Is belief a choice?

[Justin108]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 150 by KingandPriest]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing correlation with causation[/center]

I saw a woman who had very swollen legs and could not walk. She came into service in a wheel chair. She was healed as a result of prayer and laying on of hands. I had the opportunity to speak to and interview the woman after the service. She described her legs as still feeling sore, but the swelling had gone down visibly and she could walk.

The next night, the woman came back to service walking normally. No swelling.

If that's supposed to be your "proof" of a miracle, you've missed an important step.

Here is the story as I understand it:

1. Woman comes into church with badly swollen legs.
2. Woman was prayed for.. and hands were laid on her.
3. Woman's legs got better.

Between 2 and 3... you claim that a miracle happened, that the CAUSE of her getting better was a miracle.. But how did you establish that a miracle happened?

Did you rule out all natural reasons for why she might have gotten better?

Why assume what you want to prove?
That's kind of useless, you know.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

I saw a woman who had very swollen legs and could not walk. She came into service in a wheel chair. She was healed as a result of prayer and laying on of hands. I had the opportunity to speak to and interview the woman after the service. She described her legs as still feeling sore, but the swelling had gone down visibly and she could walk.

The next night, the woman came back to service walking normally. No swelling.

When such things happen to non Christians are they miracles? Or just a symptom of the fact that sometimes people get better?

A few years ago my father was at death's door. He was then 80 years old, and on a respirator. One of his doctors suggested taking him off of the respirator and allowing him to pass. My brothers and I discussed the situation and decided to wait. My father subsequently improved and lived five more years. No one considered it a miracle. No prayer or laying of hands occurred. Sometimes people get better.

Sounds like you need to reread your bible. The bible does not say Paul was severely sick. In fact it says Paul saw his vision before he was struck with blindness.
"Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?�

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?�

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.�

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?�
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�

7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank."

And you are reading these passages as if they are a direct moment by moment eye witness account. Like watching scenes from a movie. But this story is not taken from an eyewitness account. One of the very few Christian traditions upon which there is widespread general agreement is that Acts of the Apostles was written by the same individual who wrote the Gospel According to Luke. The author of Acts very clearly was a close associate of Paul. But that occurred some years AFTER Paul made his famous journey to Damascus. The author of Acts was a personal witness to NONE of the events he has detailed as happening to Paul on the road to Damascus. The actual story could only have come from Paul himself. But you must remember, Paul was the afflicted man.

Acts 9:
7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

So did this really happen? According to Paul it did. But Paul was blind and confused at the time. He would be the LAST one to know what actually occurred.

This story represents Paul's version of events at a time when he was clearly very severely ill from dehydration and probably other physical ailments. Blind and delirious, and while being cared for and prayed over by a Christian man, this is the version of events as Paul believed they occurred after his recovery. They include Paul having a conversation with a dead man. Paul went three days without drinking during a portion of the period in question. Which explains the entire incident. After his recovery Paul genuinely believed that he had encountered Jesus, and the experience changed his life.
This does not lead us today to the inescapable conclusion that Paul ACTUALLY had a meeting with a dead man, however.

Even modern medicine has done numerous studies on the health benefits of fasting.
https://authoritynutrition.com/10-healt ... t-fasting/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/295914.php
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015 ... et-facts-f...
https://draxe.com/the-many-health-benefits-of-fasting/

So, I could actually argue Paul was healthier as a result of fasting for 3 days.

Fasting is not the problem. People can go weeks without eating. But they can only go days without drinking, especially in an arid desert environment, which the area around Damascus is.

Three days is generally considered the limit a person can go without water before death occurs. And the symptoms of severe dehydration are, among other things, blindness and hallucinations.

Wikipedia
Dehydration
"Dehydration", is thus a term that has loosely been used to mean loss of water, regardless of whether it is as water and solutes (mainly sodium) or free water. Those who refer to hypotonic dehydration therefore refer to solute loss and thus loss of intravascular volume but in the presence of exaggerated intravascular volume depletion for a given amount of total body water gain. It is true that neurological complications can occur in hypotonic and hypertonic states. The former can lead to seizures, while the latter can lead to osmotic cerebral edema upon rapid rehydration."

"For severe cases of dehydration where fainting, unconsciousness, or other severely inhibiting symptom is present (the patient is incapable of standing or thinking clearly), emergency attention is required. Fluids containing a proper balance of replacement electrolytes are given orally or intravenously with continuing assessment of electrolyte status; complete resolution is the norm in all but the most extreme cases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehydration

Wikipedia
Survival skills
Water
A human being can survive an average of three to five days without the intake of water. The issues presented by the need for water dictate that unnecessary water loss by perspiration be avoided in survival situations. The need for water increases with exercise.

A typical person will lose minimally two to maximally four liters of water per day under ordinary conditions, and more in hot, dry, or cold weather. Four to six liters of water or other liquids are generally required each day in the wilderness to avoid dehydration and to keep the body functioning properly. The U.S. Army survival manual does not recommend that you drink water only when thirsty, as this leads to under hydrating. Instead, water should be drunk at regular intervals. Other groups recommend rationing water through "water discipline".

A lack of water causes dehydration, which may result in lethargy, headaches, dizziness, confusion, and eventually death. Even mild dehydration reduces endurance and impairs
concentration, which is dangerous in a survival situation where clear thinking is essential.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_skills


Written by Administrator
US Army Survival Manual

3 days without water - 3 weeks without food.

Rule of Threes - Survival

In any extreme situation you cannot survive for more than:

3 minutes without air - 3 hours without shelter
3 days without water - 3 weeks without food.
http://www.ruleof3survival.com/ INFORMATION

Paul's memory of what occurred after he recovered corresponds perfectly with what someone suffering from extreme dehydration would reasonably perceive during such an experience. The detail that Paul was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man during his period of incapacity perfectly explains his sudden conversion after he recovered.

