Miracles are evidence there is no God(s)

[oldbadger]

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

Thank you.
Yes, I'm alive now, but honestly during all those billions of years before I don't think I felt poorly or anything.....and time just flew by.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Mindnumbingly irrelevant. It seems like you were too much in a hurry to get Arabs into the picture and call them terrorists and what not that you missed the whole point.

Pretty weird.

 

[kjw47]

Many religions worships there own God(s) and deny the existence of other Gods. However, miracles happen to people of many different faiths. From this we can conclude that either:

1. People of your faith are telling the truth and everyone else is mislead or lying about miracles
2. Multiple intervening Gods exist
3. The God(s) of your faith performs miracles for non-believers too, or
4. There is a natural explanation for all miracles

With more education, technological advances, communication, etc. I think number four is becoming more and more likely.

Edit 2:
To clarify, I'm saying that many religions claim to worship an intervening God(s) that performs miracles, and some of those religions also claim that all other Gods and religions are false. Yet all those types of religions have their own miracle stories. Indeed some stake their whole credibility on these stories.

Someone with your religion claims to witness a miracle, if credibility is equal, that's + 1 for your religion and - 1 for the others. The more miracles there are, the net sum will go further into the negative.

Edit 3:
Specifically if the head of the religion backs the claim of a miracle, endorses it, uses it as evidence that the theology is true.

When God turned Moses staff to a snake--Pharoahs religious leaders staffs were turned to snakes by satans power. So it is satan doing things in 99% of all religion on earth. God only has a single religion. He never had more than a single religion.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

1. Someone dying is hardly an extraordinary event, I'd be prepared to accept it with scant evidence.
2. Again burial is hardly an extraordinary claim.
3. This is of course unevidenced hearsay.
4. Again this is unevidenced hearsay.
5. You're kidding? The best explanation for an unevidenced story about a body disappearing is a supernatural event?

Better or more probable explanations:

1. The whole story is partially or entirely fabricated.
2. Someone stole the body, in order to lend some credence to the story they wanted everyone to believe.
3. Someone stole the body for an unknown purpose.

None of those explanations need to violate natural law, or offend reason, they are therefore all more credible explanations. However this rather misses the point, which is that stories unsupported by evidence are not evidence, least of all for extraordinary claims like resurrection.

 

[Sheldon]

When God turned Moses staff to a snake--Pharoahs religious leaders staffs were turned to snakes by satans power. So it is satan doing things in 99% of all religion on earth. God only has a single religion. He never had more than a single religion.

These claims are unevidenced hearsay.

 

[Clara Tea]

You do not need education, technological advances, communication, etc. to see what miracles are, really. That would be like killing a fly with an H bomb. You just need some very basic critical thinking.

For instance, miracles, especially in case of medical miracles, seem to affect internal medicine only. Cancers, depression, addiction, headaches, etc. All things hidden from view. No trace of:

1) Miracles involving growing a new limb after amputation
2) Miracles involving curing genetic diseases
3) Miracles involving separating Siamese twins
4) Growing a new perfect set of new eyes after physically losing both of them
etc.

Independently of the amount of prayer deployed.

So, either miracles are such that they could still be no miracles, and in that case rationality would mandate they are more likely to be natural, or God loves (some) cancer patients, while hating (all) amputees.

Their call, really.

Ciao

- viole

Wasn't it Edward Teller who shot an apple off of his son's head with an H-bomb? (I'm pretty sure he got the apple).

Such miracles (growing a new limb) can be accomplished with stem cell research. We'd know this, by now, if it were not for President W. Bush intervening with his religious concerns. I can understand why he wouldn't want to use stem cells from fetuses (which used to be the only source). But now, stem cells can be made of any cell in the body with a nucleus (not red blood cells, because they don't have nuleii). W. Bush wanted to make sure we discussed such things as souls when making new body parts or fusing severed spines.

Studies of genetic diseases were slowed to a halt by President W. Bush's decision to patent the human genome (so rich companies could get more mammon). Many of these companies hold patents to segments of the human genome responsible for genetic diseases, and they don't do any research (they hold these patents, hoping, that in the future, they will turn a tidy profit). In the mean time, humans suffer from these diseases. Companies that used to do reseach, and were very close to making breakthroughs, had to abandon research because other companies held the patents to the part of the human genome that they were researching. Courts made them go out of business (so other companies could make mammon).

Google Scholar

According to the hypertext link above, many parts of the human genome have been patented.

