Is religion harmful?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But what about someone who says it's possible but very unlikely given what he knows? What can you do to convince him that it's more likely than he thinks?


[/ QUOTE ]

All I can do is what I've been doing on this forum - provide arguments, point to evidence, answer questions. The Bible says that God makes Himself known to all, that the heavens are telling of the glory of God, and many other passages. All I can do is remind someone of what they already know deep down. I can't overcome unbelief.

[ QUOTE ]

I was saying that if you only have one source


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't really just one source, it's a collection of many books written over a long period of time by many different authors. There are many reasons to trust it which are too numerous to go into here. Other sources are what I mentioned above - arguments, etc. I've never seen the relevance of the argument that there is disagreement over the Bible. If you read it you would expect disagreement as the Bible itself talks about that subject. If it's God's Word it will be true, and it promises that you can come to know the truth.

[ QUOTE ]

Many people don't want to know and don't want to hear you out. But what about people who are on the fence? What do you say to them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what I've been doing on this forum. And there are many, many resources that will help with specific problems. You think the Bible has errors? There are whole libraries that deal with that issue. You think the Bible contradicts science? Again, I don't think it does but to show that can require much serious investigation.

Up til now in this thread I've been trying to show that the naturalist explanation is inadequate and irrational. If you can see that you've already taken the first step to admitting the possibility of miracles (defined as God's special intervention in nature), if you admit that you've admitted to God, and so on. In the end it's a question of faith - I can't give that to anyone, but God can.

I believe the Bible as a system, a worldview, fits the facts of experience and history far more closely than any other worldview. I think only on the concepts in the Bible can reason, morality and science be justified - that any nontheistic worldview destroys the possibility of knowledge. No atheistic system can justify reason, etc.

[David Sklansky]

"My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident."

The evidence you cite makes deism reasonable. It is also evidence that would make the beliefs of monotheists plausible. If it wasn't for the fact that those monotheists are specifying very specific miracles that there is no good reason to believe actually happened.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

there is no good reason to believe actually happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about my syllogism?

[m_the0ry]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[Taraz]

First I want to thank you for your contributions to this forum. I realize that it's tough for a theist to come in here and express his views, but I think it's necessary for any of us to actually learn anything. I still might reply to your longer post, but I don't have time to really think about it right now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a HUGE concession. You're basically saying that one shouldn't reasonably believe in miracles until after they have acquired faith in God and the Bible.

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well. I would agree to a certain extent, but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mean it as a retort, exactly. I believe all humans act and think in a religious mode, that we are continually presented with the claims of God and continually are making decisions in the religious area. I believe that atheism is a form of faith, that humans can't exclude faith so long as their brain is operational. If you deny God there are some monstrous whoppers you must believe instead, and that requires much faith.

[ QUOTE ]

but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

At a minimum you must believe in the possibility of a personal God to believe in miracles as they are traditionally defined. I suppose it's possible for a miracle to be one link in a conversion process, but I think you won't believe something is a miracle unless you believe in God. I think the divinity of Jesus is an important doctrine and that all genuine Christians, who are the least bit diligent, will eventually acknowledge it, but I don't think it is initially necessary. I just don't think you can proceed very far in Christianity without accepting it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

It seems you are incorporating probability




I am?


[/ QUOTE ]


If I misunderstood, and you admit your beliefs have nothing to do with probabilities, then never mind.


[ QUOTE ]
Miracles don't occur. They are performed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was this quip just a filler to make your response look fuller? Once a miracle has been performed, it can be said to have , ocurred right? This type of stuff is going to make a liar out of me for saying you don't troll.


[ QUOTE ]
Faith is involved on both sides, but evidence is also involved. Can you admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I'll admit that. Absolutely. Without question. Our only problem is that we are worlds away for just how much weight such evidence should be given.

I make the odds of a sea actually ever spontaneously parting at 5 quintillion to 1. And... I'll concede that the bible is in fact evidence of this, and am willing to reduce those odds to about 4.9 quintillion to 1.

The thing is, starting at 5 quintillion to 1, I'm going to need something a little more weighty than a 2000 year old book written by mortal men, in order to persuade me this actually happened. But I'm telling right now that I don't think it's impossible. I definitely don't put the odds at zero.

[edit:] I define faith as something you believe "despite" insufficient evidence or evidence to the contrary. For instance, if I choose to believe my wife will be faithful in the future, despite her being unfaithful in the past, then I am placing my "faith" in her that she will be faithful from here on out. This is different than believing the light will go on when I flick the 'on' switch. That's not faith. That's a rational belief based on prior results and evidence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If I misunderstood


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to respond to your post in one piece so no more quotes.

The reason I said miracles are performed is to distinguish them from odd things happening through cause and effect, to underscore that it is God who does miracles rather than that they just happen. This matters because of the issue of probability - I constantly challenge DS on his use of probability concerning the existence of God and miracles because probability can only make sense in naturalistic terms, calculations performed on the basis of empiricism and natural law. It's absurd to try to apply that principle to God, the Creator, the Absolute, Supernatural Being who operates according to no man's probability estimates - it's ridiculous.

That I needed to do that is evident from your attempt to calculate the probability of a sea spontaneously separating - it didn't separate spontaneously, God separated it. Please give me the formula for calculating the probability that God will decide to part the Red Sea.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to respond to your post


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I had another thought on this. Bear with me cause I'm doing three things at once.

I can see using probability to determine the odds of something happening naturally, then if it's very unlikely, you might incline toward miracle.

The way I understand DS' use is that he questions the event in the first place on the basis of probability. If you grant the event occurred, fine, use probability to try to estimate the odds. But you can't use probability to determine whether it happened.