Blaspheming The Holy Spirit!

[Cephus]

There is no "supernatural" or "paranormal". If it exists then there is a science behind it. That's like suggesting that electricity didn't exist, or was a supernatural/paranormal phenomenon, until we gained an understanding and knowledge of it. The universe is vast and infinite, much of it outside of our current, limited (yet expanding) understanding and knowledge. Nothing is outside the realm of science, only outside of our current scientific knowledge. Sure, based on current evidence and scientific knowledge, it's reasonable to reject god concepts (especially those commonly put forth by the usual religions), but we can still play with concepts, models, hypotheses, etc.

Yes we can, right up until the religious start declaring that their gods are inherently beyond any ability for man to ever examine. Once that's the case, we can simply ignore the claim. However, theists still claim that there is something beyond our ability to ever see or test or experiment on. It's a ridiculous claim, not one supported by evidence, hence no rational person ought to believe it.

Many theists are not rational people.

So we know that while mithril doesn't actually exist, the model still works since weight, physics, physiology, etc. obviously have real world examples. Likewise, if we present a model of an entity that possesses infinite intelligence and logic, we can still determine that it wouldn't behave in an unintelligent or illogical manner even if such an entity doesn't actually exist due to intelligence and logic being a real world thing.

Because we examine it based on the 800 pounds, not the mithril. 800 pounds of anything is going to kill you. 800 pounds of feathers will kill you, or more likely just suffocate you, but you're still dead. Just because you provide an imaginary object, it's not about the object, it's about the weight. If you had said 800 gertizons of mithril, nobody would take it seriously.

 

[thau]

You'd have to demonstrate that any did because none of them left any record of it. There isn't a single demonstrable contemporary account of the crucifixion. So where are these people who claim to have witnessed it again?

Well there is Matthew, Mark and John. St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude also left their manuscripts. Many other earliest Christian writers as well (Ignatius of Antioch) as well as Roman or Jewish scribes (tacitus, josephus) spoke of it. Some skeptic sites do their best to discredit tacitus, josephus, et al. but how could these historians not have been writng about Jesus of Nazareth? After all, that is what everyone is dying over. I doubt untold thousands who went peaceably to their torturous deaths did so on a hunch.

 

[Cephus]

Well there is Matthew, Mark and John. St. Peter, St. James, St. Jude also left their manuscripts.

None of which were eyewitnesses, no credible historian thinks that the people who wrote those accounts are the same people whose names are on them.

Many other earliest Christian writers as well (Ignatius of Antioch) as well as Roman or Jewish scribes (tacitus, josephus) spoke of it. Some skeptic sites do their best to discredit tacitus, josephus, et al. but how could these historians not have been writng about Jesus of Nazareth? After all, that is what everyone is dying over. I doubt untold thousands who went peaceably to their torturous deaths did so on a hunch.

None of whom were eyewitnesses or even lived at the same time as Jesus supposedly did. So we're right back to square one and you've got nothing.

 

[thau]

None of which were eyewitnesses, no credible historian thinks that the people who wrote those accounts are the same people whose names are on them.

No credible historian... right.

Your desperation is showing.

 

[Father Heathen]

No credible historian... right.

Your desperation is showing.

No, yours is, due to your lack of sources that support your claim. The scientific, historian and academic community at large does not accept biblical accounts as being literal, historical, or factual.

 

[thau]

No, yours is, due to your lack of sources that support your claim. The scientific, historian and academic community at large does not accept biblical accounts as being literal, historical, or factual.

Well I feel sorry for them as much as you. There have been so many miracles since that have been documented or witnessed by scores of people where God is manifesting Himself and making it very clear it is Jesus and not Buddha who is our Lord --- that we do not need verification of who said what in the Bible to validate our faith, our beliefs, our religion, and our promises. You and your scientists and skeptics have a mountainous task in front of you to keep on denying the mountain of evidence. I am truly sorry.

 

[Falvlun]

One from this standpoint can argue that this is based on rebelliousness and "foolish" unwillingness to examine the evidence in a way which overwhelmingly agrees with the idea of a Creator and Judge. Whether you agree or not, that's the idea.

Do you personally believe that every atheist or non-monotheist is doing so out of rebelliousness or stubbornness? Does this really seem plausible to you?

"If that's the idea", well, then it is pretty obviously incorrect. An omniscient God would know as much.

As for myself, I was pretty devastated when I lost my faith in the existence of God. It was heartbreaking. I tried to regain it, but could not. It had nothing to do with my ego, but everything to do with the inability to believe something for which there was no adequate evidence.

