Miracles and their trustworthiness

[drakim]

Illusions of magic have become popular these days. Who doesn't know about David Copperfield?

The thing I always found facinating about these tricks was that they weren't technological very impressive. I remember learning that the "teleport" trick simply involved twins. The more you know!

So how does this connect to miracles?

Well, say that I claim to be able to heal people by touching them with my hands. To prove this, I promptly go over to a blind beggar, put my hands over his eyes, and then tell him to stand up and see. He beggar stands up, and declares that he can see. I then go over to a man lying in the street, with lots of blood on his face and body. I put my hand on him, and tell him to stand up and be healthy. He stands up, saying his wounds are gone. After having the blood washed away, people can see that underneath the blood are no wounds, just healthy skin.

Do you think such an experience would convince the people (more specifically, people 2000 years ago) around me that I posses healing powers? I personally think it would.

Yet, all I would need to do would be to have two assistants play the roles of the blind beggar and the wounded man. My first assistant would simply just pretend to be blind, sitting there an day in advance begging for money. My second assistant would simply have smeared some animal blood on his body to appear wounded. No advanced technology needed, just some clever planning.

But is this possible for more spectacular miracles, such as an resurrection?

Still, I think it would be pretty simple. You'd have people sneak in and steal the corpse, and then have other people claim that they saw a bright light and the person in question arising from the dead. People would rush to the grave, finding it empty. You have tons of assistants claiming to have met the resurrected person, but they then insist he acceded to heaven, so people can't see him anymore. Do you think people will fall for this? I do.

I think you see where I'm going with this. The fact that the miracles described in the Bible is not even written by witnesses, but by authors who heard from somebody who heard from somebody who heard from somebody, about 70-200 years after the miracle happened, does not strengthen the case for the miracles. As I've demonstrated, it's quite easy to stage a fake miracle that people would believe, but we aren't even allowed to see for ourselves!

It's by this criteria that I've personally decided that the miracles described in the Bible cannot be trusted as things that actually happened. It would simply be too easy to fake something like this, so it's simply not trustworthy.

[Paul A. Kaiser]

My little "unregenerate God hater"...

You've been busy... Just got back from vacation and preparing for our podcast and church tomorrow.

Give me a few days and I'll get caught up!

[drakim]

Feb 28, 2009 22:32:47 GMT -5 Paul A. Kaiser said:

My little "unregenerate God hater"... ;)

Now you are just starting to sound creepy. D:

I'm not getting into any black vans :o

You've been busy... :D Just got back from vacation and preparing for our podcast and church tomorrow.

Give me a few days and I'll get caught up! 8-)

Great.

[Paul A. Kaiser]

Sorry for the delays...

Spent much time this week getting my Hot Dog Cart licensed and ready for business.

www.fatdaddysfranks.com

I haven't forgotten you...

[drakim]

That's awesome! I wish you best of luck in your business.

[reformeddogmatist]

"As I've demonstrated, it's quite easy to stage a fake miracle that people would believe, but we aren't even allowed to see for ourselves!"

"It's by this criteria that I've personally decided that the miracles described in the Bible cannot be trusted as things that actually happened. It would simply be too easy to fake something like this, so it's simply not trustworthy. "

The atheistic point of view is going to negate the possibility of miracles or happening in the first and no amount of "evidence" can convince an atheist if the atheist is to be consistent with his first principles, namely, that there is no God, so of courser you will always explain them in your naturalistic framework. The first step, instead of positing hypothetical situations where a miracle could be seen as a fraud would be to see whether they are possible. In a Christian framework they are. Since they are possible, and since the inerrant and authoritative Scriptures are the axiomatic presupposition of the Christian, the Christian believe that such things as the feeding of the 5,000 actually happened because the source of such information is from the God of truth that cannot lie. Based on your criteria, the hypothetical situations could go to a large degree, but that is because it is based on an epistemology that is antithetical to Christian Faith.

[drakim]

Apr 1, 2009 15:13:31 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

"As I've demonstrated, it's quite easy to stage a fake miracle that people would believe, but we aren't even allowed to see for ourselves!"