The human genome was recently thought of as part of the human species, and it was forbidden to patent that. Yet, profiteers, after yet more mammon, have changed the laws of the United States in order to profit from certain segments of human DNA. Often they block legitimate medical researchers, while refusing to do any research of their own. When president Bush forced patents on the human genome, he did so with the idea that companies spend a lot of money to research topics, and he doesn't want them competing. It thought that it would be quite a shame to spend billions of dollars working on a medical breakthrough only to have another company beat them. So, now, only one company is allowed to work on genetic cures, and usually they do no work at all, thinking that the patent will be valuable some day.

The separation of Siamese twins is about advancements in medical science, not miracles of God.

Growing eyes is not the problem (that can be done). But linking eyes to the brain using regrown nerves is quite difficult. I believe that stem cells could do it, if only we could do research without theists worrying about souls.

 

[Clara Tea]

1. Someone dying is hardly an extraordinary event, I'd be prepared to accept it with scant evidence.
2. Again burial is hardly an extraordinary claim.
3. This is of course unevidenced hearsay.
4. Again this is unevidenced hearsay.
5. You're kidding? The best explanation for an unevidenced story about a body disappearing is a supernatural event?

Better or more probable explanations:

1. The whole story is partially or entirely fabricated.
2. Someone stole the body, in order to lend some credence to the story they wanted everyone to believe.
3. Someone stole the body for an unknown purpose.

None of those explanations need to violate natural law, or offend reason, they are therefore all more credible explanations. However this rather misses the point, which is that stories unsupported by evidence are not evidence, least of all for extraordinary claims like resurrection.

Tomb of Jesus - Wikipedia

According to the Wikipedia article, above, not everyone agrees that it was the tomb of Jesus.

 

[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).

Read readin' not writin'?

 

[Clara Tea]

I edited it to be less confusing.

Person A claims @SalixIncendium favorite movie is Baby Geniuses.
Person B claims @SalixIncendium enjoys basket weaving.
Person C claims @SalixIncendium is an expert jaw harpist.
Person D claims @SalixIncendium doesn't exist.

That he does exist proves person D wrong but it doesn't prove person A, B, or C right.
That was all I was trying to convey.

I haven't seen "Baby Geniuses" but would like to see it.

Basketweaving would be fun to learn.

Learning to play any instrument to gain a useful talent is good.

Existence is overrated. Many of my beliefs don't exist.

 

[Clara Tea]

I'd go with 2 (and possibly occasionally 1).

Just so I'm clear: I don't think the claims are credible enough to accept as true; I just think that all the other miracle claims I've ever seen are less credible than this one.

I also think that if you can't demonstrate that your favourite miracle claim isn't at least as credible as the "milk miracle" - i.e. a claim we can probably both agree isn't well-supported enough to be believed - then I won't see any need to take your claim seriously.

I believe capillary action is true (an established scientific fact) based on Van Der Waals force.

But, there are many miracles of the modern age. When we turn on a light switch, a light comes on. When we start a car, the car goes. Not everyone understands how. Most know that stepping on the brake stops the car, but are unclear on how that is accomplished (lacking an education in mechanics).

So, many take on faith that their car could get them to work, but part of that is seeing others with cars.

We could see other theists, but does that mean that they are right?

 

[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.

God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. This doesn't mean that we all must be agnostics (those who doubt but don't believe or disbelieve). We can choose to belief without proof (perhaps a feeling, or perhaps we hear voices). Or, we can choose not to believe in anything unless there is proof. For example, atheists reject belief in God because there is no proof that God exists, but they likely also reject belief in Santa, the tooth fairy, cartoon character Fred Flintstone, etc.

Is there an image of Fred Flinstone, and dialog that one can hear? Yes, it's called television. So, television can give us something tangible about Fred Flintstone. Unless one hears the voice of God (or somehow knows God's will), what we know of Fred Flintstone is more tangible than what we know of God. There he is....Fred Flintstone on our TV. But where is God? Has any currently living human seen God?

 

[firedragon]

God cannot be proven to exist or not exist.

Irrelevant.

 

[Clara Tea]

I have opened up a can of worms with my OP explanation
To clarify, I'm saying that many religions claim to worship an intervening God(s) that performs miracles, and some of those religions also claim that all other Gods and religions are false. Yet all those types of religions have their own miracle stories. Indeed some stake their whole credibility on these stories.
I didn't say God could not exist.
I'm saying everytime a "miracle" happens, it's really evidence against these types of religions.

Someone in your religion claims to witness a miracle, if credibility is equal, that's + 1 for your religion and - 1 for the others. The more miracles there are the net sum will go further into the negative.

Quick.....everyone supplicate to the holy worms (in the can that he opened).

 

[Clara Tea]

What if the theology backs the claim of a miracle, endorses it, uses it as evidence that the theology is true?