Wouldn't really matter as long as they believe in THE "god of the gods', no matter what name or characteristics they bestow.

The God of the Jewish people (as recorded in the Tanakh), the Christian God, and the Muslim God all seem to be pretty clear that they, and they alone, must be worshiped.

Worshiping any god, even polytheistic ones, would be evidence of a humbleness of spirit, dontcha think? So, if saving us from our egos is the reason behind God's demand for worship, then wouldn't worshiping anything but ourselves serve that purpose? That doesn't seem to be how God feels about it.

This could be seen as undue arrogance and lack of humility in wanting to impose and ascribe their own limited scope of understanding of events to what they call "Crimes against Humanity". I.e. Leaping before they look, not wanting to examine all sides to the story, not exploring theological ideas like reincarnation and karma, etc.

Ignorance, or inability to understand, is not the same thing as a bloated ego, and could just as easily account for this.

This could be seen as a sin of haughtiness for believing it's not necessary to show a physical sign of submission. But to be fair, perhaps the idea of showing a physical sign of loyalty has been lost in recent times, as egos have ballooned to proportions never heard of before.

Methods of worship are largely culturally based. You absorb, as a child, how one is supposed to worship. If you are born into a culture in which physical signs of worship are not performed or are not emphasized, then that is likely how you will worship too. Again, nothing to do with ego.

For instance, Muslims believe in prostration for prayer. Catholics often will kneel. Most Protestants will simply close their eyes and fold their hands. Is one being more pious than the other? Are the Protestants and Catholics being more egotistical than the Muslims for not knowing they should be prostrate?

That's kind of related to #4.

If someone believes in a Creator-God but does not believe that this God desires worship, how is that egotistical? Think of the deists, for instance.

Notice too, how you worded your response above: "This could be seen as a sin of haughtiness..." I do not doubt that some people could perceive it in such a way, but it does not follow that their perception is an accurate depiction of reality.

But that would be beyond the scope of what "worship" means in question here.

How so? You asked, "Why would anyone refuse to bow down and show a physical sign of allegiance to the Grand Overlord and Overseer of Cosmic Justice?"

It is a valid response, then, to point out that "bowing down" and "physical signs of allegience" are not the sole forms of worship, or expressions of submission to a higher power.

 

[McBell]

Well I feel sorry for them as much as you. There have been so many miracles since that have been documented or witnessed by scores of people where God is manifesting Himself and making it very clear it is Jesus and not Buddha who is our Lord --- that we do not need verification of who said what in the Bible to validate our faith, our beliefs, our religion, and our promises. You and your scientists and skeptics have a mountainous task in front of you to keep on denying the mountain of evidence. I am truly sorry.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses does not impress those who see that that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Cephus]

No credible historian... right.

Your desperation is showing.

There's no desperation involved, it's the truth. Unfortunately, a lot of theists simply assume that what people within their faith believe is an accurate representation of what people outside the faith think. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of apologists make claims that are absurd, just because they know that their followers don't have a clue what's going on in the real world and honestly don't care.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well I feel sorry for them as much as you. There have been so many miracles since that have been documented or witnessed by scores of people where God is manifesting Himself and making it very clear it is Jesus and not Buddha who is our Lord --- that we do not need verification of who said what in the Bible to validate our faith, our beliefs, our religion, and our promises. You and your scientists and skeptics have a mountainous task in front of you to keep on denying the mountain of evidence. I am truly sorry.

Again, could you provide these documented cases of miracles, or the "mountain of evidence" you claim scientists are ignoring, or cite the credible historians who back your claims?

Also, don't you think it might be just a bit silly to assume that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity would favor a specific culture of a specific primate species on a specific mote of dust floating through the vast cosmos? And isn't the idea that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity would behave in an irrational, narcissistic, sadistic, and emotionally unstable manner also a bit silly?

 

[thau]

Also, don't you think it might be just a bit silly to assume that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity would favor a specific culture of a specific primate species on a specific mote of dust floating through the vast cosmos? And isn't the idea that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent entity would behave in an irrational, narcissistic, sadistic, and emotionally unstable manner also a bit silly?

Am I to assume this “illogical behavior by a god” charge is to be looked at as compelling evidence for your argument why the God of the Bible cannot be real?” ---- That’s a stretch.

Again, could you provide these documented cases of miracles, or the "mountain of evidence" you claim scientists are ignoring, or cite the credible historians who back your claims?

