I Am Innocent
 

I may not always meticulously explain myself. But I don't use circular reasoning.

First let me say that by "miracle" I basically mean an unusual event caused by supernatural intervention. The answering of a prayer to cure a disease, for instance. An unrigorous definition but one that should suffice here.

I am now going to make up a little story that I believe is analogous to where I am coming from.

Hugo is weak at math and physics. But he is a good statistician and investigator. One of the things he has found out is that ten percent of people lie, on purpose or not.

It is his job to check out two boasts from people. Those who say they flipped twenty heads in a row yesterday. And those who say they threw a baseball 102mph yesterday.
Three million people a year call him up regarding each of those claims. Since he has a hidden camera in everybody's house he can see whether they are telling the truth. (Of course lots of other people are trying, failing and not calling Hugo.)

Interestingly he finds that in both cases, 30 claims out of 3 million are true. In the coin case he should have been able to figure out why for himself. Because if thirty million people flipped a coin twenty times, about thirty would get all heads and about 3 million would say they did. (Twenty heads is a million to one shot.)

In the case of the baseball, he can now deduce that one in a million can throw it that hard.

Anyway he has statistically come to the conclusion that when someone makes the claim that they can do either one of those things there is a one in a hundred thousand chance it is true. Someone tells him about a claim in China and he makes it 100,000 to one. Someone tells him about a claim made in 1750 and it is 100,000 to one. As far as he is concerned.

Except that now he is also told that back in 1750 only one percent of people lied. If he knows enough math, he adjusts claims back then to 10,000 to 1 against.

Another time he should consider adjusting is if there are eyewitnesses. That's iffy because there may be trickery involved. Or collusion among the witnesses. But if it is on the up and up and the witnesses are independent, it would mean that seven witnesses, each ten percent to be a liar, plus the practitioner, all vouching for either feat, would mean that he could LAY ODDS that it DID happen. Do you see why?

Hugo also gets millions of boasts that someone got 50 heads is a row. He also gets millions of boasts that someone threw a ball at twice the speed of light. They never pan out. When he hears claims that someone did these things 2000 years ago he dismisses them. His statistical frequency is zero out of many million. So at BEST a random personal claim is maybe a million to one underdog. (At least ten million to one among all attempts.) Given a ten percent lying frequency. But if there were twenty independent witnesses he wouldn't know what to think. Because his statistics doesn't tell him how much rarer than ten million to one it might be. We know of course that his statistics don't even begin to tell the story. In the first case because fifty heads is over a quadrillion to one. In the baseball case because on top of the statistical evidence we have the fact that physicists claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to exceed the speed of light. We are not relativity experts but we know that this claim has been statistically shown to be true uncountable times. So we know for a different reason that Hugo's statistics don't tell the whole story. And that even twenty independent witnesses, would do little to sway us.

The above story was not meant to rigorously prove anything. It was only to shed more light on my thought processes. Which in a nutshell revolves around claims of miracles. Whether it be the ressurection, God explicity answering prayers, or Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Millions of such claims have been made. Those that have been investigated are disproved or at least not confirmed. The statistical evidence is zero out of whatever. Other facts point to the true price being MUCH smaller than one in whatever. And the possibility that the price is zero. (That last sentence might make a mathmetician cringe but you know what I mean.)

But even if you don't add in corroborating evidence to the statistical evidence, it is clear that claims of miracles are statistically less than one over the number of claims investigated and debunked. So you can assign that probability, or smaller to a random claim. If there are other pieces of evidence that are usually reliable that argue for the claim you have to adjust accordingly.

The point is that my scepticism about miracles (Note: rigorously speaking, my points apply only to miracles CLAIMED. I can't really talk about miracles that happen in the middle of the desert that noone knows about) does NOT come from some arbitrary faith in physics or disbelief about God. It stems from studies about prayers, adventures of Houdini, tests of Einstein's theories, knowledge of how humans incorrectly believe in rushes or that they are not paralyaed when they are etc. Period.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

Try chopping at the roots, not at the branches:


Let the person who claims 'miracles' explain the concept. You will find they cannot do it. You will find that it's not knowledge, nor does it even try to.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

" Do you see why?"

