I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

Miracle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline [appears] tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]Your example of an atheism-refuting miracle is appropriate. I, for one, would be convinced, that there is someone/something behind the curtain, after all.

Since we have zero precedent or allegations about the nerdy kid version (besides jokes and speculations), whilst we do have allegations and claims stubbornly supported and handed down to us by our ancestors, i.e. the proper God versions, it would be more likely that a proper God is at work rather than the nerdy kid.

Now, why would the miracle have to be the work of the Christian God and not some other, out-of-fashion deity, such as Zoroastre ?

Mickey Brausch

Re: Miracle
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now, why would the miracle have to be the work of the Christian God and not some other, out-of-fashion deity, such as Zoroastre ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. You take Zoroastre, others go for Jupiter and DS sticks with the kid. Dawkins probably says we'll find the natural cause in a generation or two.

Now what?

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

What do you want us to say? This event would eliminate metaphysical naturalism from the sane population. Beyond that, what conclusions could possibly be drawn?

If only the Zoroastrians had been regenerated, things would be quite different.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

Just to be clear, I don't think the kid is more likely than God. I think all of the possible explanations combined is more likely than one very specific definition of God.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a pretty hardcore athiest. If this were to happen, I'd have to admit in some sort of higher power. Of course this event would prove nothing specific about that power, so any claims of one religion over another would still be ridiculous.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]
Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a pretty hardcore athiest. If this were to happen, I'd have to admit in some sort of higher power. Of course this event would prove nothing specific about that power, so any claims of one religion over another would still be ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify my post, the "higher power" simply means that there is a power "higher" than humans that managed to do this "miracle." It does not necesitate a god. As far as I'm concerned it would just as likely be a higly advanced alien race.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

I think I would be dumbfounded and start thinking about how it would affect the movement of the stock market the following week.

PairTheBoard

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

You are assuming a lot. Apart from the sheer absurdity of a personal God, Dawkins et al make their case against any God on the complete lack of evidence of any such thing in our universe. How many times does a hypothesis have to be rejected before we realize that the thinking behind it might be causing the flawed hypotheses in the first place? They (and I) further make the case that the universe and all events of history look exactly like what you'd expect if there wasn't any kind of super force who intervened in the universe.

I think if there was evidence of an event even 1/1000th as incredible as what you describe, the vast majority of atheists would seriously reconsider there position. I for one am not closed to the possibility of a "greater force" coming from a spiritual dimension. And if a thousand people saw fairies in a park I would reconsider my position on that idea too.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.


[/ QUOTE ]
Is that another one of your jokes? or is that your considered opinion?

chez

Re: Miracle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since we have zero precedent or allegations about the nerdy kid version (besides jokes and speculations), whilst we do have allegations and claims stubbornly supported and handed down to us by our ancestors, i.e. the proper God versions, it would be more likely that a proper God is at work rather than the nerdy kid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, nothing could be clearer evidence of the brain in vat theory. Don't have to grow all those pesky limbs or a simulation, just change the inputs to the brain.

or its a kid, or its god, or its ... whatever takes your fancy.

or maybe not.

chez

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

I enjoy Notready's insistence on belittling Hawkins and making assumptions about how he thinks... while admitting he's never read any of his books.

It just gets better and better.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

If something like this were to happen, I would believe that there is a higher power somewhere out there who is capable of allowing amputees to regrow lost limbs. I'd assume that he'd also have other powers as well, but anything beyond the fact that he can "re-grow limbs" would be purely conjecture on my part.

Is this the answer you were looking for?

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

If something like this happens... many who rely on evidence would reassess their views.

But we never see something like this happen. And though it will never happen, the views of those who choose to believe will never change.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist, but if this happened, my entire world view would change. I would consider the existence of a higher power as the most likely explanation, while continually searching for a logical scientific one. However, I would definitely not ascribe this miracle to the Christian god, and in fact it would make me even less likely to believe in his existence. It would be far, far more likely that there is some higher power which no major religion has right.

Edit: Contrast this with hardcore believers, whose world views never can change.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

Why resort to this hypothetical at all? Why not rebut Dawkins based on the world as it actually is? In particular, why not cite all the well-documented miracles and phenomena which can't possibly be explained by naturalism?

Oh, right, because there aren't any. Carry on.

Re: Miracle
 

I think it's a very valid question...

Suppose this would be enough to convince it was the work of God (as I think it would), and not a nerdy 6th dimensional kid. Now what should cause me to believe this was the work of the Christian God and not Allah?