Here is one I just posted in another thread:
In Akita, Japan beginning in 1973, a wooden statue of the Virgin Mary has wept or exuded human tears, holy oil, or blood on 101 occasions. Once shown live on Japanese TV. A variety of eye witnesses. This is evidence not only for God, but for Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary.

Here is one more:
April 1968, Zeitun Egypt outside of Cairo. Muslim workers notice a womanly, icy figure on top of a Christian, Coptic Cathedral at midnight. It is the Virgin Mary. It causes a major stir. For the next 4 months Mary appears on top of that cathedral blessing the crowd, moving about freely on the domed roof tops, bowing to the cross, but never speaking. She is icy but fluent. She appears around 20 times at night only over 4 months. The crowds are enormous, as many as 50,000 a night hoping for an appearance. The vast majority Muslims of course. On the nights Mary does appear most see her, but many others do not. It's God's way. But over 300,000 are estimated to have seen Mary on at least one occasion. Large numbers. The visions are accompanied by unidentified lights, colorful plumes of smoke, and dovelike birds flying at dizzying speeds in the night whenever Mary appears. All in the crowd see these accompanying signs. Explain that? Photographs are taken and most do not develop. Yet, later some do but not with great clarity. Mary’s appearance is shown on Egyptian TV on one occasion. Abdul Nassar witnesses her for himself. It is reported at least twice in the NY Times in May and August of that year. But secular America is too wrapped up in political uprisings and hippie movements to notice or care.

 

[thau]

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses does not impress those who see that that is exactly what you are doing.

Not exactly sure what you are saying, but this isn't a numbers game is it?

How many "hits" are needed to establish a deity is my question. (see post above)

 

[InformedIgnorance]

So long as there exists an inability to make reliable predictions about such phenomenon then there is unlikely to ever be acceptance of their validity as anything other than chance or merely false perception; you could provide one billion examples, if it is not subject to objective examination then it will not stand. 'Our Lady of Zeitoun' is nothing more than an example of people seeing what they expected to see as influenced by what they had been told was there - much like when trying to determine what clouds or inkblots look like, you can read pretty much anything into it but when someone prompts you in a certain way you are more likely to see something related to that prompt. The fact that 'Our Lady of Zeitoun' lasted 2-3 years merely indicates that the conditions that favored such sighting lasted that long, perhaps Tectonic Strain Theory could account for this (I don't know that much about it) or perhaps the perception of intermittent lights seen by some observers were merely interpreted such as to fit their preconceptions. Or perhaps there was actually someone on the roof every so often for 2-3 years perpetrating fraud (though maybe it was not through malicious intention).

As for crying statues... these are debunked time and time again as either intentional deceit or happenstance (such as a bad paint job, some environmental conditions in which the statue is located etc - not at all surprising when considered in terms of simple probability given the vast number of religious icons) and the theological case for manifestation of such phenomenon within icons (which are likely to be inaccurate representations of their appearance) mass produced (by SuperIcon Pty Ltd home of all your supernatural icon supplies) or hand made (carved by Billy-bob the reformed alcoholic or Samatha the internationally acclaimed christian sculptor) is shaky at best - both in terms of the medium of choice (these icons) or the priorities indicated by such a manifestation when such divine power could better be utilized (in for example stopping a rape) - it is a very superficial choice in terms of application of such supernatural phenomenon given the world in which we live; and it is also one which does not provide predictable empirical evidence.

It IS possible that there are legitimate supernatural phenomenon ('Our Lady of Zeitoun', crying statues etc), however in each case, every single potential natural cause needs to be ruled out - and each natural cause would currently appear more likely than it being supernatural in origin given we currently have no reason to believe there IS a supernatural.

 

[Sleeppy]

So long as there exists an inability to make reliable predictions about such phenomenon then there is unlikely to ever be acceptance of their validity as anything other than chance or merely false perception; you could provide one billion examples, if it is not subject to objective examination then it will not stand. 'Our Lady of Zeitoun' is nothing more than an example of people seeing what they expected to see as influenced by what they had been told was there - much like when trying to determine what clouds or inkblots look like, you can read pretty much anything into it but when someone prompts you in a certain way you are more likely to see something related to that prompt. The fact that 'Our Lady of Zeitoun' lasted 2-3 years merely indicates that the conditions that favored such sighting lasted that long, perhaps Tectonic Strain Theory could account for this (I don't know that much about it) or perhaps the perception of intermittent lights seen by some observers were merely interpreted such as to fit their preconceptions. Or perhaps there was actually someone on the roof every so often for 2-3 years perpetrating fraud (though maybe it was not through malicious intention).