That would prove that the church leaders were wrong, and perhaps that the church leaders have bad judgement. While this might indicate that they might also be wrong about their religion, it doesn't prove that their religion is wrong.

The old testament, among other things, says "thou shalt not kill." So, even if the religion is wrong, and even if God doesn't exist, that seems like sound advise. It is advise from the local police, as well (they arrest murderers).

Religions could be good even if they are wrong about their beliefs.

But what about the Christian religion taking over politics of America with rallies from the Religious Right? Once they did, they declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan without adequate proof of their claims of terrorism. They violated their own religious principles (In Revelation, God commanded not to attack Iraq or face his wrath (like Revelation 15....seven plagues), and "thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek.")

So, it is possible that God doesn't exist, but the religion could be sensible and good, but the followers of the religion could get the good and sensible parts of their own bibles wrong (as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan).

So, it is possible for there to be no God, and still have followers of the God doing wrong things (or right things, in certain cases).

In conclusion, religious can be good or bad....just as a gun could be used for good or used for bad.

This is why it is very important to think about our actions and not follow those who speak falsely about God's wishes. God doesn't want to kill.

 

[Clara Tea]

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

We're here. Many take that as a miracle. The complexity of life is staggering. This is why many doctors are theists. But, we should not be awestruck into theism. There could be other explanations (Natural Selection....etc).

Maybe everything was not built by God, but build by some very powerful and smart little kid who enjoyed playing with his creations?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God sends everyone coded messages very frequently. He sets up names, thousands of years in advance, then, when you unscramble the letters you see the hidden messages in the longest words that they can spell.

For example, Pope Benedict XVI's real name is Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. Scramble the letters and spell the longest word, you get "respiritualizes."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) = Rigmarole (hassle).

Jesus of Nazarus = Aeronauts, authoress, fasteners, fourteens, hasteners, southerns, and nauseates. (so that's why preachers have southern accents).

William Jefferson Clinton (President) = Nonlinearities

Sandra Mason (president of Bahamas) = Madonnas.

Barham = brahma (bull), first name of leader of Iraq.

Barham Salih = malarias, marshall (full name of leader of Iraq).

Popeye the sailorman = hyperemotional

Spiderman = sprained, admires, aspired, damners, diapers, marines, praised, reminds, sidearm

Mister Green Jeans (of Captain Kangaroo) = mastersinger, reassignment

Captain Kangaroo = cartooning, partaking

Elvira Mistress of the Dark = semiterrestrial, deteriorative, overestimated

Ronald Wilson Reagan (three names each have 6 letters.....the 666 president) = Landownings, nonrailroad (seems like mammon or ranch)

Ronald Reagan = rangeland (seems like ranch)

Joseph Robinette Biden = Periodontist, repositioned, pretensioned

Adam and Eve = amended

Moses of Goshen = Hognoses, mongooses, someones.

Newt Leroy Gingrich = nitroglycerine

Donald John Trump = photomural, protohuman (primate resembling a human)

John Ellis Bush (aka Jeb) = insolubles, jolliness, bullions

Condoleeza Rice = recolonized

omicron (mutation of covid) = moronic (uses all of the letters). This is why it is called the moronic virus.

my real name = overcorrection, rhetoric (I talk too much....on that note, I'll quit for now)

I like anagrams, too, and have collected quite a few over the years, some of which you might like. You can tell by the names how old this is. I apologize if there are any redundancies. They all use all letters:

Princess Diana = Ascend in Paris
Tonya Harding = Grand hit on ya
Clint Eastwood = Old west action.
Whitney Houston = Shut it now, honey
Pat Robertson = Not pro-breast
Britney Spears = Bray, siren pest!
Charles Manson = Slasher con man
George W. Bush = He grew bogus, He bugs Gore



Marriage = A grim era.

Mother-in-law = Woman Hitler.

Desperation = A rope ends it.

Schoolmaster = The classroom

Dormitory = Dirty Room

Television = Evil on site.

Conversation = Voices Rant On

Snooze alarms: Alas, no more Z's!

Vacation Times: I'm not as active.

Slot Machines = Cash Lost in'em

Debit card = Bad Credit

The Country Side = No City Dust Here

Indira Gandhi = Hi, grand India.

Nelson Mandela = Lean and solemn.

A Gentleman = Elegant Man

Evangelist = Evil's agent.

Presbyterian = Best In Prayer (also, Britney Spears = Presbyterians)

New York Times = Monkeys Write

Salman Rushdie = Read, Shun Islam

David Letterman = Nerd Amid Late TV

Jim Morrison = Mr. Mojo risin'

The Hilton = Hint: Hotel

The Morse code: Here come dots.