It's a serious question. So while I (and many others), would believe in God now, how would you council us at knowing which one? And can I turn your question on you?...

Suppose the name Mohamed were inscribed on every regrown limb. Would this now cause you to change your faith? Or would you just say it was a trick of the devil?

Re: Miracle
 

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose the name Mohamed were inscribed on every regrown limb. Would this now cause you to change your faith? Or would you just say it was a trick of the devil?


[/ QUOTE ]

A fair question. Biblical miracles always occurred accompanied by God's Word (I can't think of any exceptions). So if something like I described occurred with no message I would have no explanation for it.

And that's part of the reason for my OP. Atheists keep asking for a miracle, DS says even proof of a real magic event will do. But the examples in the Bible and the posts here indicate that miracles don't do what people think they do. I believe that anyone who is convinced by a miracle would have been convinced anyway.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is that another one of your jokes? or is that your considered opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain many scientists (and others) would say that. Or whatever. Anything but God.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is that another one of your jokes? or is that your considered opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain many scientists (and others) would say that. Or whatever. Anything but God.

[/ QUOTE ]
So any reason to make that claim about Dawkins?

chez

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would not need to "readjust" anything. Rational people would infer only that which the evidence warrants, as they do now, so the process would not change. As new evidence is found or new observations are made, previous theories are modified or discarded. That IS, as you say, the "rhetoric."

We could not really say what could be rationally inferred from the dramatic evidence you pose, without knowing the details. One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God. It is impossible, even in principle, for there to be evidence for a thing which is hopelessly mired in contradictions and absurdities.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God. It is impossible, even in principle, for there to be evidence for a thing which is hopelessly mired in contradictions and absurdities.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this event did happen, it would interesting to see how, around the world, everyone took it as proof that their God exists.

ie- everyone who believes in a God would, I'd bet, believe it reinforces their particular religion.

So,... nothing changes for the theists as well.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They would not need to "readjust" anything. Rational people would infer only that which the evidence warrants, as they do now, so the process would not change. As new evidence is found or new observations are made, previous theories are modified or discarded. That IS, as you say, the "rhetoric."

[/ QUOTE ]
That's right. It would be evidence of intervention and as its highly unlikely that man currently has the ability to interven this way it would be likely that something with much greater abilities has intervened.

Anything else would be pure speculation unless as Lestat suggests they sign their work.

chez

Re: Miracle
 

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists keep asking for a miracle, DS says even proof of a real magic event will do. But the examples in the Bible and the posts here indicate that miracles don't do what people think they do. I believe that anyone who is convinced by a miracle would have been convinced anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we reading the same thread? Almost all the non-believers here have specifically said they would probably believe in a God if this happened. Thus, miracles do indeed do what people think they do.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]

So any reason to make that claim about Dawkins?


[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty. But Dawkins is a placeholder, the self-appointed representative of atheism. He has become a symbol by his own choice. I could just say Dawkinsim from now on and maybe cut down on the number of posts that ask me why I hate him.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]

One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact point I wanted to make.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]

ie- everyone who believes in a God would, I'd bet, believe it reinforces their particular religion.

So,... nothing changes for the theists as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which raises the question, "Why do atheists bring up the issue of miracles at all?"

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which raises the question, "Why do atheists bring up the issue of miracles at all?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It doesn't raise the question. It more accurately shows that religious people require no evidence and, that the religious will use evidence that doesn't support their beliefs.

The reason that atheists bring up the lack of miracles in the world is because their absence contradicts the worldview as presented by the Bible which shatters much of its credibility.

the LACK of any such evidence doesn't stop the believers since they don't require evidence for their beliefs. Just the desire to believe.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]

The reason that atheists bring up the lack of miracles in the world is because their absence contradicts the worldview as presented by the Bible which shatters much of its credibility


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this thread shows why that's wrong.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

How so?

(1) No such evidence exists yet theists believe it anyways.
(2) Atheists admit that if miracles started happening, they would reassess their views in light of new evidence. But again... theists like yourself require no evidence. You believe what you want to believe despite evidence.

Again- atheists are willing to reassess their views with new evidence. You require no evidence.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact point I wanted to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you are both totally wrong. By far the biggest single argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that it postulates the possibility that supernatural events can occur. If it was ever shown that they could in fact occur that argument goes away.

