Challenge: I'm willing to convert if.......

[Madsaac]

Why? Do you know what Christian means?

What do you think, isn't life a miracle? OR can you explain how life became?

I'm talking about the miracles that happened in the bible or some other type of religious miracle over the past 2000 years, any proof that these have taken place.

 

[Madsaac]

It is a simple fact that there is no such thing as proof for anything subjective of the nature of religions.

It is therefore an empty front loaded meaningless challenge where your decision was made beforehand.

So you are saying then, if 'there is no such thing as proof', that these religions, which have been built on miracles for eg, Jesus raising from the dead, have been built on something else?

 

[Madsaac]

Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see".

If you read this verse and think carefully about what it says, you will understand faith.

That's not proof, that just something some guy wrote 2000 years a go.

 

[Unfettered]

So you agree with me, there is no evidence, just faith, hope or similar?

No, I don't agree; there is evidence. But I do not see the point of continuing at this point. All that we have is you asking, over and over, for evidence of miracles—and at the same time asserting that no evidence exists, regardless of any attempt by anyone else to establish a common frame of reference. That's not a discussion; that's a line of questioning. Well, what I, others, have experienced is not on trial; the truth is what it is regardless of your opinion of it.

I'll leave the ball in your court, though. Show good faith and engage in discussion, and you'll get a discussion. Continue to subject everyone to a "prove it or miracles aren't real" interrogation and I, for one, will withdraw (as I'd already determined to do before your latest post).

 

[Madsaac]

No, I don't agree; there is evidence. But I do not see the point of continuing at this point. All that we have is you asking, over and over, for evidence of miracles—and at the same time asserting that no evidence exists, regardless of any attempt by anyone else to establish a common frame of reference. That's not a discussion; that's a line of questioning. Well, what I, others, have experienced is not on trial; the truth is what it is regardless of your opinion of it.

I'll leave the ball in your court, though. Show good faith and engage in discussion, and you'll get a discussion. Continue to subject everyone to a "prove it or miracles aren't real" interrogation and I, for one, will withdraw (as I'd already determined to do before your latest post).

I hope I don't sound too rude my friend but that sounds like a cop out.

And you know, the answers you will give, will not contain any evidence, which may lead to follow up questions and in the end you will not be able to prove any miracle happened.

And you may even reflect that my religion was built on men making up stories 2000 years ago to the present.

 

[Unfettered]

I hope I don't sound too rude my friend but that sounds like a cop out.

And you know, the answers you will give, will not contain any evidence, which may lead to follow up questions and in the end you will not be able to prove any miracle happened.

And you may even reflect that my religion was built on men making up stories 2000 years ago to the present.

Look at the bolded portions of your post above. For reasons embodied in those expressions, I do not think your assessment of my last post is rude, just silly. Or perhaps completely lacking in self-awareness. Maybe both.

I'll illustrate another way: If someone comes up to me and says, "You're an idiot; prove me wrong; you have no evidence to prove that you're not an idiot; you can't prove me wrong."—do you think it would be a cop out for me to say, "I don't think I'm an idiot, but I see no discussion here."?

 

[danieldemol]

That is not true. For example, careful cataloging of living and fossil species is part of science even if(before Darwin) there was no overarching theory about the diversity of life. Observational science does not require hypothesis falsification.

I think that what has been observed is transmission of information, *how* it got transmitted has not been observed.

There could have been natural means of transmission eg kids hearing stories orally or reading about them then either forgetting about the means or lying about them.

So until we can either observe reincarnation or have a test which could potentially prove reincarnation wrong this "hypothesis" is in the category of not even wrong as I see it.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean the one that involved religious zealots?

Seems so. Things aren't really getting "better."

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm talking about the miracles that happened in the bible or some other type of religious miracle over the past 2000 years, any proof that these have taken place.

As far as the Bible goes, I really believe at this point in my own thinking that there is no reason not to believe the accounts of the miracles.

 

[sayak83]

I think that what has been observed is transmission of information, *how* it got transmitted has not been observed.

There could have been natural means of transmission eg kids hearing stories orally or reading about them then either forgetting about the means or lying about them.

So until we can either observe reincarnation or have a test which could potentially prove reincarnation wrong this "hypothesis" is in the category of not even wrong as I see it.

Those cases have been eliminated. Once again read the investigation and case description.
Once again, one cannot just say it's made up whenever cases come up. One has to investigate and determine the veracity, which has been done here, repeatedly and extremely competently as per other scientists as well.

 

[danieldemol]

Those cases have been eliminated. Once again read the investigation and case description.
Once again, one cannot just say it's made up whenever cases come up. One has to investigate and determine the veracity, which has been done here, repeatedly and extremely competently as per other scientists as well.

How did they eliminate that possibility?

Also let's assume the supernatural for a brief moment, how do you know for example that it is reincarnation as opposed to a psychic kid with the ability to channel the dead, or a demon projecting a false memory into the mind of a child?

It really seems to me that until you've observed *how* the information was transmitted we can at best only say we don't know how it was transmitted. Leaping to our preferred religious conclusion seems unwarranted.

 

[sayak83]

How did they eliminate that possibility?

Also let's assume the supernatural for a brief moment, how do you know for example that it is reincarnation as opposed to a psychic kid with the ability to channel the dead, or a demon projecting a false memory into the mind of a child?