Is there any real reason to doubt that Paul's memory of his experience after he recovered was NOT valid? Well, is there any reason to doubt the validity of Paul's claim that he met with and talked with a dead man during that time? And of course, there is every real reason to doubt it! It is a claim which must be accepted on pure blind faith.

Good thing Christians don't depend solely on spontaneous remission. This applies to cancer, but there is no medical support of spontaneous healing of broken bones or other health related miracles.

The rest of us are forced to wait for nature to take it's course. Which it does at a rate statistically consistent with the rate it occurs with Christians.

Here is another personal story concerning faith healing. My mother's side of the family is Pentecostal. Very deeply and devoutly fundamentalist Christian. My grandmother was a paraplegic, having no use of her legs at all. My mother, her youngest child, does not remember a time when her mother could walk. When Oral Roberts, the famous evangelical faith healer came to town, my aunts wheeled my grandmother up onto the stage, where Oral Roberts placed his hands on her and told her that if her faith was strong, and if she truly believed in the Lord, she would rise up from her wheelchair and stand. Now, some people confined to a wheelchair retain enough control of their legs to actually stand for brief periods. My grandmother was not one of those, however. Her legs were totally useless. She could no more stand up then she could reach up and touch the moon.

Her faith in God was absolute however. And now she had just been told by the famous faith healer in front of a tent full of Christians that her lack of faith was the cause for God not restoring her legs. She was devastated! And in fact died of a stoke only a few months later.

I should point out that I was not personally there to witness any of this story. My mother related it to me years after my grandmother passed.

No, I am just trying to get a clear and consistent definition of empirical evidence. Apparently the dictionary definition is inadequate. By the dictionary definition, my observation with my senses counts as empirical evidence. If a group of people claim to witness the same encounter, this also technically counts as empirical evidence.

Scientists do not perform a single experiment and then declare the results of that experiment to be definitive empirical evidence of anything. Many experiments must be conducted. Only when the results can be consistently predicted and consistently reproduced is an experiment considered to have been empirically proven. And in a scientific experiment evidence which contradicts the hypothesis ALSO must be taken into account and considered. A conclusion based ONLY on positive results, while totally ignoring any and all negative results is not an empirical experiment at all. That is an exercise in self deception for personal motives.

Empirical evidence has one definition for when a person is making the decision to get married, and another definition when it comes to claims of faith. Can we have a consistent application of the word across disciplines?

With this consistent application, we can test the claim of a person. If you dismiss my claim of a personal testimony as empirical, then you should also invalidate the claim of a person making a decision to get married. You would have to conclude people make the decision to get married without empirical evidence.

A consistent application of the concept of empirical evidence requires a consistent understanding of the term. If marriage is an experiment then the empirical evidence clearly suggests that the experiment is a failure, since the majority end in divorce. But marriage is NOT an empirical experiment. It is an undertaking based on hopes and assumptions, and EMOTIONAL expectations. The widespread failure of marriages indicates that marriages fail, not because of empirical evidence, but because of a total misreading of the data. People clearly often get married for emotional reasons. Not empirical ones.

You have a story of what you consider to be empirical evidence of the power of faith healing. I have a story which appears to prove just the opposite. I am suggesting to you that over the course of many such cases, what we discover is that nothing has been proven at all. Those who prefer to believe will cite the cases that support their belief as conclusive. Those who do not believe will see the contradictory results statistically establishing nothing at all. And then there is also the possibility of tampering with the process and skewing the data to be considered.







So we are left with two possibilities. Either faith healing is real, or tens of millions of abjectly gullible people who have been indoctrinated into believing that faith is a virtue are being preyed upon. (No pun intended)

I don't see a conflict. Based on observing my children, I can know what they are going to do. Even though I know what they are going to do in certain situations, that doesn't take away from your free will.

So far my own children, who are now moving into middle age themselves, have never done anything out of character. But I cannot honestly say that I could have predicted the way their lives would unfold any more than I could have predicted the way my own life would unfold. They attempt to make valid decisions, but in any life there is always that element of the unpredictable to deal with.

In God's case his knowledge is not limited, and does not impact your free will. Just because God knew some would reject him, does not mean you did not have a choice. It is like having an answer key to a test. Just because you have the answer key, does not remove the choice you have. You could choose to get a few wrong on purpose just to make it seem like you did not cheat.

This is an argument I often used in discussions with Christians myself. Since God is omniscient He knew the complete details of our lives, including our very thoughts, before we were ever conceived. Foreknowledge is not predestination however. We humans clearly have control of our ability to interact with the things that occur around us. We make decisions. God does not interfere. But God set it all up. If you believe in the Christian God, then you believe that evil has always been part of the mix. Because that's God's plan.

I stopped believing in the existence of God when I was 13 years old. Naturally I have considered the prospect of praying to nothing unnecessary from that time on. It never even occurs to me to pray. I have tried to make good sound decisions all of my life. And I have had a good life, free from any tragedies or serious setbacks. Much of that is simple good fortune of course. But some of it is based on decisions that I made which worked out well over the long haul. I asked for no Divine help, and received none.

Now, consider all of the Christians that you know whose lives have been a series of one misfortune after another. I assume you know people like that, because I certainly have.

So why does God let bad things happen to believing Christians? Is He attempting to teach them valuable life lessons? He has never imparted any such lessons on me. Here's an even more meaningful question. In what way is a God who does not interfere in the lives and events of people in any way different from a God who was never there to begin with?

Since when were all decisions binary. There are often cases where we have many options to choose from.

Lets say you decide to buy a car. Decision A is binary: Buy or dont buy. Decision B may not be binary. What type of car? Sedan, SUV, Coupe, Truck, Van, etc. Your options are more than binary for this secondary decision. Then you may have an option of features, and color choice. Are all of these decisions binary?

Some decisions are binary, but not all decisions. The decision to accept Christ is one of those binary decisions. Life or death. You choose.

A decision is required. The options are many. They might even be infinite. But it still comes down to either or. Either a decision is made, or it is not. Computers make millions of calculations a second. An infinite number of wrong answers are possible, but only one right one. A single wrong calculation can cause your computer to lock. Either or. Or in the case of a computer, zero or one.

