Freaking out about what we really can "know" here...

[Thanda]

Are the miracles you believe in only to be found in the Bible or are others also something you would believe?

I also believe in miracles in the Book of Mormon. I also believe in miracles in the lives of people I know. Finally I also believe in the miracles I myself have witnessed.

Indeed whenever I don't believe in a miracle it is rarely because I don't think the feat is possible: it is usually based on the fact I don't think the witness is credible.

 

[outhouse]

1. Could they have happened - or can they ever happen.

No.

2. Did they ever happen.

No

The first question deals with the science behind the miracles.

The science shows factual rhetorical prose and mythology in all.

There is no science involved in mythology.

The second deals with the history around them - or their historicity.

OK heres the good part.

When we study history of how the books were written, we see these early Israelite cultures that were many different cultures, that were beat done so many times they factually did not know their own history.

They created the charted myth of the exodus, to explain what they did not know, which is theology not history. It focusses on loyalty to Yahweh alone which was a political change not one adopted by the people.


Many of these miracles are trying to build rhetorical giving Yahweh more power then the gods of different civilizations. You cannot build a weak god that has less power then all the other gods being worshipped. You also had MOST oft he Israelites still following polytheism to EL and Asherah and Baal, so text were redacted to make Yahweh the only god.

Almost all of the OT mythology and miracles were products of the 5'th and 6th. and 7th century, and they described and created events in the past that never happened, and the ones that do have some historical core, do not reflect any credible history.

Understanding how each book was created and when and why, and knowing who created what and when is how we build historicity. Cultural and social anthropology in not some garbage here. And when you know this the bible only becomes more beautiful because understanding the text is key.

Without the REAL context all your miracles are actually meaningless.

 

[outhouse]

I also believe in miracles in the Book of Mormon

Fanaticism and fundamentalism simply means we cannot use reason logic and education in a debate with people who refuse to use it to make choices.

You should stay in the same faith section, because we have nothing to talk about.


No amount of facts will change your view of history so why do you even try? its called Proselytizing your faith, and faith is not up for debate.


YOU cannot debate about what is known, if you refuse what is known. Refusal is not an option here.

 

[Thanda]

Fanaticism and fundamentalism simply means we cannot use reason logic and education in a debate with people who refuse to use it to make choices.

You should stay in the same faith section, because we have nothing to talk about.


No amount of facts will change your view of history so why do you even try? its called Proselytizing your faith, and faith is not up for debate.


YOU cannot debate about what is known, if you refuse what is known. Refusal is not an option here.

I'm not sure what sparked this response but I just want to understand - are you accusing me of proselytising? I have not come here to convert anyone to anything. I know what I know to be true. I know who God is and debating the historicity of scriptures will help not have much of an effect since the knowledge I have is not solely based on the scriptures.

If what you believe about the origins of the scriptures helps you find them more beautiful then I am happy for you. I find more beauty in the knowledge that there is a God and that he has in fact spoken to man and continues to do so today.

 

[Willamena]

Typical.

For you to pick an unsettled definition to base knowledge on. At least I understand Plato argued his own guess here and did not admit to it being correct, nor many of his contemporaries.

Only later did religious zealots latch on to JTB

lol

 

[JoStories]

I didn't say you were. I was simply trying to explain to you why I'm not indulging Outhouse.

I'm very willing to discuss miracles: that's why I came to this thread.

That sounds fine. I am curious if the miracles you hold as true as only the ones found in the Bible. Are other miracles ones you would acknowledge as being true, at least to some degree? And if not, why not?

 

[JoStories]

I also believe in miracles in the Book of Mormon. I also believe in miracles in the lives of people I know. Finally I also believe in the miracles I myself have witnessed.

Indeed whenever I don't believe in a miracle it is rarely because I don't think the feat is possible: it is usually based on the fact I don't think the witness is credible.

Ok but what of miracles from other faiths? Do you acknowledge those? I am curious why you would chose the Book of Mormon. I had thought, and of course I could be wrong, that you were Protestant. Why the book of Mormon?