Put mathematically it would go something like this:

A sceptic/atheist assigns the probability that there is a power capable of producing supernatural events as 1%. He assigns the probability of the Judeo/Christian god to be .3%

If a supernatural event occurs (that could reasonably be ascribed to the Judeo/Christian god), God moves up to a 5-2 shot.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

I'm the first to convert if you can throw in one of the following to announce the healing a day in advance:

1. Burning bush that talks
2. Giant figure in the night sky who talks
3. Booming dis-embodied voice that everyone hears regardless of language
4. A corpse who rises from the dead, preferably one that has to reanimate most of his/her body, and a sense of humor would be a bonus
5. A sea that parts when a guy with a beard and a fixation for unpleasant insects waves a stick

Thanks.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm the first to convert if you can throw in one of the following to announce the healing a day in advance:

1. Burning bush that talks
2. Giant figure in the night sky who talks
3. Booming dis-embodied voice that everyone hears regardless of language
4. A corpse who rises from the dead, preferably one that has to reanimate most of his/her body, and a sense of humor would be a bonus
5. A sea that parts when a guy with a beard and a fixation for unpleasant insects


[/ QUOTE ]

You're a better man than Pharoah.

BTW, how would you know it was God?

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]


Well you are both totally wrong. By far the biggest single argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that it postulates the possibility that supernatural events can occur. If it was ever shown that they could in fact occur that argument goes away.

Put mathematically it would go something like this:

A sceptic/atheist assigns the probability that there is a power capable of producing supernatural events as 1%. He assigns the probability of the Judeo/Christian god to be .3%

If a supernatural event occurs (that could reasonably be ascribed to the Judeo/Christian god), God moves up to a 5-2 shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

.3% is too generous David. OBV the probability goes up once the reality of supernatural events is confirmed, and it goes up A LOT . However, we definitely have to start smaller than that. The reason is the sheer number of gods throughout history PLUS the infinite number of possible gods who don't have their own holy books and religions. Sure, the Judeo-christian god gets a head start vs the flying spaghetti monster, because the people that thought up the FSM weren't serious and could only be right by complete accident and not error.

However, I'd like you to show that Yahweh is more likely than Anu, Odin, Aman Ra, Zeus, Vishnu etc.

I know your post was just an example to illustrate a point, however I'm still going to call you on this because I think in general you accord too much respect to the bible vis a vis other religious myths.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So any reason to make that claim about Dawkins?


[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty. But Dawkins is a placeholder, the self-appointed representative of atheism. He has become a symbol by his own choice. I could just say Dawkinsim from now on and maybe cut down on the number of posts that ask me why I hate him.

[/ QUOTE ]
You could just say Dawkinism but expect the same responses unless you can give some sort of reason why its anything to do with Dawkins. Otherwise why not call it Notreadyism?

chez

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

"So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that."

Reproduced without permission from The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
"So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like that."

Reproduced without permission from The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, NR already knew that Dawkins would consider this a miracle, because he is so well-versed in the views and opinions of the man.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

As Bluffthis says, I believe the ends justifies the means.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose this headline tomorrow with the following story:

[ QUOTE ]

Overnight every single human being on the planet who had lost an appendage, finger, toe, leg, arm, whatever, awoke to discover that all had been fully restored and are completely functional. Scientists and theologians alike are dumbfounded.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would this do any more for people like DS than convince them that the nerdy kid in Dimension #197a had been playing with his new toy, call in a Nimbus 2000 dimensionalizer and universator? He found the button that regrows human legs, etc. I don't see why it would even slow down Dawkins and Co. - they would just have to readjust their rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]
To bad that would never happen.

Re: I T \' S A M I R A C L E ! ! ! !
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One thing we could say, however, is that the "miracle" you describe could not be considered as evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.


[/ QUOTE ]

The exact point I wanted to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you are both totally wrong. By far the biggest single argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is that it postulates the possibility that supernatural events can occur. If it was ever shown that they could in fact occur that argument goes away.

Put mathematically it would go something like this:

A sceptic/atheist assigns the probability that there is a power capable of producing supernatural events as 1%. He assigns the probability of the Judeo/Christian god to be .3%

If a supernatural event occurs (that could reasonably be ascribed to the Judeo/Christian god), God moves up to a 5-2 shot.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't negate the idea that its not evidence for a Judeo-Christian god. Iamgine observing a poker player who consistently loses and its obvious they play very bad. They insist they are good and the only reason they lose is because god hates them gambling and intervenes miraculously to make them lose. Then the arm re-growing 'miracle' happens, even if its true that the probability of them being correct has risen there's still no evidence that they are losing because of god.

chez