I made the decision to reject Christianity as too foolish to be valid when I was thirteen years old. It's a subject that still interests me, as you can see. I am actually much more well versed in the subject than most Christians are. But after 55 years I have never seen any reason to change my opinion. A lifetime of interest in the subject has shown me that every argument Christians put forth falls completely apart upon a factual and rational consideration of it. Your bottom line is that you believe that you witnessed a miracle. But in fact the miracle might be easily explained naturally by a thorough investigation of the actual facts. You believe it because you prefer to believe it. Your evidence is subjective and your belief is personal. And the bottom line is that you are attempting to defend the claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Largely because that's what you were raised to believe and the idea appeals to you. When it comes to actually establishing that such an unrealistic event ever actually occurred however, you have no tangible evidence to offer. Only your personal assumption concerning the nature of reality, and your best honest intentions. You believe that your beliefs are the TRUE beliefs. Which makes you little different from every other believer of every other belief that has ever existed.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 150 by KingandPriest]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing correlation with causation[/center]

I saw a woman who had very swollen legs and could not walk. She came into service in a wheel chair. She was healed as a result of prayer and laying on of hands. I had the opportunity to speak to and interview the woman after the service. She described her legs as still feeling sore, but the swelling had gone down visibly and she could walk.

The next night, the woman came back to service walking normally. No swelling.

If that's supposed to be your "proof" of a miracle, you've missed an important step.

Here is the story as I understand it:

1. Woman comes into church with badly swollen legs.
2. Woman was prayed for.. and hands were laid on her.
3. Woman's legs got better.

Between 2 and 3... you claim that a miracle happened, that the CAUSE of her getting better was a miracle.. But how did you establish that a miracle happened?

Did you rule out all natural reasons for why she might have gotten better?

Why assume what you want to prove?
That's kind of useless, you know.

What natural reasons are there to explain her recovery waiting until exactly after someone prayed and laid hands on her?

I presume you might say luck, but I was not aware luck was a natural process or reason.

In general, swelling is a sign that something else is wrong in the body. When the core problem is healed, the swelling will subside.

Natural process of swelling:
1. organs, skin, or other parts of your body enlarge as the result of inflammation or a buildup of fluid.
2. If swelling is localized, most of the time the human body will repair the damage and once the root cause is repaired, the swelling will subside.
3. If swelling is more widespread as a result of cancer, virus or disease, intervention may be required to assist human body. When root cause is repaired or remedied, swelling will subside.
http://www.healthline.com/symptom/swelling

For the woman to have been healed by natural processes, the root cause of the swelling would have had to been remedied in advance, and then the exact timing of when her swelling would subside calculated. Next, the traveling minister would have to know the exact time the swelling would subside, and call her up to pray for her and lay hands on her. Next, her body would have had to comply exactly with the estimated time frame for recovery.

Now which of the two scenarios requires more faith to believe. Scenario A where the woman was healed as a result of prayer and laying of hands, or Scenario B where the sequence of natural events and human effort came together in a finite amount of time to display a perfect natural miracle.

You appear to choose Scenario B because you may be able to conceive the possibility of all of these sequence of events taking place. Bravo, you do have a lot of faith.

~BTW, for those who accept Scenario B, this is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.~

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 153 by KingandPriest]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing Correlation with Causation, Part 2
Supported by the Argument From Ignorance[/center]

What natural reasons are there to explain her recovery waiting until exactly after someone prayed and laid hands on her?

I can think of a few.. you might have heard of a few yourself... for instance....

• Have you ever heard of people getting better by doing nothing but waiting around?
  Have you ever heard of people believing in miracles so much that they try really hard to do things that make them better, like say.. laying off the salt?
  Have you ever heard of people faking feeling good?
  Have you ever heard of the placebo effect?
  Have you ever heard of how emotions affect our bodies?
  Have you even heard of coincidences?
  Have you heard of lying?
  Have you heard of bogus stories that aren't even true?
  Have you heard of people exaggerating to make a case?
  Have you ever heard of people telling tales of wonderment that aren't necessarily true?
  Have you ever heard of not knowing how something happened?
  Have you ever heard of people being WRONG?
  Have you ever heard of RUMORS that become "knowledge"?
  Have you ever heard of people with so much faith that they can hypnotise themselves into believing that they are better?
  Have you ever heard of "mind over matter"?
  Have you ever heard of peer pressure?
  Have you ever heard of people who are told that if they believe enough, they will get better so .. in order to PROVE that they believe enough.. get better?
  Have you ever heard of stories that are misrepresented to us.. to prove a point?
  Have you ever heard of psychosomatic illnesses?
  Have you heard of stories that never happened in the first place?
  Have you heard of people who feel better one day, and not the NEXT day?
  Have you ever heard of people who finally DID take the pills recommended by their doctors?
  Have you ever heard of a woman who puts her feet up for a day or two.. and has her swelling go down?
  Have you ever heard of support hose?

You might have heard of these causes.. these would be natural explanations..
But I'm not a researcher, nor a doctor. I find medicine yikky. So I didn't come up with many possible natural causes. Sorry.

Can you think of other natural causes that should be ruled out before we think of the supernatural?

I presume you might say luck, but I was not aware luck was a natural process or reason.

Well, I didn't say luck.. so you presumed wrong.
But a lot of people in Vegas believe in "luck" as if it was a real thing.

In general, swelling is a sign that something else is wrong in the body. When the core problem is healed, the swelling will subside.

Does the story include the doctors who examined the lady before and after and had to rule out all known and unknown natural causes? What were their names? What were their findings?

For the woman to have been healed by natural processes, the root cause of the swelling would have had to been remedied in advance, and then the exact timing of when her swelling would subside calculated.

Yeah, I agree. The cause of the swelling would have to go away for the swelling to go away. Great point.

What did we establish WERE the root causes of her swelling?