What I see is that you are very overrated as a teacher. Keep posting all this for two years and I'll be back to make you look very foolish. Why not sooner? Because i have things to learn. But i'm sure you are wrong.

Chunwah.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

David, you realize the chance of you converting people that did not understand or believe in your point prior to reading this post is close to 0.1% right?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

David's chance of being right on this is far greater than that, even if his opposition is smarter.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

David,

Excellent.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]

First let me say that by "miracle" I basically mean an unusual event caused by supernatural intervention.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're leaving something out. My claims concerning miracles are those reported in the Bible. The reason is that all Biblical miracles are done in the context of God identifying Himself, revealing His will, authenticating His prophets and apostles. Though answered prayer may be considered a miracle it isn't a public event done on God's initiative to demonstrate His authority, and as with healing can often be explained through natural causes.

I know of no Biblical miracle that didn't have God's testimony to some human(s) that He was the one doing the miracle. In other words, miracles didn't just happen out of the blue - they were done with a purpose and were identified as God's activity, usually by God Himself. Pharoah knew who was causing the plagues, the people knew Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the apostles did their miracles in the name of Christ and by His authority. There was never a question about whether the event occurred and never a question about its source.

There is a story in the New Testament that is probably a parable about a rich man who died and was suffering in the afterlife. He asked Abraham to let him return to earth to warn his brothers. Abraham said that his brothers had Moses and the prophets (i.e., the Bible) and if they would not believe that they wouldn't believe if someone returned from the dead.

I know of no instance that God used a miracle to convert someone in the Bible. Even Paul's Damascus road experience wasn't a miracle per se, it was the appearance of Christ to Paul, which included communication identifying Him and telling Paul what he was supposed to do. But that was clearly an exceptional instance.

If you're sitting around waiting for a visitation from God, well, maybe He will grant it to you. If you're sitting around waiting for someone to flip heads 100 times in a row what difference will that make to you? You will run it through your Bayes' calculator and raise the probability of the supernatural 17% and maybe the existence of God 5% and maybe the truth of Christianity .03 %. God knows this. From the Bible He tells you you have enough evidence now. I don't think you're going to get an identifiable miracle and I don't think if would matter if you did.

Do you really think all your miracle calculating means anything? Aren't you just trying to convince yourself that you're reasonable to ignore the claims of God because He won't give you a miracle?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

"Do you really think all your miracle calculating means anything? Aren't you just trying to convince yourself that you're reasonable to ignore the claims of God because He won't give you a miracle?"

I'm not David but one would think his answers to your questions are "yes" to the first and "no" to the second. It's one thing for me to say so-called miracles are ridiculous, that they're either misreported, misunderstood or charlatanism. David is showing how logic and math can elucidate why miracles are likely or not likely to have happened and which ones are more likely than others. David looks at the claims of God not as an atheist or a theist but as a logician. He's often said that he's not really interested in a lot of the issues he discusses here, they kind of pick him when he sees logical fallacies or feels he has something to say as a logician that those closer to the issues may not see as clearly. That is, he's not trying to convince himself of anything, he's letting logic show him in which direction the truth is likely to lie (no pun intended).

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]

That is, he's not trying to convince himself of anything, he's letting logic show him in which direction the truth is likely to lie (no pun intended)


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right but he made the point two years ago, I made the point in my post not long after, and it just seems odd that he keeps harping on miracles and ignoring the difference between Biblical and extra-Biblical miracles.

At the very least you can't judge Biblical miracles without considering the reliability of the Bible on so many other issues. And if the Bible makes it clear why and when God normally causes miracles the whole Bayes' question is irrelevant, especially if you accept the Christian (and perhaps Jewish) doctrine that the canon is closed, even if his procedure is correct concerning extra-Biblical miracles.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

Summary

[ QUOTE ]
DS -
it is clear that claims of miracles are statistically less than one over the number of claims investigated and debunked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume his "claims of miracles" means "actually valid claimed miracles". So he has moved away from use of the term "probability" to the term "statistically less than", a somewhat vague formulation. I don't see much point in trying to make the phrase more precise for him because he will only start another thread with another long explanation for why he has been misunderstood yet again.

