Miracles are evidence there is no God(s)

[oldbadger]

well I must say that I have never witnessed any miracle/s at all..

I have........ I was dead for countless billions of aeons and yet here I am, and with the most wonderful wife for company. That's more amazing than winning the lottery seven times in a row.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if I were to bet, I bet that you are unwilling to defend any alternative explanation for the facts surrounding the resurrection.

What facts? Do you have any facts? You have a claim.

Establishing that a miracle claim is true can be broken down into 3 sub-claims:

1. The purported event actually happened.
2. The event wasn't caused by a natural mechanism.
3. The non-natural/magical/whatever mechanism that caused the event is the one purported in the miracle claim.

The milk miracle passes step 1 with flying colours, but (IMO) gets bogged down in step 2.

The Resurrection, OTOH, isn't even close to passing step 1.

ok this is my alternative explanation for ganesha drinking milk
,


I am willing to defend that explanation and accept my part of the burden proof against anyone who claims that it is a real miracle.

Sounds reasonable... as reasonable as alternative explanations I've heard for the Resurrection... though even those are irrelevant until we pass step 1, i.e. establish that Jesus really was crucified, died (or at least appeared dead according to the imperfect standards of the time), was entombed, and came back to life.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So... you don't know whether the Holy Spirit was trying to guide people toward Ganesha?

Does this mean that you're also not sure whether it's a good idea for LDS missionaries to guide people away from Ganesha?

I Know that there are plenty of miracles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I Know that there are plenty of miracles.

Miracles that reinforce the faiths that the LDS Church seeks to undermine?

Again: the position you're suggesting has theological implications. If the Holy Spirit is behind the miracle claims of those other religions, then the implication is that the LDS Church is trying to work against the Holy Spirit.

Do you at least see what I'm getting at?

 

[Sheldon]

Zero given my impression it is meant facetiously.

So the fact someone claims to be an eyewitness is not always credible, glad that point came across.

If five people report that they saw the same thing it would be irrational to believe what they saw occurred as that would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy? You might need to brush up on the terms you use.

That one is called a straw man fallacy, as it is not remotely what I said. An argumentum ad populum fallacy is a bare appeal to numbers, like the one you used.

There is a rational ability we possess to form a judgment on the quality and reliability of the witnesses.

Something is rational if it based on or in accordance with reason or logic. If humans had an innate ability to be rational, then we wouldn't have needed to create the method of logic, that's axiomatic.

Do you realize this thread is not even about the presentation of evidence for any one specific miracle claim.

You have yet to present a shred of objective evidence for any miracle. Despite making several unevidenced claims, in tandem, alongside irrational assertions. The more you post without even trying to evidence your claims, the more suspicious it seems.

 

[Sheldon]

And if I were to bet, I bet that you are unwilling to defend any alternative explanation for the facts surrounding the resurrection.

There are no facts, just unevidenced hearsay from unknown sources. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus in the bible? They were written decades after he purportedly died.

 

[leroy]

What facts? Do you have any facts? You have a claim.

Ok claims

The claims are:

1 Jesus died

2 He was buried

3 The tomb was found empty

4 Peter and the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interested as having seed the risen Jesus

5 The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

My point is that you will deny (or remain skeptical) about these claims without offering an alternative explanation for what could have happed. (contrary to what did with the Milk miracle

Sounds reasonable... as reasonable as alternative explanations I've heard for the Resurrection.

Would you share any of those explanations?

Are you willing to support the claim that this explanation is better than the resurrection?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Miracles that reinforce the faiths that the LDS Church seeks to undermine?

Again: the position you're suggesting has theological implications. If the Holy Spirit is behind the miracle claims of those other religions, then the implication is that the LDS Church is trying to work against the Holy Spirit.

Do you at least see what I'm getting at?

No I don't see what you're getting at. Ganesha helped them be good if the story is true. Jesus Christ wasn't going to reveal to them.

There are a great many miracles among the LDS. But God's everywhere able to do His job. If you have a broken heart and contrite spirit you get the Holy Ghost, so you can be in the presence of God. It works the same for everyone.

I don't think it changes the demographics of Hindus vs LDS in any meaningful way.

And I read the Mahabharata. They believe in God the same way.

 

[leroy]

There are no facts, just unevidenced hearsay from unknown sources. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus in the bible? They were written decades after he purportedly died.

So by your logic………… Should we deny all ancient documents that are not contemporary to the events that they report?......... or is it another case of “these documents have information that I personally don’t like” therefore they must be wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok claims

The claims are:

1 Jesus died

2 He was buried

3 The tomb was found empty

4 Peter and the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interested as having seed the risen Jesus

5 The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

My point is that you will deny (or remain skeptical) about these claims without offering an alternative explanation for what could have happed. (contrary to what did with the Milk miracle

"Claim" #5 is your conclusion (and a calue judgment). The other 4 are actual factual claims that are either true or false.

I'm open-minded; care to actually make a case for any of them?

Maybe start with #1: why should we believe that Jesus died?

To elaborate: why should we believe that Jesus was a real person as opposed to either a complete fabrication or an amalgam of the stories of different people?

And unless Jesus dying in his bed of old age or cancer would satisfy you, I take it you have some unstated claims about the manner of Jesus's death... e.g. that he was executed. If you clear the hurdle of establishing that Jesus was real, can you then clear the hurdle of establishing that he was executed?