IN this lovely anecdote, do we have reliable "before and after" medical examinations, or just hearsay evidence from.. believers who believe in faith healing told to us by a believer in faith healing ( that last believer would be you, if you happen to believe in faith healing ) ?

IF some believer in alien abductions came here and told us an anecdote about an alien abductee, would that suffice for evidence of that alien abduction?

What would you tell that alien abduction believer?

Next, the traveling minister would have to know the exact time the swelling would subside, and call her up to pray for her and lay hands on her.

Well, not everyone calls a faith healer a "traveling minister". Other labels can come to mind. Not all of those other labels are QUITE so flattering.

Why would a faith healer "have to" know ANYTHING at all about medicine if God is doing the actual healing?

Don't these faith healers insist that they aren't healing but that GOD is?

The faith healer shows up at the community.. you pay what you "can"..
People GO because they believe that faith healing might "work" .. if they didn't believe, I don't think they would go as much.. Do you think that their belief has anything to do with how they report their conditions?
Before and after?

Especially if they happily PAYED for the pleasure to be healed by faith and faith alone?
What do you say to the person who's swelling did NOT go down? ( not that faith healers ask for donations, right? )

Any thoughts?

Next, her body would have had to comply exactly with the estimated time frame for recovery.

Yep.
Magic would have to occur.

What's the proof of magic occurring? ( religious people prefer the word "miracle" )
Have you ever been to a magic show?

Those are stunningly convincing even THOUGH we aren't meant to take the illusions of "magic" there as real... they still LOOK darn real, don't they? But we call them "illusions" for a reason. Now.. is faith healing proof of a miracle happening, or the mundane fact that people tend to over-believe in miracles?

Religious people call god magic "miracles".. but magic is magic. It's just that when believers use the word "miracle" they are attributing some magic to a GOD.

Right?
Do faith healing and magic shows have anything in common?
Laying on of hands and POOF by some invisible mysterious force people believe in. she is healed?

Instead of "Abracadabra", religious people tend to use phrases like "Hallelujah".
But still claimed magical ( ok, ok, miracle ) words.

Now which of the two scenarios requires more faith to believe.
Scenario A where the woman was healed as a result of prayer and laying of hands, or Scenario B where the sequence of natural events and human effort came together in a finite amount of time to display a perfect natural miracle.

You are asking an agnostic that?

LOL

You are trying to prove that a miracle happened because of some anecdote.
We have some kind of evidence.. I'll just take your word for it that the event you described actually happened just the way you described it. I have NO way to verify it.. just taking you on your word for the sake of your argument.

THAT'S IT.
I'm trying my best to help you preserve your argument.
And as some former Beatles member is known to have said "It ain't easy".

Look, I KNOW that natural causes heals people.
Are you disputing that natural causes heals people?

Natural causes like TIME of day, what they ATE that day.. their EMOTIONAL state affects their health.. what pills they might have taken or not taken, what their condition actually IS, how likely is the condition to just "come and go mysteriously" and I have to assume that going to a faith healing is an EMOTIONAL experience for these sick people.. these faithful people.. these sick and yearning hopeful people.

Not that faith healers deal in EMOTIONS.. right?

None of that happening in THAT tent, sweet Jesus lord love love love hallelujah praise the lord. Heal heal heal if you have enough faith heal heal heal... LOOK there's a blind woman over there.. mam, nod if you can see.. LOOK, nodding.. SHE CAN SEE ladies and gents!!!! ( er... was she really completely blind? ) Never mind.. JESUS is with us.... FEEL the love ... FEEL it praise God.

You appear to choose Scenario B because you may be able to conceive the possibility of all of these sequence of events taking place. Bravo, you do have a lot of faith.

I have a fair sense of probability and human nature.
I know a little about human psychology.

I know about the placebo effect and how powerful that is.
I know a teeny bit about statistics and how it's really easy to get that messed up

I know that in any crowd, there will be SOMEONE with reaction X.
The woman with the swollen legs had reaction X... now.. what WAS the cause of reaction X?.. apparently you know what that is. And you have imagined that it just can't BE a natural one.

Apparently, GODDIDIT. Right?
Is that your claim?

I don't start off with a presupposition that the supernatural exists, or that "God" exists. And as an agnostic, I don't start off with a presupposition that "God does NOT exist", either.

SO.. I start off by eliminating the natural causes... and if I run out of imagination.. as I have above.. I STILL don't just presuppose an alien or fairy or ghost or goblin or magician or demons or God DIDDIT.

Do you do that too?
Do you rule out the natural causes, or do you just jump to some supernatural presupposition?

And even if we DID rule out ALL natural causes.. would that automatically PROVE the supernatural? Just because some people BELIEVE in that?

If we ruled out all natural causes, the only thing it would REALLY demonstrate is our ignorance concerning the causes. OUR ignorance does not prove a god or a miracle or anything else BUT our lack of knowledge.

Arguments from ignorance fail.

~BTW, for those who accept Scenario B, this is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.~

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

[Hawkins]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

That's almost the same way you 'choose' to believe what is said as the daily news in your local newspaper to tv program. You may choose to disbelieve everything said though.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 153 by KingandPriest]

What natural reasons are there to explain her recovery waiting until exactly after someone prayed and laid hands on her?

I can think of a few.. you might have heard of a few yourself... for instance....