PairTheBoard

Re: I Am Innocent
 

"you can't judge Biblical miracles without considering the reliability of the Bible on so many other issues."

This I don't understand.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]

This I don't understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

A miracle reported in the Bible is different than a random report of a miracle. Nothing stated in the Bible as fact has ever been shown to be false. That alone is significant. There are also many arguments involving the nature of the Bible, how is was written, how it was preserved, it's accuracy concerning human nature, etc. To believe the miracles didn't happen you have to believe many of the writers were telling the truth about many facts that have been verified, that they wrote often in plain, simple, matter-of-fact style making observations that are accurate about many things, then out of the blue suddenly make up some events that they write about while other witnesses are still alive who could call them on their lies. None of that proves they happened, but it does mean they are not in the same class as undocumented, random miracles that have no apparent purpose and are not associated with God.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

Isn't it possible that they just believed they were telling the truth? Jesus wasn't where he was supposed to be, he was resurrected. Salt pillars were found in the area where Lot and his wife were exiting the scene, she was turned into a pillar.

Also, if the writers of the Bible were interested in presenting their religious point of view, they could very well have reported accurately about every-day events that were not particularly important to their religious proselytization, and miraculized a few things. The truth is that Jesus as not in the tomb; that he was resurrected is at question.

"Nothing stated in the Bible as fact has ever been shown to be false."

On the seventh day He rested?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This I don't understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

A miracle reported in the Bible is different than a random report of a miracle. Nothing stated in the Bible as fact has ever been shown to be false.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are differing, conflicting accounts of the same events in the Bible. Both cannot be correct. Therefore, at least some of the accounts in the Bible are false.

QED

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't it possible that they just believed they were telling the truth?


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't want to argue the substantive issue, just pointing out that Bible miracles are more credible than random, extra-Biblical miracles. Many would disagree which would lead to a more thorough discussion, but that's my main point.

[ QUOTE ]

On the seventh day He rested?


[/ QUOTE ]

Read in context with other passages referring to this most Bible scholars interpret that to mean that the creative work described in the first six days was complete. God's Sabbath rest is spoken of throughout Scripture, even the New Testament.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]

The above story was not meant to rigorously prove anything. It was only to shed more light on my thought processes. Which in a nutshell revolves around claims of miracles. Whether it be the ressurection, God explicity answering prayers, or Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Millions of such claims have been made. Those that have been investigated are disproved or at least not confirmed. The statistical evidence is zero out of whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, this is entirely and completely false as to fact.

Completely.

The problem with atheists is they think if such a claim were validated, there'd be some huge worldwide press a la some Hollywood picture and everyone would be all agog: finally!! proof!!

This is old hat. I mean really old, these things have been confirmed again and again by the most rigorous investigation by experts. And yeah, I can point you right at the so-called proof. But there is no proof because you will simply refuse to accept it, because you have already decided what "reality" is and what you will believe.

However, wasting my time for the twenty-gabillionth time on a message board:

1. go to Amazon,
2. order The Miracle Detective by Randall Sullivan
3. Read.

You know, I've told people myself they didn't have a right to an opinion about something when I knew how abysmally ignorant they were about whatever they were shooting their bazoos off about. David, sir, until you have read this book, or done some kind of open-minded research into a topic about which you obviously know next-to-nothing, I'd say.....

..it's your forum, you get to shoot off the old bazoo any way you want!

I can give you examples of investigated and confirmed healings of miraculous nature. But I'd have to write a whole book to explain how very rigorously they ARE investigated and how much an institution like the "modern" Catholic church, producing religious that don't believe in miracles, either, priding themselves on their intellectualism, really embarrassed when these things happen because the Church wants to appear as not a font of superstitious nonsense.

The doctors are atheists. Or many are until they start these exceptionally well-documented investigations.