"It's by this criteria that I've personally decided that the miracles described in the Bible cannot be trusted as things that actually happened. It would simply be too easy to fake something like this, so it's simply not trustworthy. "

The atheistic point of view is going to negate the possibility of miracles or happening in the first and no amount of "evidence" can convince an atheist if the atheist is to be consistent with his first principles, namely, that there is no God, so of courser you will always explain them in your naturalistic framework. The first step, instead of positing hypothetical situations where a miracle could be seen as a fraud would be to see whether they are possible. In a Christian framework they are. Since they are possible, and since the inerrant and authoritative Scriptures are the axiomatic presupposition of the Christian, the Christian believe that such things as the feeding of the 5,000 actually happened because the source of such information is from the God of truth that cannot lie. Based on your criteria, the hypothetical situations could go to a large degree, but that is because it is based on an epistemology that is antithetical to Christian Faith.

But you are assuming that the Christian point of view should be the the "default" one. If we are going to argue like that, then the argument is over before it even started.

My point was that miracles are quite easy to fake. And thus they are not a strong enough argument to convince people of the Christian faith.

There are, however, miracles which cannot be faked. Splitting a sea for example. But these kinds of miracles don't happen in recent times where we can see them, only in the old testament.

As for my atheistic viewpoint, you must understand that even though I'm an atheist, I would be convinced if there was a miracle which I could verify as God's work.

[reformeddogmatist]

And is skepticism the "default" epistemology? Or merely they one "you have personally decided"?

As an atheist, is it possible for you to believe that miracles happen? Miracles without a God? That is my question. Atheists are always trying to naturalize the miracles of Scripture (indeed, not only atheists. German higher criticism did much of the same thing) and this is natural since your presupposition is "there is no God". It would be folly then to speak of a miracle when one has already stated that God does not exist.

[drakim]

Apr 2, 2009 22:35:25 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

And is skepticism the "default" epistemology? Or merely they one "you have personally decided"?

Yes, it's the one I've personally reasoned my way to. There are many ideas out there in the marketplace of ideas, so to not be skeptical would be to simply take the first idea you see and accept it as true.(which is what a lot of religios people do when they stick with the religion of their parents)

As an atheist, is it possible for you to believe that miracles happen? Miracles without a God?

Miracles without God? Nah, I would call that magic or something like that, but not miracles.

That is my question. Atheists are always trying to naturalize the miracles of Scripture (indeed, not only atheists. German higher criticism did much of the same thing) and this is natural since your presupposition is "there is no God".

No, it's mainly because I do not throw the laws of logic and physics out of the window at the first word of somebody breaking them. And neither do you (unless it's for your own religion) in everyday life.

If somebody claims that somebody rose from the dead, then I want more than their word for it. Or as you saying I'm close minded for not accepting all claims by all men and gods alike?

It would be folly then to speak of a miracle when one has already stated that God does not exist.

No it would not. Many people say that they became believers when they experienced a miracle.

[reformeddogmatist]

Yes, I grant that you "reasoned" your way to Skepticism, but my question is whether this is what people "default" to? It would seem not if statistics had anything to do with determining it. I posted (perhaps not in this thread) about how logical consistency is the procedure whereby we can know whether a system can give us truth, so no, I do not just accept "the first idea you see and accept it as true". I am pleased to have met someone who has risen to such a place of enlightenment- moving past the dogma of parents, shunning the light of God's Word, rebelling against God's precepts.

You wrote:
"Miracles without God? Nah, I would call that magic or something like that, but not miracles."

I said:
It would be folly then to speak of a miracle when one has already stated that God does not exist.

You wrote:
No it would not. Many people say that they became believers when they experienced a miracle.

You already granted that miracles were impossible without God and that such would be viewed as "magic". To put what you are saying in a syllogism would be something like this:

Premise: Miracles are only possible if God exists.
Premise: God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore miracles are impossible

To say as you do that "there is no God" but then to say "a miracle would persuade me that God exists" is inconsistent with your worldview. Miracles are impossible in your belief system, therefore there can be no miracle to convince you of God's existence. Whether or not people say they became a believer over such and such a miracle does not prove anything to be constructive in what you have said; it only proves that the atheist was inconsistent.

[drakim]

Apr 3, 2009 23:24:27 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

Yes, I grant that you "reasoned" your way to Skepticism, but my question is whether this is what people "default" to? It would seem not if statistics had anything to do with determining it. I posted (perhaps not in this thread) about how logical consistency is the procedure whereby we can know whether a system can give us truth, so no, I do not just accept "the first idea you see and accept it as true". I am pleased to have met someone who has risen to such a place of enlightenment- moving past the dogma of parents, shunning the light of God's Word, rebelling against God's precepts.