• Have you ever heard of people getting better by doing nothing but waiting around?
  Have you ever heard of people believing in miracles so much that they try really hard to do things that make them better, like say.. laying off the salt?
  Have you ever heard of people faking feeling good?
  Have you ever heard of the placebo effect?
  Have you ever heard of how emotions affect our bodies?
  Have you even heard of coincidences?
  Have you heard of lying?
  Have you heard of bogus stories that aren't even true?
  Have you heard of people exaggerating to make a case?
  Have you ever heard of people telling tales of wonderment that aren't necessarily true?
  Have you ever heard of not knowing how something happened?
  Have you ever heard of people being WRONG?
  Have you ever heard of RUMORS that become "knowledge"?
  Have you ever heard of people with so much faith that they can hypnotise themselves into believing that they are better?
  Have you ever heard of "mind over matter"?
  Have you ever heard of peer pressure?
  Have you ever heard of people who are told that if they believe enough, they will get better so .. in order to PROVE that they believe enough.. get better?
  Have you ever heard of stories that are misrepresented to us.. to prove a point?
  Have you ever heard of psychosomatic illnesses?
  Have you heard of stories that never happened in the first place?
  Have you heard of people who feel better one day, and not the NEXT day?
  Have you ever heard of people who finally DID take the pills recommended by their doctors?
  Have you ever heard of a woman who puts her feet up for a day or two.. and has her swelling go down?
  Have you ever heard of support hose?

You might have heard of these causes.. these would be natural explanations..
But I'm not a researcher, nor a doctor. I find medicine yikky. So I didn't come up with many possible natural causes. Sorry.

None of these are natural reasons that would explain her recovery taking place moments after being prayed for. Some of these are natural reasons that could possible explain a recovery. The timing of the recovery is the problem that none of these or any available natural reasons can explain. For a supposed natural reason to be found to be true, the circumstances leading up to her swelling taking place at the exact moment needed after being prayed for is so unlikely, it would be deemed not probable.,

By your own admission, many of the statements in the list above are not natural reasons that explain a sudden decrease in swelling. You even listed lying as a possible reason.

Can you think of other natural causes that should be ruled out before we think of the supernatural?

I cannot think of any natural cause that would explain her recovery manifesting shortly after someone prayed and laid hands on her?

An honest person would have to admit, the possible natural causes that may explain her recovery cannot explain the timing. Why would a possible natural reason for recovery occur just after she was prayed for?

You want to focus on natural reasons for her recovery but want to ignore the timing. The timing as well as the recovery is what makes it a miracle. The sudden recovery is what cannot be explained naturally.

I presume you might say luck, but I was not aware luck was a natural process or reason.

Well, I didn't say luck.. so you presumed wrong.
But a lot of people in Vegas believe in "luck" as if it was a real thing.

My presumption appears to be wrong. You did not say luck, but imply luck as it relates to timing.

You listed people getting better by doing nothing. Was the timing of the prayer and laying on of hands a lucky coincidence?

In general, swelling is a sign that something else is wrong in the body. When the core problem is healed, the swelling will subside.

Does the story include the doctors who examined the lady before and after and had to rule out all known and unknown natural causes? What were their names? What were their findings?

Is this question because you find medicine yikky?

The fact was her swelling went down just after being prayed for.

For the woman to have been healed by natural processes, the root cause of the swelling would have had to been remedied in advance, and then the exact timing of when her swelling would subside calculated.

Yeah, I agree. The cause of the swelling would have to go away for the swelling to go away. Great point.

What did we establish WERE the root causes of her swelling?

Unknown to me. I did not ask for a medical chart. Most people don't walk around with a copy of their medical records.

IN this lovely anecdote, do we have reliable "before and after" medical examinations, or just hearsay evidence from.. believers who believe in faith healing told to us by a believer in faith healing ( that last believer would be you, if you happen to believe in faith healing ) ?

No hearsay. I listed an event I witnessed first hand. Sounds like you need to reread what I wrote.

IF some believer in alien abductions came here and told us an anecdote about an alien abductee, would that suffice for evidence of that alien abduction?

What would you tell that alien abduction believer?

Depends on whether the account is first hand or second hand. If the story is deemed to come from a credible source, it may be evidence that alien abduction is possible.

Next, the traveling minister would have to know the exact time the swelling would subside, and call her up to pray for her and lay hands on her.

Well, not everyone calls a faith healer a "traveling minister". Other labels can come to mind. Not all of those other labels are QUITE so flattering.

Why would a faith healer "have to" know ANYTHING at all about medicine if God is doing the actual healing?

Don't these faith healers insist that they aren't healing but that GOD is?

Your response supports my point. In order for the woman's recovery to come from natural causes, all of the above would be required. In order for her recovery to be from natural causes, and the timing to line up perfectly, the traveling minister would have to know of her condition, and the expected time frame of her swelling to go down.

Side note: I used the term traveling minister to communicate that the person who prayed for her was a minister of the Gospel who travels. These are not people are familiar with the local or community they are traveling to. Just like there are doctors who make house calls, not every minister of the Gospel has a brick and mortar church. Some travel around the nation or around the globe.

The faith healer shows up at the community.. you pay what you "can"..
People GO because they believe that faith healing might "work" .. if they didn't believe, I don't think they would go as much.. Do you think that their belief has anything to do with how they report their conditions?
Before and after?

Especially if they happily PAYED for the pleasure to be healed by faith and faith alone?
What do you say to the person who's swelling did NOT go down? ( not that faith healers ask for donations, right? )

Any thoughts?

Sounds like you have asserted assumptions and personal opinions. There was no obligation to "pay what you can."

People also go to the medical doctor or hospital because of a belief that modern medicine can help them. Most in the western world seek divine intervention as a last resort or when modern medicine has failed them.

I don't have anything to say to a person whose swelling did not go down, because I have no knowledge of such a person. The person in question was healed. Are you asking me about a fictitious person who was not present in the assembly?

Next, her body would have had to comply exactly with the estimated time frame for recovery.

Yep.
Magic would have to occur.

What's the proof of magic occurring? ( religious people prefer the word "miracle" )
Have you ever been to a magic show?

Those are stunningly convincing even THOUGH we aren't meant to take the illusions of "magic" there as real... they still LOOK darn real, don't they? But we call them "illusions" for a reason.

You would rather believe in magic than a miracle. What happened to all the natural explanations you presented earlier. Have you concluded that these are not viable explanations either. Is this why you claim magic is the only possible explanation?

Now.. is faith healing proof of a miracle happening, or the mundane fact that people tend to over-believe in miracles?

People tend to overuse the word miracle, but that does not discredit or disprove that people have been healed by prayer and the laying on of hands in the name of Jesus Christ.