David, when you have testimony from hospital personnel, doctors, nurses, when you have photographs of the body of a woman entirely covered in third degree burns, her flesh just burned away, doctors stating categorically she will be dead by morning - and when that woman within a few hours is completely healed, when the doctor says that simply by what we know about multiplication of cells the event was beyond natural law, you just can't support any statement that there have been no investigations that confirm miracuous healing.

When a guy has had his heart stopped for over two hours with no outside life support and comes back after his family's prayer for intercession with no trace of ill effect, no brain damage from lack of oxygen, when that event is well-documented and investigated and confirmed...

Read the book. Get back to me. Your facts are just incorrect.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The above story was not meant to rigorously prove anything. It was only to shed more light on my thought processes. Which in a nutshell revolves around claims of miracles. Whether it be the ressurection, God explicity answering prayers, or Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Millions of such claims have been made. Those that have been investigated are disproved or at least not confirmed. The statistical evidence is zero out of whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, this is entirely and completely false as to fact.

Completely.

The problem with atheists is they think if such a claim were validated, there'd be some huge worldwide press a la some Hollywood picture and everyone would be all agog: finally!! proof!!

This is old hat. I mean really old, these things have been confirmed again and again by the most rigorous investigation by experts. And yeah, I can point you right at the so-called proof. But there is no proof because you will simply refuse to accept it, because you have already decided what "reality" is and what you will believe.

However, wasting my time for the twenty-gabillionth time on a message board:

1. go to Amazon,
2. order The Miracle Detective by Randall Sullivan
3. Read.

You know, I've told people myself they didn't have a right to an opinion about something when I knew how abysmally ignorant they were about whatever they were shooting their bazoos off about. David, sir, until you have read this book, or done some kind of open-minded research into a topic about which you obviously know next-to-nothing, I'd say.....

..it's your forum, you get to shoot off the old bazoo any way you want!

I can give you examples of investigated and confirmed healings of miraculous nature. But I'd have to write a whole book to explain how very rigorously they ARE investigated and how much an institution like the "modern" Catholic church, producing religious that don't believe in miracles, either, priding themselves on their intellectualism, really embarrassed when these things happen because the Church wants to appear as not a font of superstitious nonsense.

The doctors are atheists. Or many are until they start these exceptionally well-documented investigations.

David, when you have testimony from hospital personnel, doctors, nurses, when you have photographs of the body of a woman entirely covered in third degree burns, her flesh just burned away, doctors stating categorically she will be dead by morning - and when that woman within a few hours is completely healed, when the doctor says that simply by what we know about multiplication of cells the event was beyond natural law, you just can't support any statement that there have been no investigations that confirm miracuous healing.

When a guy has had his heart stopped for over two hours with no outside life support and comes back after his family's prayer for intercession with no trace of ill effect, no brain damage from lack of oxygen, when that event is well-documented and investigated and confirmed...

Read the book. Get back to me. Your facts are just incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. If I read that one specific book then can I tell you you are full of [censored]? It might take me a while, but it might be worth it. I'm fairly positive none of my teachers have taught me about any sort of miracle treatment that we should be performing nor given any examples of rigorously demonstrated medical miracles. And I go to a Jesuit school! I'm certain many, many of my professors would love nothing more than to point to some miracle or other. And yet....no such luck. But its all in this book, right?

Without having read a single thing about this book, no synopsis, no review, nothing, can I predict how it will go? Hardened, cynical journalist (or maybe he is even a doctor or scientist) sets out to show how these miracles aren't what they say they are, intends to show how these miracles are propped up and what causes people to be deceived, and is the paragon of rationality. However, along the way, his hardened heart softens, and he has a religious experience of his own...to him! The cynic! How improbable! It is through this journey that he finally comes to God as is forced-forced!-to accept the truth...miracles really DO happen.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Without having read a single thing about this book, no synopsis, no review, nothing, can I predict how it will go? Hardened, cynical journalist (or maybe he is even a doctor or scientist) sets out to show how these miracles aren't what they say they are, intends to show how these miracles are propped up and what causes people to be deceived, and is the paragon of rationality. However, along the way, his hardened heart softens, and he has a religious experience of his own...to him! The cynic! How improbable! It is through this journey that he finally comes to God as is forced-forced!-to accept the truth...miracles really DO happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there is no God? Or that lying works?