It really seems to me that until you've observed *how* the information was transmitted we can at best only say we don't know how it was transmitted. Leaping to our preferred religious conclusion seems unwarranted.

It would be great if you watch the you tube video which I linked where these things were extensively discussed.

 

[sayak83]

If I were to make use of Tucker's methodology, and my research found absolutely no conclusive evidence of reincarnation happening (presuming that I am neither manipulating the research nor making massive mistakes), how would you interpret this?

Couldn't anyone just claim that I simply didn't happen to come across any legit case, but that Tucker did? How do I do avoid this?

Because if I can't avoid that, I can never, not even in principle, debunk Tucker's work.

Of course you can. You will have to be a trained sociologist or psychologist obviously. But if you are, and if you independently investigate over a period of a few years a reasonably good sample set of reincarnation claims and conclude by a discussion of the case studies that none (or statistically insignificant number of them) pass the bar of being genuine cases...then that does put a big question mark on Tucker's or Stevenson's work.
So you can indeed falsify this work by doing such an investigation (or at least a scientist can).

 

[Madsaac]

As far as the Bible goes, I really believe at this point in my own thinking that there is no reason not to believe the accounts of the miracles.

This is where I have trouble understanding.

So you believe, in what was said in a book, written 2000 years, by people who relatively had very limited understanding of the wider world.

This what you lay your beliefs on?

Surely, you can see why so many people doubt these miracles took place.

 

[Madsaac]

Look at the bolded portions of your post above. For reasons embodied in those expressions, I do not think your assessment of my last post is rude, just silly. Or perhaps completely lacking in self-awareness. Maybe both.

I'll illustrate another way: If someone comes up to me and says, "You're an idiot; prove me wrong; you have no evidence to prove that you're not an idiot; you can't prove me wrong."—do you think it would be a cop out for me to say, "I don't think I'm an idiot, but I see no discussion here."?

No, it doesn't need to be complicated.

I just think you can't provide any evidence, simple as that. If the miracles happened, like you think they do.

Show me how they happened, that's all?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you are saying then, if 'there is no such thing as proof', that these religions, which have been built on miracles for eg, Jesus raising from the dead, have been built on something else?

I am arguing against the motives for your argument and your use of "proof." I detect extreme sarcasm. Your coming to the table with a stacked marked deck with no intent of any serious dialogue.

There is no proof either way concerning Gods, miracles, religious beliefs regardless. Proof is for math theorems, and logical arguments, and even around well constructed logical arguments are not necessarily true.

There are some serious citations in this thread that support the occurrence of miracles and reincarnation, but they cannot either be falsified by scientific methods or shown to be false. They are supported by some historical and subjective evidence. You of course responded with a "hand wave."

 

[Unfettered]

No, it doesn't need to be complicated.

I just think you can't provide any evidence, simple as that. If the miracles happened, like you think they do.

Show me how they happened, that's all?

Thanks, but I'll pass. Say I'm copping out or whatever you like.
I will address this, however:

This is where I have trouble understanding.

So you believe, in what was said in a book, written 2000 years, by people who relatively had very limited understanding of the wider world.

This what you lay your beliefs on?

Surely, you can see why so many people doubt these miracles took place.

No, I can't see why. On what rational basis does someone establish doubt of a reported miracle when he lacks first-hand knowledge? Without first-hand knowledge, it is not equally as rational to establish trust of the reported miracle? Certainly there must be some evidence-based foundation for either doubt or confidence, right? If so, what is it?

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks, but I'll pass. Say I'm copping out or whatever you like.
I will address this, however:

No, I can't see why. On what rational basis does someone establish doubt of a reported miracle when he lacks first-hand knowledge?

I can see why they can be seriously doubted, because they nave no basis in documented facts, and based on ancient text without provenance of authorship nor written at the time the events occured. Also, the claims of the supernatural and miraculous, should always heled to sceptical objective standards whether claimed to have occurred thousands of years ago or today. Miracles by there nature do not meet standards of verification and believed by faith,

If miracles were documented to occur they would be historically factual and no longer miraculous by definition,

The word past miracle in the dictionary is mirage.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Maybe you are confusing causation with correlation. A prayer was made on my behalf: "Jesus, heal this man", and I was instantly healed. IOW, Jesus caused me to be healed. (The doctors had failed.)

I'm glad it turned out well for you. There are still some other possible explanations, for example the placebo effect, regression to the mean...

 

[Madsaac]

I am arguing against the motives for your argument and your use of "proof." I detect extreme sarcasm. Your coming to the table with a stacked marked deck with no intent of any serious dialogue.

There is no proof either way concerning Gods, miracles, religious beliefs regardless. Proof is for math theorems, and logical arguments, and even around well constructed logical arguments are not necessarily true.

There are some serious citations in this thread that support the occurrence of miracles and reincarnation, but they cannot either be falsified by scientific methods or shown to be false. They are supported by some historical and subjective evidence. You of course responded with a "hand wave."

Yes, you may be right regarding the stacked deck analogy but I'm happy that you agree there is no proof concerning gods, miracles and religious beliefs.

Maybe a "hand wave" is all that is required if the argument is purely subjective.

Remember, powerful organisations have been built upon this subjective view, which is a little frightening?