 

[Thanda]

Ok but what of miracles from other faiths? Do you acknowledge those? I am curious why you would chose the Book of Mormon. I had thought, and of course I could be wrong, that you were Protestant. Why the book of Mormon?

I am a Mormon.

I have no problems acknowledging miracles of all faiths. In fact just yesterday my wife told me of a traditional witch doctor (for lack of a better word) who assisted an uncle of hers with a few problems with miraculous results. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the story.

 

[outhouse]

I am a Mormon.

I have no problems acknowledging miracles of all faiths. In fact just yesterday my wife told me of a traditional witch doctor (for lack of a better word) who assisted an uncle of hers with a few problems with miraculous results. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the story.

have you ever thought because your own belief goes against science and nature, that you accept others who do the same?

 

[Thanda]

have you ever thought because your own belief gois against science and nature, that you accept others who do the same?

I have asked you to tell me why an advanced race of beings would be unable to do the events we often term miraculous. You have not answered.

 

[outhouse]

I have asked you to tell me why an advanced race of beings would be unable to do the events we often term miraculous. You have not answered.

Because much of what is written in theology is factually, KNOWN mythology.

To me, it seems your trying to imagine your way around mythology instead of accepting how we know many stories came into fruition. AS no advanced race of beings exist scientifically.

 

[Thanda]

Because much of what is written in theology is factually, KNOWN mythology.

To me, it seems your trying to imagine your way around mythology instead of accepting how we know many stories came into fruition. AS no advanced race of beings exist scientifically.

I'll amend the last sentence for you "AS no advanced race of beings exist scientifically...for now"

And while you wait for science to tell you what to believe I will go on believing the things I and others have seen, heard and experienced for ourselves.

 

[JoStories]

I am a Mormon.

I have no problems acknowledging miracles of all faiths. In fact just yesterday my wife told me of a traditional witch doctor (for lack of a better word) who assisted an uncle of hers with a few problems with miraculous results. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the story.

First, sorry. I didn't know you were Mormon. And second, its interesting that you mention this as I was thinking about asking you about modern miracles before I even got to this. Do you believe, which you obviously do, that there are modern day miracles and if so, why do we not hear of them more often? It seems that if that were the case, that being there are modern day miracles, we would know of them yet we don;'t. Why do you think that is? If God can do miracles through other people, why has God not done so? And why not miracles of the kind we read of in the Bible, the ones that were so obvious, like walking on water and parting the Red Sea>?

 

[jonathan180iq]

For example, angels aren't miracles, they're supposed to be entities. An entity is not a miracle, an event is. Further, something like "fire from the sky" is completely explainable, such as through a meteor shower.

Winged humans that fly around between one realm and the next and can commune with god are not "miracles" in your world? If there was a single instance of a winged-human that could fly (or teleport, for those without wings) to have ever been recorded in human history, then you'd be making some sense. But since we know of no such thing ever in the history of mankind, then the suggestion that these "beings" are nonchalant entities is ridiculous. A flying or teleporting human-like figure with supernatural abilities that can exist between the natural world and this unproven supernatural world would be a friggin' miracle.

"A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[1] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (God or gods)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

There is nothing natural about what Angles supposedly are or can do.

That's dandy. The original point, made my me, couldn't care less about arguing miracles. You pick a fight with miracles instead of addressing the question posed about knowledge and it makes me suspicious. Especially when you define miracles as 1 in 8 bullion chance. Did you not pay attention to Manhattan's monologue explaining why this idea of miracles is redundAnt?

The original point, made by you, couldn't care less about arguing miracles??
Then why is your whole first paragraph directly related to the criteria of what constitutes a miracle and how we can know that a miracle happened (or could happen?) You've spent a lot of time talking about miracles for someone who doesn't want to ague about miracles.

For anyone who wants to argue that miracles happen, you either have to show something supernatural happening in direct contrast to known laws or you are left with the argument that miracles are actually just natural events that people interpret and attribute to god, but I'm sure you recognize the folly of the latter. There's really no other way around it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Similes are lost on you aren't they?