So, you knew nothing about the book? Except what was easily obtainable from Amazon. Because you only got that part right, and you got everything NOT on Amazon: wrong.

Now, stop shooting off your bazoo and read, cover-to-cover. Though facts are apparently wasted on you at this age. That's OK, you'll grow out of it.


(PS: the giveaway was journalist even though you tried to cover - should have stuck with scientist but you couldn't resist trying to prove how smart you are. Get better at deception, you'll need that skill at the tables. Part of that is: don't treat your opponents as if they are stupid.

BTDT.)

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The above story was not meant to rigorously prove anything. It was only to shed more light on my thought processes. Which in a nutshell revolves around claims of miracles. Whether it be the ressurection, God explicity answering prayers, or Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Millions of such claims have been made. Those that have been investigated are disproved or at least not confirmed. The statistical evidence is zero out of whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, this is entirely and completely false as to fact.

Completely

[/ QUOTE ]

If what you say is true, than Biblical miracles were reasonably likely to have happened. But whether miracles occur nowadays is not a subject that I claim expertise in. Nor was it the subject of my post.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without having read a single thing about this book, no synopsis, no review, nothing, can I predict how it will go? Hardened, cynical journalist (or maybe he is even a doctor or scientist) sets out to show how these miracles aren't what they say they are, intends to show how these miracles are propped up and what causes people to be deceived, and is the paragon of rationality. However, along the way, his hardened heart softens, and he has a religious experience of his own...to him! The cynic! How improbable! It is through this journey that he finally comes to God as is forced-forced!-to accept the truth...miracles really DO happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think there is no God? Or that lying works?

So, you knew nothing about the book? Except what was easily obtainable from Amazon. Because you only got that part right, and you got everything NOT on Amazon: wrong.

Now, stop shooting off your bazoo and read, cover-to-cover. Though facts are apparently wasted on you at this age. That's OK, you'll grow out of it.


(PS: the giveaway was journalist even though you tried to cover - should have stuck with scientist but you couldn't resist trying to prove how smart you are. Get better at deception, you'll need that skill at the tables. Part of that is: don't treat your opponents as if they are stupid.

BTDT.)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, the funny part is you think I'm lying. Thats great, and proves my point far better than anything I could have done.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

1) If you are reading a book that makes an outrageous claim (I once knew a guy who had 39 heads and 4 arms! He lived till he was 175!), and there is no external evidence of this claim (the only proof of it is that the book says so), then it's still possible that the claim is true. However, it is orders of magnitude more likely that the author of the book was some combination of dishonest and deceiving, himself deceived, mistaken, minunderstood, speaking allegorically, or leveling you. Even if everything else written in the book "has never been proven false" (lol selective literal interpretationments). Does anyone disagree with this? If so, why don't you just go ahead and beleive 100% of what you read?

2) The claim that some guy rose from the dead is outrageous. So is the claim that some guy split a sea in half. And the fact that the book you read these claims in happens to be called the Bible (or maybe you read other outrageous claims in the Koran) doesn't change the above probabilities.

3) I (and DS) am not saying that these mircales didn't happen, but if you honestly had to set odds for their likelyhood, anyone who beleives they happened is probably more than a billion times too optimistic.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
If what you say is true, than Biblical miracles were reasonably likely to have happened. But whether miracles occur nowadays is not a subject that I claim expertise in. Nor was it the subject of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now, "Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich" is not one of the Gospel miracles I am familiar with. But OK, sticking with those in Scripture:

What I say is correct, in that matter and energy do act in ways that science says is impossible according to natural law and very often associated with the ... call it "spiritual expressed intentions" of human beings. These events are recorded worldwide and occur as often to a Hindu as Christian, or any other group you can define as "religious."

Does that mean Biblical miracles occurred? Which ones?