Would you share any of those explanations?

Are you willing to support the claim that this explanation is better than the resurrection?

Let's not put the cart before the horse. First establish what actually happened before trying to explain what happened.

 

[Audie]

In this case I mean something that is claimed to be the work of and an intervening God

All it needs is a claim to make it real?

 

[leroy]

Maybe start with #1: why should we believe that Jesus died ..............(on the cross)........?

.

That is easy

there are multiple sources confirming this event (John, synoptic gospels, Paul, Tacitus etc.)

… so if Jesus didn’t die, you are expected to provide an alternative explanation for why we have all these source claiming the death of Jesus, and explain why is your alternative explanation better than “Jesus died” .

If you don’t want to offer alternative explanations and defend them, then I am not interested in having a conversation with you.

To be clear:

I am arguing that the best explanation for why we have so many sources claiming that Jesus died, is because he died.

Feel free to provide and defend your alternative explanation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Miracles that reinforce the faiths that the LDS Church seeks to undermine?

Again: the position you're suggesting has theological implications. If the Holy Spirit is behind the miracle claims of those other religions, then the implication is that the LDS Church is trying to work against the Holy Spirit.

Do you at least see what I'm getting at?

Incidentally, Raelians believe that if you stick to any religion long enough you get a victory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is easy

there are multiple sources confirming this event (John, synoptic gospels, Paul, Tacitus etc.)

Tacitus only recorded what early Christians' beliefs were. He doesn't "confirm" that there was a real Jesus who died.

Paul isn't "confirmation" of Jesus's death either. Apparently, he sincerely believed that Jesus was crucified, but as someone who doesn't claim to have even met Jesus in person, his sincere beliefs on this point are no more relevant than yours.

As for the Gospel accounts... they're the claim. They don't work as evidence for the claim.

… so if Jesus didn’t die, you are expected to provide an alternative explanation for why we have all these source claiming the death of Jesus, and explain why is your alternative explanation better than “Jesus died” .

Ha! Because your explanation looks like crap unless you can hold it up next to one that you can try to poke holes in?

No, your case stands or falls on its own merits.

If you don’t want to offer alternative explanations and defend them, then I am not interested in having a conversation with you.

Suit yourself.

To be clear:

I am arguing that the best explanation for why we have so many sources claiming that Jesus died, is because he died.

Feel free to provide and defend your alternative explanation.

"The best" out of what others?

What explanations did you consider before deciding that yours is best?

 

[firedragon]

well according to the Scriptures, Yeshua's birth was a normal birth, but His Conception was a miracle in and of itself, ie; NO human father.

That was an example Not to begin a discussion if miracles even exist in this universe.

 

[Clara Tea]

The Christian religion from its point of view doesn't deny the ability of other entities creating miracles, though those miracles may be restricted in some ways. For instance the bible declares the entity it calls Satan to be the God of this world. In order to understand this one has to understand how the bible treats the word God. There is only one GOD but many "false" gods which from our point of view would seem to have God like powers...including the ability to create miracles in a restricted sense. Miracle here being treated as a supernatural phenomena.

Hmm...Satan is God of this world (a false God), you say. Then why do people pray to God?

 

[Clara Tea]

You're right. It is.

But it seems to only happen when your posts. Why do you think that is?

And please don't call me "son." I'm quite certain I'm older than you, therefore, it's condescending (not that you ad hominem wasn't).

Fathers (priests) always call their followers "son." It's not about age. It is about feeling warm and responsible for others.

But, just in case I'm wrong....ask for an allowance, and to take the family car on a date.

 

[Clara Tea]

So your thesis is that since different people had varying ideas and/or theories about the killing of John F Kennedy, he didnt exist? Or since you might bring in an argument without understanding this analogy, different people have varying perspectives about some figure in history, he doesnt exist.

Any thing that has different concepts about it doesn't exist??

Im sorry but arguments for atheism are drowning these days. With all the education, technological advances, communication etc, it keeps drowning further.

If miracles indeed happen in every religion and theology as you say, either all of them are bogus, some of them are bogus, or all of them are true. Two of these options means there is something other than the natural world out there. It doesnt prove God doesnt exist. It just proves somethings out there. If all of the miracles are bogus, it proves people are bogus. Doesnt prove anything about God.

People having different beliefs either prove they are all bogus, or some of them are bogus, but not that all of them are absolutely correct. Worst case scenario, if all of them are bogus, it still does not prove anything about God.

The God, could still exist.

This is a false argument.

Speaking of the JFK assassination, his brother, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, and a panel just authorized his parole a few months ago. The governor of California or a senator could still stop his parole.

I would suggest stopping it, because Sirhan is a hero of Arab terrorists, and he committed treason against the United States by killing a would-be president. We have to send a clear message to the world that terrorism and assassinations are not viable alternatives to diplomacy, and they violate the tenets of most religions.

 

[Clara Tea]

Would you say that it's the Holy Spirit that was behind the Ganesha milk miracle I mentioned earlier?

Capillary action (Van Der Waals force).

 

[Clara Tea]

I have........ I was dead for countless billions of aeons and yet here I am, and with the most wonderful wife for company. That's more amazing than winning the lottery seven times in a row.

You were dead. I'm glad you are better now.