Western Union = No Wire Unsent

Eleven plus two = Twelve plus one

Year Two Thousand = A Year to Shut Down

A Decimal Point = I'm a Dot in Place

Astronomer = Moon starer.

"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Neil A. Armstrong = A thin man ran; makes a large stride; left planet, pins flag on moon! On to Mars!

To be or not to be: that is the question, whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. = In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten.

Twenty thousand leagues under the sea = Huge water tale stuns. End had you tense.

Raiders of the Lost Ark = Ford, the Real Star, is OK

Clint Eastwood = Old West action.

Ronald Wilson Reagan = No, darlings, no ERA law

Ronald Reagan = A darn long era

Allied Force = Oil-led farce

World Trade Center = Lewd Terror Act; End.

The Florida Vote Recount = Done To Cover Their Fault

Election results = Lies! Let’s recount

Saddam Hussein = Humans' sad side.

Impeach Clinton = Let Monica pinch = Point: cancel him = Then clip Monica

President Clinton of the USA = To copulate he finds interns

Monica Lewinsky = Nice silky woman = We May Lock in Sin

The Democratic Party = Pretty chaotic dream.

The United States of America: Attaineth its cause, Freedom!

Statue of Liberty = Built to Stay Free

The United States Bureau of Fisheries = I Raise the Bass to Feed Us in the Future

The Public Art Galleries = Large Picture Halls, I Bet

Houses of Parliaments: Loonies far up Thames.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

If he's a skeptic and a skilled critical thinker, he'll reject any claim that isn't sufficiently evidenced. Jesus died should be changed to, "There was probably a person very closely fitting the description of an itinerant Hebrew rabbi named Jesus, who died." That's something most skeptics can concede.

Also, that if he existed and died, that was buried is fairly likely to be the case as well, although the crucified body might have been disposed of in any way the Romans considered fit, including cremation and just being left somewhere to be eaten by scavengers.

But neither of these can be called fact, just likely or reasonably likely. I think you consider them facts rather than likely to be true. That's where the faith-based thinker and critical thinker part ways.

If Jesus existed, died, and was buried, there is no reason to believe that if the tomb in question was the right tomb, and that it was found empty, that that was because of resurrection. The testimony of those claiming to have seen the risen Jesus is not good evidence for resurrection. There are other possibilities that more consistent with what we know can and does happen. People misunderstand what they see or consider a lie for good reasons acceptable. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe this extremely influential church father:

• "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

Likeliest alternative explanation - a man named Jesus wandered the Levant with an entourage of disciples preaching Jewish fundamentalism, ran into trouble with the local authorities and was executed, the fate of his body was not well documented, that there was no resurrection, and a legend grew about all of this over time that become of interest to Paul, who chose to make a religion out of it, and Constantine, who promoted it at the point of a sword, as have crusaders, conquistadores, and missionaries since, leading to a world religion.

You seem to think that this could not have happened, that it has been ruled out by something that elevates the supernatural explanation from the least likely, where it remains with most skeptics, to all but certain.

 

[leroy]

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.

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.


Suit yourself.


"The best" out of what others?

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

Again you are expected to provide your own alternative explanation.

Fact.
Multiple sources claim that Jesus died on the cross.

What alternative explanation do you offer and why is that explanation better than mine?


I

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again you are expected to provide your own alternative explanation.

Why do you keep phrasing what you want in the passive voice?

Fact.
Multiple sources claim that Jesus died on the cross.

What alternative explanation do you offer and why is that explanation better than mine?


I

Again: let's not put the cart before the horse. It's premature to hypothesize causes for what happened before we have a clear picture of what happened.

What facts about what happened do you think have been established, and what do you see as the support for them?

You haven't even made a real case yet for why we should assume Jesus was executed, so I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you want me to just take as given that a boatload of claims about Jesus's execution are necessarily correct.

 

[leroy]

Why do you keep phrasing what you want in the passive voice?


Again: let's not put the cart before the horse. It's premature to hypothesize causes for what happened before we have a clear picture of what happened.

What facts about what happened do you think have been established, and what do you see as the support for them?

You haven't even made a real case yet for why we should assume Jesus was executed, so I think you're getting ahead of yourself if you want me to just take as given that a boatload of claims about Jesus's execution are necessarily correct.

The only claim / fact that we are taking as a given is that there are many sources that claim that Jesus died on the cross. (Which is a fact that we both agree with)

All i am asking is what is the best explanation for that fact

My suggestion is that Jesus died on the cross, this explains why we have so many sources describing such event

If you have an alternative explanation for feel free to share it.