The Bible being discussed as if it were some integrated whole is so antithetical to arriving at any reasonable conclusions. Did the actions in Job actually occur? I doubt it, Job, like Jonah, is a play. Jonah a partial one.

Did the Red Sea part? Maybe Charleton Heston could do it, but it's unlikely God did - I admit God (tho' I do not claim to know what that is) could do it. But archeology and Biblical scholarship give us better answers.

Did Jesus heal the blind? I'm sure He did - not the least because of the story of the man who was healed twice which reflects the experience of persons in modern times who have acquired sight for the first time as adults.

I said I didn't know anything about math and boy, I was not kidding. I'm not sure how it works, using math to decide about these things, but I think at least, one must take each incident and look at it and decide just what kind of data it is before being able to assign it some place in an equation.

But then, I will agree, I don't know enough to even express half a math opinion.

-prax-

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) If you are reading a book that makes an outrageous claim (I once knew a guy who had 39 heads and 4 arms! He lived till he was 175!), and there is no external evidence of this claim ....

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are speaking to me, "external evidence" abounds. Read book. Get back to me.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

Are you famliar with the Fatima miracle of 1917? I'm curious, if you are, what your throughts are about that incident. Thanks.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you famliar with the Fatima miracle of 1917? I'm curious, if you are, what your throughts are about that incident. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the actual incident, appearance and attendant phenomena? Or the prophecies or healings or what? Not trying to be evasive, it's just a big topic, what specifically are you thinking of?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

Was anything that occurred a miracle? Did the little girl communicate with Mary? Did the sun do circles in the sky?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know of no Biblical miracle that didn't have God's testimony to some human(s) that He was the one doing the miracle. In other words, miracles didn't just happen out of the blue - they were done with a purpose and were identified as God's activity, usually by God Himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The New Testament is relatively silent in regards to the miracles the Apostles did after Jesus was crucified. We do find that these miracles were very important, however, to give credence to the message the Apostles were preaching.

[ QUOTE ]
I know of no instance that God used a miracle to convert someone in the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indirectly. Jesus & the Apostles after him performed miracles to gain credibility to the message they were preaching, and therefore to convert people into followers of Christ.

John 10:
================================================== ======
22| Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23| and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24| The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25| Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26| but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27| My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28| I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29| My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30| I and the Father are one."

31| Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32| but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33| "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34| Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35| If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36| what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37| Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38| But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39| Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
================================================== ======

John 14:
================================================== ======
6| Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7| If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8| Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9| Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10| Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11| Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
================================================== ======

2 Corinthians 12:
================================================== ======
11| I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "super-apostles," even though I am nothing. 12| The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.
================================================== ======

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]

Indirectly. Jesus & the Apostles after him performed miracles to gain credibility to the message they were preaching, and therefore to convert people into followers of Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course people should have believed when seeing the miracles. My point was, and you seem to agree, that the primary purpose of the miracles was to authenticate - Jesus as the Messiah, the apostles as having authority. Jesus criticized the Jews for seeking signs and the Greeks wisdom, though He also criticized those who saw the miracles and didn't believe. Given that general purpose of miracles in the Bible I don't think we can expect the same kind of miracle outside the Bible except when God makes an appearance, such as the Second Coming. Again, the Bible emphasizes that people ought to believe based on God's revelation in nature and in His Word.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was anything that occurred a miracle? Did the little girl communicate with Mary? Did the sun do circles in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've read the book I see!

The greatest proof of the miracle of the Sun is not what people say it did, but the fact that everyone stared at it for 10 minutes without going blind.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) If you are reading a book that makes an outrageous claim (I once knew a guy who had 39 heads and 4 arms! He lived till he was 175!), and there is no external evidence of this claim ....

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are speaking to me, "external evidence" abounds. Read book. Get back to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are definitely right that evidence changes probabilities. How about the ressurection? Got any evidence for that? Or just 1 book that says so?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah the difference between Biblical and extra-Biblical miracles blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

Cringe.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was anything that occurred a miracle? Did the little girl communicate with Mary? Did the sun do circles in the sky?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thing is, "miracle" isn't a word in my present vocabulary except to respond to others who use it. That's because most people mean something like "magic" when they use it. Anyway, I wasn't there. However:

The sun phenomenon has been reported by thousands of people. Did the actual central body of our solar system "dance?" My answer is no, otherwise millions would have seen it. Besides all the other issues related to that.