As for crying statues... these are debunked time and time again as either intentional deceit or happenstance (such as a bad paint job, some environmental conditions in which the statue is located etc - not at all surprising when considered in terms of simple probability given the vast number of religious icons) and the theological case for manifestation of such phenomenon within icons (which are likely to be inaccurate representations of their appearance) mass produced (by SuperIcon Pty Ltd home of all your supernatural icon supplies) or hand made (carved by Billy-bob the reformed alcoholic or Samatha the internationally acclaimed christian sculptor) is shaky at best - both in terms of the medium of choice (these icons) or the priorities indicated by such a manifestation when such divine power could better be utilized (in for example stopping a rape) - it is a very superficial kind of phenomenon given the world in which we live and one which does not provide predictable empirical evidence.

It IS possible that there are legitimate supernatural phenomenon ('Our Lady of Zeitoun', crying statues etc), however in each case, every single potential natural cause needs to be ruled out - and each natural cause would currently appear more likely than it being supernatural in origin given we currently have no reason to believe there IS a supernatural.

Why do these need to be called supernatural at all? And what makes you automatically assume that if they were natural, they are inaccurately perceived?

 

[thau]

So long as there exists an inability to make reliable predictions about such phenomenon then there is unlikely to ever be acceptance of their validity as anything other than chance or merely false perception; you could provide one billion examples, if it is not subject to objective examination then it will not stand. 'Our Lady of Zeitoun' is nothing more than an example of people seeing what they expected to see as influenced by what they had been told was there - much like when trying to determine what clouds or inkblots look like, you can read pretty much anything into it but when someone prompts you in a certain way you are more likely to see something related to that prompt. The fact that 'Our Lady of Zeitoun' lasted 2-3 years merely indicates that the conditions that favored such sighting lasted that long, perhaps Tectonic Strain Theory could account for this (I don't know that much about it) or perhaps the perception of intermittent lights seen by some observers were merely interpreted such as to fit their preconceptions. Or perhaps there was actually someone on the roof every so often for 2-3 years perpetrating fraud (though maybe it was not through malicious intention).

As for crying statues... these are debunked time and time again as either intentional deceit or happenstance (such as a bad paint job, some environmental conditions in which the statue is located etc - not at all surprising when considered in terms of simple probability given the vast number of religious icons) and the theological case for manifestation of such phenomenon within icons (which are likely to be inaccurate representations of their appearance) mass produced (by SuperIcon Pty Ltd home of all your supernatural icon supplies) or hand made (carved by Billy-bob the reformed alcoholic or Samatha the internationally acclaimed christian sculptor) is shaky at best - both in terms of the medium of choice (these icons) or the priorities indicated by such a manifestation when such divine power could better be utilized (in for example stopping a rape) - it is a very superficial choice in terms of application of such supernatural phenomenon given the world in which we live; and it is also one which does not provide predictable empirical evidence.

It IS possible that there are legitimate supernatural phenomenon ('Our Lady of Zeitoun', crying statues etc), however in each case, every single potential natural cause needs to be ruled out - and each natural cause would currently appear more likely than it being supernatural in origin given we currently have no reason to believe there IS a supernatural.

Is it Ocam’s razor principle the skeptic loves to quote? “The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate?” Based on the explanations you have suggested as to what occurred at Zeitoun – they are so implausible, the Virgin Mary appearing is the only simple and default explanation. Sorry. You skip over too many details. Why do lights appear out of nowhere that the authorities cannot identify the source? Every time she appears! Where do the colorful plumes of smoke come from? Why do these unidentifiable dove-like birds appear every time in the middle of the night? What are those images on the photos that do develop? NONE of this can be called hallucinating, simple as that.

As for the weeping statue of Mary at Akita, you have said nothing of relevance to discredit it. There are scores of weeping statues and paintings that have gone unexplained. They have not been discredited either --- no, not at all, ---- they have been largely ignored! By the media, by skeptics and by others. People are afraid the answer is out there and they simply do not want to face it.

I think Chesterton said it best: “When people stop believing in God they then do not believe in nothing. They will believe in anything.”

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Spoiler: Ockham's razor and the supernatural; let me put it this way

1. Some phenomenon is alleged to have been witnessed
In this scenario the phenomenon may or may not have occurred, the person could be lying or they might be under a misapprehension of what occurred or it could have actually happened - all of these are relatively simple explanations.