Even atheist on this forum have described certain events using the word miracle. ref:What is Love?

Religious people call god magic "miracles".. but magic is magic. It's just that when believers use the word "miracle" they are attributing some magic to a GOD.

Right?

Wrong. Magic has to do with the will of a person.
Miracles are the result of the will of God.

It is this conflation which you have made which results in a lack of appropriate understanding. If your concepts are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong. Your concept of magic / miracle as the same is a great error, which results in the obvious confusion of your responses.

Do faith healing and magic shows have anything in common?

Many things have at least something in common. Both involve humans. Does that make them equal, no. Both involve supernatural phenomena.

A star and a planet are both made up of matter, but the two are fundamentally different. You could categorize both a star and a planet as a celestial body, but you cannot say a star is a planet. Likewise you cannot say a miracle is magic.

Laying on of hands and POOF by some invisible mysterious force people believe in. she is healed?

No poof. This is your lack of knowledge attempting to describe a phenomena you cannot explain.

Instead of "Abracadabra", religious people tend to use phrases like "Hallelujah".
But still claimed magical ( ok, ok, miracle ) words.

Knowledge gap is growing. When a person does not have knowledge of a topic, it is said they are "in the dark." This description is appropriate because you are mixing terms and are very confused.

Hallelujah is a shout for joy, not a word to "get a miracle".

Now which of the two scenarios requires more faith to believe.
Scenario A where the woman was healed as a result of prayer and laying of hands, or Scenario B where the sequence of natural events and human effort came together in a finite amount of time to display a perfect natural miracle.

You are asking an agnostic that?

LOL

You are trying to prove that a miracle happened because of some anecdote.
We have some kind of evidence.. I'll just take your word for it that the event you described actually happened just the way you described it. I have NO way to verify it.. just taking you on your word for the sake of your argument.

THAT'S IT.
I'm trying my best to help you preserve your argument.
And as some former Beatles member is known to have said "It ain't easy".

Look, I KNOW that natural causes heals people.
Are you disputing that natural causes heals people?

I do not dispute that people can heal naturally. What I dispute is natural causes which explain a person being healed just after being prayed for and a person laying on of hands. The combination of healing and timing does not fit into any natural cause.

Natural causes like TIME of day, what they ATE that day.. their EMOTIONAL state affects their health.. what pills they might have taken or not taken, what their condition actually IS, how likely is the condition to just "come and go mysteriously" and I have to assume that going to a faith healing is an EMOTIONAL experience for these sick people.. these faithful people.. these sick and yearning hopeful people.

Still does not explain why the healing manifested at the exact timing of prayer and laying on of hands. All of the above causes you listed would result in gradual recovery and swelling going down over time. Not a sudden change.

Not that faith healers deal in EMOTIONS.. right?

Your opinion.

None of that happening in THAT tent, sweet Jesus lord love love love hallelujah praise the lord. Heal heal heal if you have enough faith heal heal heal... LOOK there's a blind woman over there.. mam, nod if you can see.. LOOK, nodding.. SHE CAN SEE ladies and gents!!!! ( er... was she really completely blind? ) Never mind.. JESUS is with us.... FEEL the love ... FEEL it praise God.

This is what a lack of knowledge on a subject looks like. You don't have any actual knowledge so you make it up and declare it to be true. Heal heal heal... feel, feel feel, are the rambling of one who is uneducated on the subject matter.

You appear to choose Scenario B because you may be able to conceive the possibility of all of these sequence of events taking place. Bravo, you do have a lot of faith.

I have a fair sense of probability and human nature.
I know a little about human psychology.
I know about the placebo effect and how powerful that is.
I know a teeny bit about statistics and how it's really easy to get that messed up

I know that in any crowd, there will be SOMEONE with reaction X.
The woman with the swollen legs had reaction X... now.. what WAS the cause of reaction X?.. apparently you know what that is. And you have imagined that it just can't BE a natural one.

Apparently, GODDIDIT. Right?
Is that your claim?

I don't start off with a presupposition that the supernatural exists, or that "God" exists. And as an agnostic, I don't start off with a presupposition that "God does NOT exist", either.

SO.. I start off by eliminating the natural causes... and if I run out of imagination.. as I have above.. I STILL don't just presuppose an alien or fairy or ghost or goblin or magician or demons or God DIDDIT.

Do you do that too?
Do you rule out the natural causes, or do you just jump to some supernatural presupposition?

And even if we DID rule out ALL natural causes.. would that automatically PROVE the supernatural? Just because some people BELIEVE in that?

If we ruled out all natural causes, the only thing it would REALLY demonstrate is our ignorance concerning the causes. OUR ignorance does not prove a god or a miracle or anything else BUT our lack of knowledge.

Arguments from ignorance fail.

So you should see why your argument is failing. Your argument is from a position of ignorance on spiritual knowledge.

~BTW, for those who accept Scenario B, this is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God.~

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

Don't know who Frank is. What I do know is that outsiders of the faith such as yourself are more likely to accept a statistical impossibility over any scenario that includes God. Even if the scenario with God has a greater probability of being true.

I don't have to hear an atheist proclaim their faith to see their claims of faith all over the place. Just because some claim to have no faith in God, that does not automatically make a person not able to have faith at all.

For example, on this website you have claimed that you believe the laws of nature will perform the same tomorrow as they do today. This is a statement of faith. You may wish to call it something else because you don't like it, but by definition it is a statement of faith.

Many atheistic scientist place faith in theoretical explanations of events because it makes sense. There is faith that the planets orbits are fixed. There is faith that the tilt of the earths axis was caused by it being struck with a large object. All of these statements are claims of faith which are not and cannot be empirically known.

[Zzyzx]

.

You want to focus on natural reasons for her recovery but want to ignore the timing. The timing as well as the recovery is what makes it a miracle. The sudden recovery is what cannot be explained naturally.