Furthermore, please stop asking me to provide evidence - that is not what our discussion is about. It is you who needs to provide evidence of natural laws that are broken by the miracles I have asked you about.

Lift for a being of that size is simply unattainable without external propulsion.
Teleportation is impossible on objects larger than the nano-scale.

There's just two natural laws that must be broken in order for angels to exist.

Yes for a people to have women with an average height of more than six feet is extremely unusual. That you have seen some women who are more than six feet tall women doesn't change that fact.

And again, the question remains the same - what natural law would was broken by there being unusually tall people?

So, just for clarity, when the Bible talks about "Giants in those days", what the writers really meant to say was that "there were people who were slightly taller than average in those days"?

If that's really what they meant, then doesn't it completely change the narrative?

If you want to really make the argument that the Bible was actually referring to people who were just slightly taller than average, then I'll give you that one. But we must remember then that Goliath was probably only like 6'1" and the Giants that lived before the flood ranged in height from 5'8" to 6'4"... like a highschool basketball team.

I need not cite such study. It is you who needs to prove there is a natural law which would prevent a being with advanced technology couldn't help an animal say certain words or sentences.

Nowhere in any of the scriptures is there an indication of whether the donkey or the snake spoke their own words with understanding. All we know is that both these animals were able to produce sounds that mimicked human speech so well that humans were able to understand them. It is now up to you to prove that a natural law would prevent this from ever happening.

So I need to provide evidence that advanced technology did not exist 4,000 years ago that would enable animals to speak audible human language...this is the route you're going to take?

Fine...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC

There you go - there's no mention of anything that could have possibly been considered advanced communication technology which would have allowed humans to translate the thoughts of animals into discernible language... If you want me to show you how donkeys and snakes lack the mental capacity for advanced communication, which would make language impossible, I'll do that too.

I'm getting tired of saying this: I am not the one who is required to provide any proof. You must prove some natural law prevents beings that live in some other part of the universe from having power to do things we can't currently comprehend

The basis of your argument implies that there are, in fact, beings that live in other parts of the "universe" and that they can travel here and interact with us. My evidence that this is all some elaborate mental hoola-hooping is simply based on the fact that nothing outside of a few organic compounds have ever been discovered. We know of nothing else that exists anywhere, ever. To suggest that these beings or entities do exist places the burden on you and anyone who agrees with you - not me.

There's absolutely nothing in academia to indicate that ANYTHING like what you're arguing for is possible. Yet you're trying to make me responsible for proving the existence of the non-existent?
How would that work, exactly?

If you really need me to go through the entire list and explain to you why these things are impossible and directly explain which part of the absurd is absurd, then I'll do it. But I think you're plenty capable of recognizing those absurdities yourself, given that you selectively chose just a few "miracles" from the small list that you originally asked me for. Why would you do that unless, as I suggested earlier, you are able to recognize how ridiculous and indefensible some of these Biblical claims are?

 

[outhouse]

I will go on believing the things I and others have seen, heard and experienced for ourselves.

The human mind is weak.

It often see's what it wants as in dreams, and hallucinations, day dreams, and visions in a conscious state, that simply do not exist in reality.

Believing is great, its when you try and tell other people your beliefs have some sort of credible justification or substantiation, They don't. Its why you have ZERO evidence in support.

 

[1137]

Winged humans that fly around between one realm and the next and can commune with god are not "miracles" in your world? If there was a single instance of a winged-human that could fly (or teleport, for those without wings) to have ever been recorded in human history, then you'd be making some sense. But since we know of no such thing ever in the history of mankind, then the suggestion that these "beings" are nonchalant entities is ridiculous. A flying or teleporting human-like figure with supernatural abilities that can exist between the natural world and this unproven supernatural world would be a friggin' miracle.

"A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.[1] Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (God or gods)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

There is nothing natural about what Angles supposedly are or can do.