2. Some phenomenon is verified to have occurred
Now in this scenario we know that something has occurred as it has been objectively verified to have occurred independently of someone's subjective experience; but can it be explained?

3. Some phenomenon is verified to have occurred which is unexplained by the individual's understanding of nature
Now in this scenario we have a situation where the person is unable to determine a explanation of an objectively verified phenomenon, this could be because they do not know enough or because there is no natural explanation. Both are relatively simple explanations yet the later makes an obscenely large assumption which Ockham's razor would strongly advise against. Therefore what would seem to be the simplest option would be that the person simply does not know enough.

4. Some phenomenon is verified to have occurred which is unexplained by the current human understanding of nature
Now in this scenario we have a situation in which humanity's current best understanding of the natural order has been challenged by observational evidence - this would imply that either: Our understanding was flawed or else that the natural order itself was insufficient to account for phenomenon that occur in nature.

Which is the simpler option that human understanding of nature is flawed or that the laws of nature are incomplete? Clearly humans are imperfect, we can and do make mistakes, science is periodically revised as we learn more and gain a more complete understanding of nature, so clearly that understanding would be the far more simpler and more logical point of failure (to account for the phenomenon) than nature itself.

When a thousand weeping statues have been disproved, you tend not to focus all that much attention on attempting to dissect the reasons for the thousand and first (instead you wait until someone can demonstrate the previously identified failings do not apply to the most recent version of the old claim). The phenomenon you are referring to have been disproved time and time again to everyone but the most ardent believer (mainly because belief is more important than evidence when held in such high levels of fervor).

 

[thau]

Spoiler: Ockham's razor and the supernatural; let me put it this way

1. Some phenomenon is alleged to have been witnessed
In this scenario the phenomenon may or may not have occurred, the person could be lying or they might be under a misapprehension of what occurred or it could have actually happened - all of these are relatively simple explanations.

2. Some phenomenon is verified to have occurred
Now in this scenario we know that something has occurred as it has been objectively verified to have occurred independently of someone's subjective experience; but can it be explained?

3. Some phenomenon is verified to have occurred which is unexplained by the individual's understanding of nature
Now in this scenario we have a situation where the person is unable to determine a explanation of an objectively verified phenomenon, this could be because they do not know enough or because there is no natural explanation. Both are relatively simple explanations yet the later makes an obscenely large assumption which Ockham's razor would strongly advise against. Therefore what would seem to be the simplest option would be that the person simply does not know enough.

4. Some phenomenon is verified to have occurred which is unexplained by the current human understanding of nature
Now in this scenario we have a situation in which humanity's current best understanding of the natural order has been challenged by observational evidence - this would imply that either: Our understanding was flawed or else that the natural order itself was insufficient to account for phenomenon that occur in nature.

Which is the simpler option that human understanding of nature is flawed or that the laws of nature are incomplete? Clearly humans are imperfect, we can and do make mistakes, science is periodically revised as we learn more and gain a more complete understanding of nature, so clearly that understanding would be the far more simpler and more logical point of failure (to account for the phenomenon) than nature itself.

When a thousand weeping statues have been disproved, you tend not to focus all that much attention on attempting to dissect the reasons for the thousand and first (instead you wait until someone can demonstrate the previously identified failings do not apply to the most recent version of the old claim). The phenomenon you are referring to have been disproved time and time again to everyone but the most ardent believer (mainly because belief is more important than evidence when held in such high levels of fervor).

Sorry, you are simply wrong.

I can find scores of them that HAVE NOT been disproven, not even attempted.

An exactly what documentation have you provided that disproves the two examples I just gave you, Akita and Zeitoun --- both heavily covered on the internet? Snopes wouldn't touch them, no doubt, but you have the goods? What is it?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I can find scores of them that HAVE NOT been disproven, not even attempted.

Because:

When a thousand weeping statues have been disproved, you tend not to focus all that much attention on attempting to dissect the reasons for the thousand and first...

 

[thau]

Because:

Oh, please. That is so lame.

Still waiting on the evidence you say you have disproving Akita and Zeitoun.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

These claims are so numerous that were I to waste my time disproving each, a human lifetime would be insufficient. So given the plethora of such claims, Ill wait on you (or someone else) to provide the evidence that all the documented previous failings of the various alleged crying icons and divine figure sightings do not apply before I bother taking a deeper look at it; but people making these claims do have a tendency not to attempt to demonstrate that prior failings of similar claims in the past do not apply to their own claim.