You wrote:
"Miracles without God? Nah, I would call that magic or something like that, but not miracles."

I said:
It would be folly then to speak of a miracle when one has already stated that God does not exist.

You wrote:
No it would not. Many people say that they became believers when they experienced a miracle.

You already granted that miracles were impossible without God and that such would be viewed as "magic". To put what you are saying in a syllogism would be something like this:

Premise: Miracles are only possible if God exists.
Premise: God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore miracles are impossible

To say as you do that "there is no God" but then to say "a miracle would persuade me that God exists" is inconsistent with your worldview. Miracles are impossible in your belief system, therefore there can be no miracle to convince you of God's existence. Whether or not people say they became a believer over such and such a miracle does not prove anything to be constructive in what you have said; it only proves that the atheist was inconsistent.

OH. now I see what you are arguing. Well, there is one small detail you have wrong, which might change it.

My stance isn't actually "God doesn't exist". I don't claim to have such knowledge.

Instead, my claim is:
"as far as I know, God doesn't exist"
or
"It seems unlikely God exists"
or
"I've yet to see a good argument for God, and I feel that not beliving in him is a better default stance"
or something like that.

So, as you see, a miracle would very much change my position. I am not sitting on evidence of God's nonexistance or something like that. I am simply waiting for evidence for God's existance to pop up, and I've yet to see some.

The reason I call myself an atheist is because I truly think that's the default position (talking about weak atheism here, the lack of belief in God, not the strong belief that he doesn't exist).

[reformeddogmatist]

Ah, that is a concession on your part. Your signature is evidence of such as well as your past statements. Very well. You have at the very least avoided a blunder.

I do not believe Atheism is a default position since I do not believe man is born with a blank mind. I will start a thread on this later when I have a bit more time. I know getting into that will take quite a while.

[drakim]

Apr 5, 2009 20:40:18 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

Ah, that is a concession on your part. Your signature is evidence of such as well as your past statements. Very well. You have at the very least avoided a blunder.

Well, my signature is just a joke really. >_>

However, one could argue that it's entirely possible to be strongly in favor of disbelief in God simply based on lack of evidence for God's existance rather than evidence for his non-existance, to the point where one shouts it out loud.

I do not believe Atheism is a default position since I do not believe man is born with a blank mind. I will start a thread on this later when I have a bit more time. I know getting into that will take quite a while.

Man does indeed not have a blank mind (would a blank mind even be capable of learning?), but I don't think that the starting instincts includes anything about a God. I don't think it even has a real grasp on time and what it means to be created or destroyed. For a baby, things simple "are" until he/she gains a better understanding of his/her surroundings (on an empirical experience based growth, not simply knowledge that pops into existance).

[reformeddogmatist]

As soon as you shout it out as a statement you have committed a fallacy.

No, you are right; a blank mind would not be capable of learning. Starting instincts? Well, there would be no way of you knowing how much a baby thinks or understands, but based on a Christian epistemology, one could deduce a bit. How do you know that for a baby "things simply "are""? How do you know that the child learns through an empirical based ground? Say, are you really a skeptic, or do you switch between epistemologies as it suits you?

[drakim]

Apr 6, 2009 16:06:33 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

As soon as you shout it out as a statement you have committed a fallacy.
No, you are right; a blank mind would not be capable of learning. Starting instincts? Well, there would be no way of you knowing how much a baby thinks or understands, but based on a Christian epistemology, one could deduce a bit. How do you know that for a baby "things simply "are""? How do you know that the child learns through an empirical based ground? Say, are you really a skeptic, or do you switch between epistemologies as it suits you?

Only in the perceived context you apply to me.

One problem with these forums is that there can often be a day or two between I've posted twice in a single topic. Thus, my choice of words might not be consistent, because the posts aren't the result of a single train of thought, but me approaching the subject anew. If you find something to not quite make sense, please do tell, and I'll try to clear it up.

As for the baby business, I wasn't really making a claim, just reflecting. Nobody knows what goes on in a baby's head. But from my experience with dealing with babies, they don't seem to deal with things in the same manner as we do.