Did all these people experience a communication by way of light phenomena intentionally created for them by an individual outside of physical reality as we know it? Yeah, I believe that. Happens in many places with these kinds of apparitions. There were more living witnesses to the sun incident at Fatima than there are witnesses to a lot of events we believe as a culture: moon landings, for instance. Ben Franklin and the kite.

Was there communication in a very direct way between the seer and someone who has passed? As I said, I wasn't there, but why not? These things happen all the time to all sorts of people, can't see why this shouldn't be factual.

I'm trying to remember if it was at Fatima that they couldn't lift the children or move them during the apparition...I'm not an apparition expert, I always have to look them up. It's one of my favorite manifestations of the metaphysical. It's very simple and practical and well-documented.

At any rate, while I wouldn't just automatically accept every apparition or miracle story that comes along, this sort of thing doesn't seem very unusual to me. Not common, but not a big deal in terms of acceptance of the actuality of the event.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are definitely right that evidence changes probabilities. How about the ressurection? Got any evidence for that? Or just 1 book that says so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You think when bodies die the people in them cease to exist?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are definitely right that evidence changes probabilities. How about the ressurection? Got any evidence for that? Or just 1 book that says so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? You think when bodies die the people in them cease to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you are arguing this. I get your point. Your point is that sometimes extraordinary things happen and people call these miracles but you just think it's something not supernatural that we don't understand it yet.

My point doesn't conflict your point. My point is that you shouldn't beleive extraordinary claims without a very good reason to do so, and the fact that something is written in a book isn't a good enough reason (or at least apply this standard of beleif or non-beleif to all books, instead of just picking 1 book which you beleive that categorically everything in it is true, regardless of the claim).

I don't at all see how my point contradicts your point. IF these outrageous events occured in the first place, I can see how your line of thinking would suggest that there might be a scientific explanation for them. I'm just saying that smart people should assume that outrageous events didn't exist unless they have good reason to beleive so, and then if you decide that they probably existed, then go ahead and try to figure out if it is a miracle or a we-don't-know-what-it-is-acle.

And no, I'm not reading your book. I have like 30 books ahead of it on my to-read list.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
You think when bodies die the people in them cease to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think when all the trees are gone, the forest ceases to exist?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You think when bodies die the people in them cease to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

You think when all the trees are gone, the forest ceases to exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to figure out why a person would be charged with murder if nobody ceased to exist.

luckyme

Re: I Am Innocent
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that my scepticism about miracles (Note: rigorously speaking, my points apply only to miracles CLAIMED. I can't really talk about miracles that happen in the middle of the desert that noone knows about) does NOT come from some arbitrary faith in physics or disbelief about God. It stems from studies about prayers, adventures of Houdini, tests of Einstein's theories, knowledge of how humans incorrectly believe in rushes or that they are not paralyaed when they are etc. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Examined your beliefs for consistency lately, David?

Hint: when you end your claim with "period," that should suggest to you that a claim made beforehand was a leap of faith.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

This has nothing to do with what you wanted to talk about, but if Hugo takes a bet from someone who says they flipped 20 heads in a row, and that person is at least somewhat rational, Hugo's giving money away. This person won't bet on that he flipped 20 heads in a row unless he really did.

It's like this bet a friend offered me once, while we were playing in a home game, he said "I bet you $100 you have AQ" (as he folded his hand). Obviously if I took the bet, it was because I knew I was going to win it.

Btw, I agree with all the other stuff you said about miracles and double lightspeed hand thrown balls.

Re: I Am Innocent
 

What if it is my job to monitor those with Hugo's job? What is the likelihood that I experience your version of Hugo's story every single time with every single Hugo?

Re: I Am Innocent
 

It was evidently a sundog or a dust cloud.

I read both volumes. There's no science in either.