Assuming, for the moment, that timing (immediate response to prayer) is what makes it a miracle; if a person is prayed for and recovers gradually over time is that, therefore, NOT a miracle?

OR is it “If they get better immediately after being prayed for that is a miracle and if they get better gradually that is a miracle too"? In other words, if a prayed for person recovers it is a miracle regardless the timing. Right?

[KingandPriest]

.

You want to focus on natural reasons for her recovery but want to ignore the timing. The timing as well as the recovery is what makes it a miracle. The sudden recovery is what cannot be explained naturally.

Assuming, for the moment, that timing (immediate response to prayer) is what makes it a miracle; if a person is prayed for and recovers gradually over time is that, therefore, NOT a miracle?

OR is it “If they get better immediately after being prayed for that is a miracle and if they get better gradually that is a miracle too"? In other words, if a prayed for person recovers it is a miracle regardless the timing. Right?

As I stated earlier, people often overuse the word miracle today. Sometimes a person has a successful recovery from a risky operation. This is called a medical miracle, with no divine intervention. It actually goes against the definition of the term miracle.

That would be like calling a blue berry red. It goes against the definition of what a miracle is.

By definition a miracle is a surprising and welcome event that is (a)not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore (b)considered to be the work of a divine agency.

If the event is explainable by natural or scientific laws we shouldn't use the term miracle, but in our current era the word is overused.

The overuse of the word miracle has cheapened the word and caused many to confuse what is a miracle and what is not. Just because something is considered the work of a divine agent, does not make it a miracle.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 156 by KingandPriest]

[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Confusing correlation with causation
Part 3
And the argument from ignorance Part 1[/center]

None of these are natural reasons that would explain her recovery taking place moments after being prayed for.

Is that your expert medical opinion?

By your own admission, many of the statements in the list above are not natural reasons that explain a sudden decrease in swelling.

I don't know.. I'm not a doctor, nor am I pretending to be.
Are you?

You even listed lying as a possible reason.

That's right.
Have you ruled out that someone was lying?
And if so, how?

By the way, how sudden does "sudden" have to be to be "sudden" in your opinion?

I cannot think of any natural cause that would explain her recovery manifesting shortly after someone prayed and laid hands on her?

Does the fact that we can't think of some natural cause mean that there can't BE a natural cause, or that we just can't THINK of one?

In other words:

How does our IGNORANCE prove a miracle happened?

An honest person would have to admit, the possible natural causes that may explain her recovery cannot explain the timing.

I don't admit to anything of the kind.. does that mean I'm being dishonest?
Please clarify your opinion about my honesty.

Why would a possible natural reason for recovery occur just after she was prayed for?

We both admit ignorance of any NATURAL reason. I'm not a medical doctor, I didn't examine her, and I don't think that you are either.. Or are you?

If you ARE and you DID examine her before and after, perhaps you could care to share your findings. Otherwise.. we have your amateur opinion.

But in any case:

Is our ignorance of a natural cause proof of a supernatural cause?
You may want to steer clear of the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It's a well known failing argument.
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/log ... lacies.htm

You want to focus on natural reasons for her recovery but want to ignore the timing.

Nope. I don't want to ignore ANY data. I'm trying to be a good SKEPTIC.
It's just that in the case of your story, the DATA seems to be your TESTIMONY and nothing else. In other words, so far, the only evidence you have brought to the table is your "SAY SO".

I'm skeptical of the claim that there might have been a SUPERNATURAL cause for the claimed "faith healing". And I don't have any MORE data right now, than your say so. To a skeptic, that's not a LOT of evidence to go by.

You might be a skeptic, too, for all I know.
If I were to make a claim and you asked for evidence, would just my "say so" be acceptable to you?

If so, you are a skeptic and I would approve.

The timing as well as the recovery is what makes it a miracle. The sudden recovery is what cannot be explained naturally.

It went to SUDDEN all of a sudden.
It used to be just "after the service", her legs still hurt, but the swelling had gone down visibly..

"I had the opportunity to speak to and interview the woman after the service. She described her legs as still feeling sore, but the swelling had gone down visibly and she could walk.

The next night, the woman came back to service walking normally. No swelling. "

So, the "sudden" faith healing was "after the service" and "The next night".
And somehow the SPEED of the "recovery" indicates a supernatural cause?

How?

What about the apparent total LACK of "suddenness" of faith healing for any believing AMPUTEES?.. God magic doesn't work on amputees? All amputees don't believe in God ?

Weird, huh.. God works in mysterious ways, doesn't he?
Here is a rather honest sounding , but misguided quote on the internet from a minister struggling with the question of amputees and God:

"I have seen miracles, but I have never seen amputees get their limbs back. That doesn't mean it never happens, or never happened."

I agree with him... just because we can imagine something, it doesn't mean it never happened. Just because we don't have any evidence for something, it doesn't rule out that it MIGHT have. There is always that POSSIBILITY, right?

And then, we have those CLAIMS !!!
It's an interesting read... Maybe you will agree with a lot that he says.
I don't.

http://www.christian-faith.com/god-does-heal-amputees/

My presumption appears to be wrong. You did not say luck, but imply luck as it relates to timing.

I didn't imply any such thing.
You don't have to guess what I am "implying", you know.
You can ask.

Presuming isn't the best way to find out what I mean.
Asking is way better.

Just for the record, once again I have to remind you that I do NOT include lady luck. To me, "luck" means nothing in this context. I'm lucky to be alive.. I'm lucky to be debating.. I'm lucky to be so darn handsome, I'm lucky that I'm not TOO handsome. I'm not so lucky that I am not as handsome as some luckier cat.

Meow...

Luck?
I never talk about it.. And for the record, I didn't.
All I ever did was defend myself from your accusation that I did.
TWICE now.

So QUOTE me where I say that "luck" is a natural cause for swelling or DROP the charge.

You listed people getting better by doing nothing. Was the timing of the prayer and laying on of hands a lucky coincidence?

I have NO IDEA how the lady OR IF the lady "got better".
You seem to know that it has happened, and that it was a MIRACLE.