The original point, made by you, couldn't care less about arguing miracles??
Then why is your whole first paragraph directly related to the criteria of what constitutes a miracle and how we can know that a miracle happened (or could happen?) You've spent a lot of time talking about miracles for someone who doesn't want to ague about miracles.

For anyone who wants to argue that miracles happen, you either have to show something supernatural happening in direct contrast to known laws or you are left with the argument that miracles are actually just natural events that people interpret and attribute to god, but I'm sure you recognize the folly of the latter. There's really no other way around it.

The miracles were one of 3+ examples given for debating the limits of knowledge.

Reading comprehension and philosophy. Great classes.

 

[outhouse]

The miracles were one of 3+ examples given for debating the limits of knowledge.

And there was nothing credible to debate.

 

[viole]

It is your faith that tells you people made up stories about Moses and many other incidents and that an entire people simply accepted these made up stories as factual history. What your theory suggests is that some wise guy decided he was going to come up with a history for his people; then, after he did so, the whole people just unanimously and unquestioningly accept this new history which entirely contradicted their own knowledge of their true history

Believing that requires more faith than I am capable of.

What do you think of the claim concerning Mohammed going to heaven on a winged horse?

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

The miracles were one of 3+ examples given for debating the limits of knowledge.

Reading comprehension and philosophy. Great classes.

Please note that you actually addressed nothing in this retort...

If you want to address a claim of miracle, or of brain imps causing depression, don't you have to formulate some sort of standard for determining what is the most likely cause of those phenomena or claims? Don't you have to have some standard for judging criteria?

Of course you do - and if you set that standard on the acceptance of imaginary invisible entities, or on completely unsubstantiated rhetoric then that's certainly your prerogative. But you must also, if you're being intellectually honest, admit that the standards required for imaginary invisible things is almost infintiely inferior to those standards which are based on observable, repeatable, testable empirical evidence.

So while, yes, technically you can posit that depression is actually caused by invisible brain imps instead of chemical imbalances in the brain, or that humans can fly through other dimensions and talk to magic sky fairies, the evidence that is going to support your assertion is going to be incredibly flimsy and based on a desire to believe moreso than actual substantiating data.

If you consider truth claims based on imaginary invisible desires to be equal in value to truth claims based empirical data, then that's a whole other topic, isn't it?

Every semester I guest speak at a local college for philosophy and religion classes. Today the question of miracles came up, and the more I argued that they did not happen the more I realized that claim is impossible to make. There are too reasons for this. (1) Even if out of all the humans that ever lived there was not one person who rose from the dead, to say rising from the dead is impossible because of this is a huge leap of statistical faith. (2) In order to know if something was a miracle – a violation of natural law – you would have to know every single little thing about the universe and the could possibly happen, and determine that this absolutely could not. So faith or arrogance, neither of which I am a big fan of, I was required to use in my claim that miracles do not exist, and eventually to avoid arrogance was forced to accept the concept of “miracles” as an untouchable topic, since we may well never have enough knowledge to comment on such a thing.

Your entire reasoning for why you can no longer argue that miracles do not happen is based on two flawed premises, as I showed you earlier in the post that no one seemed to read without getting defensive.

Let’s take the example of depression. When people with depression get the proper anti-depressant it can seriously aid with the disorder. This would suggest that depression is something chemically based which can be addressed with medication. Our senses and knowledge of the universe as we experience it tell us then that depression is a physical/chemical illness which can be treated by physical pills and chemicals. However, what if there is actually an invisible imp pounding on people’s brains causing their depression, and the imps happen to be put to sleep by serotonin and other such drugs? Many will laugh, but the sad fact is there is no way to address this. All we can ever do is make claims based on statistics and the assumption that humans are seeing the whole picture.

If you don't think our standard of observation is sufficient, what do you suggest we replace it with.
At this point, your argument only has any value if you have something other than observation. (Also, please note that we can design tools to allow us to "see" things that our 5 senses cannot detect.)

Again, if you are somehow arguing that "random friggin' guesses and faith in magic" is somehow equal in value to empirical data when it comes to truth claims, then there's not much more to discuss is there?