing would convince an atheist of what they don't want to believe.

The scenario is in English. It's not in Japanese.
Here you all are, can't even answer a simple scenario as it is given, but have to change it up to fit your worldview.

All 30 people and yourself.
So you would think you were dreaming, basically, because the people did not come in at different times.
All thirty are sitting in the waiting room, when the man enters the room.

Can you answer according to the scenario, or am I right - Nothing would convince you. You're already closed-minded?

So this is your 'gotcha' question to 'prove' atheists are irrational?
What's wrong with sceptism and saying "I don't know"?
There could be several natural explanations and you want us to jump to 'there must be something supernatural'? That's gullibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how can you say you know there is no supernatural explanation?

The word "no" makes your question meaningless.

Here, I'll demonstrate:

How can you know there is "no" explanation involving extra-dimensional unicorns?
How can you know there is "no" explanation involving alien technology?
How can you know there is "no" conspiracy involved?
How can you know there is "no" involvement of Thor?
How can you know there is "no" involvement of undetectable dragons?

See?

You can only, on principle, verify positive claims / assertions / propositions.

The "no" question is meaningless.
The actual question you should be asking is the following:

How can you know that there IS a supernatural explanation?

Please answer that question. Since you seem convinced that there IS a supernatural explanation, you should be able to answer that question. Especially so since you think "deduction" is the way to go.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible is true.

Assumed conclusion.

Design requires a designer

Demonstrably false.