Maybe the fact that her legs stopped swelling was a BAD sign.. who knows?
Not me.

I don't take you for a medical expert or someone who has demonstrated that the supernatural even EXISTS. But as to a supernatural causation.. you seem to only offer your own beliefs as evidence. Well, you can believe anything that you like.

But if you want to convince an outsider to your faith that miracles, do occur, you will have to do better than just present to us your beliefs and incredulity.

You can't imagine a natural cause.. therefore, it's the supernatural cause you happen to believe in. You believe in something, so.. it's true? That kind of religious reasoning might be enough to convince many religious people, but not this quite skeptical outsider. If you claim that you know the cause of an effect, then DEMONSTRATE it.. I don't think the SPEED at which an effect takes place proves the SUPERNATURAL.. as many NATURAL events happen quite "suddenly".

However, some people don't believe that two events can happen at the same time, because they can be are related somehow. I can whistle a tune and a building next to me can fall down at the very same time SUDDENLY. I can pick my nose while I'm looking for my keys, find them and attribute my finding the keys to picking my nose if I so desired.. there ARE no coincidences, I keep hearing that from people.

Well, I do believe in coincidences.

If I wanted to prove that my WHISTLING had anything to do with CAUSING the building to fall down, or that picking my nose finds keys... I'd need a bit more evidence than a correlation.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Repeat after me:
Correlation does not imply causation.

We have data:

• 1. Woman comes to church with swollen legs.
  2. She gets religious attention.. prayers, laying of hands.
  3. She gets better.. SUDDENLY.

And you seem to infer that the ONLY possible cause for her getting better is a religious MIRACLE. Strangely, an outsider to your faith can think of other possible causes which are natural.

And at least this outsider can see that you have not ruled them all out. AND you have not ruled out natural causes that we DON'T know about.. medical science keeps learning NEW stuff, you know.

We don't have explanations for ALL medical situations.
But our ignorance does NOT mean that the supernatural is a cause.

Question:
How does our not knowing prove the supernatural?

Does the story include the doctors who examined the lady before and after and had to rule out all known and unknown natural causes? What were their names? What were their findings?

Is this question because you find medicine yikky?

What a very strange question!
But to answer you, no.

I ask the question because I want to know facts...
If I don't have facts, then your story is MUCH less believable.

Sorry.

Right now, the evidence that I have that a miracle occurred is this:

"Some guy told me that a miracle occurred because someone laid hands and prayed and she got suddenly better".

A skeptic will find that kind of evidence a bit.. thin.

The fact was her swelling went down just after being prayed for.

Are you qualified to even state that her legs not being swollen all of a sudden is medically significant in her condition?

What are your qualifications to give medical opinion?
Who examined her before and after?
What was her condition caused by?
What could have made the symptoms subside? And do sometimes symptoms subside for some reason OTHER than miracles? How did you rule THEM OUT?

And what are your qualifications by which you have ruled out all possible natural causes?

We could SUPPOSE that you are a qualified "believer" in miracles. I am NOT convinced that you are a qualified medical practitioner.

Do we have ANY expert medical opinions in this story?
Why should we take your word for it... is that the ONLY real evidence we have for this story? It's not as if any of us can VERIFY your tale of wonder.

Ghost stories are wonderful too.
Especially when there is a campfire involved.

Must we believe them as well due to heart felt testimony?
I must admit that you present a lovely story. But in debates, we want more than just fine stories. We demand evidence, and in THIS forum, when challenged, we must supply some, or DROP THE CLAIMS.

So, do you have any evidence for your supernatural claims or not?
Do you have any more evidence for the SUPERNATURAL CAUSE of her so called "healing"?

Oh, and by the way, a true skeptic would demand evidence that she DID have a healing.. maybe the symptoms went down.. but the condition or the CAUSE of the symptoms remained. Are you qualified to judge if her causal condition was healed?

Because sometimes, symptoms go away FOR A WHILE... and then come back later.
Have you heard of that, too?

We can add that to the list of probable natural causes for the "miracle".

What did we establish WERE the root causes of her swelling?

Unknown to me. I did not ask for a medical chart. Most people don't walk around with a copy of their medical records.

It's unknown to YOU and it's unknown to the rest of us, too.

• So, what is her medical condition?
  UNKNOWN
  
  What do we KNOW about her medical condition and it's possible symptoms?
  UNKNOWN
  
  What do we know about her particular loss of symptoms?
  UNKNOWN
  
  What do you conclude?
  MIRACLE

To go from IGNORANCE to a conclusion is known in the business as

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam.. and that is something to be avoided in an honest debate, and NOT embraced so lovingly.

Blastcat say SHUN the argument from ignorance.

Grrrrrr.

You seem to insist that you KNOW that root cause went away miraculously, even though you don't know that it did. But you tell us you saw some symptom of something go away... Without knowing why or how.

Because you aren't qualified.. you don't KNOW...
And neither do we.

All I know is that you present a lot of "knowing".
Do you still say that you know that a miracle actually occurred?

Or could you mean that you BELIEVE that a miracle occurred?
Because people believe all sorts of things.

Some people even believe TRUE stuff...

Do miracle healings EVER occur where they can be verified by qualified medical investigators?

Do any of these investigators attribute healing to the supernatural and how did they establish THAT causation? Forget your story.. how about the real experts telling us what they think about supernatural causes for healing?

Evidence, please...

Have medical doctors documented cases of supernatural healing?
Because, sorry, I would just trust THEIR medical opinions over amateurs like us.

No offense intended.

No hearsay. I listed an event I witnessed first hand. Sounds like you need to reread what I wrote.

OK.. fine fine.
You are relating this story to us.. it's hearsay evidence to US.
Your "say so" isn't quite good enough evidence for the supernatural, sorry.

Depends on whether the account is first hand or second hand. If the story is deemed to come from a credible source, it may be evidence that alien abduction is possible.

So, if your story comes from a credible source, it MAY be evidence that miracles are POSSIBLE?

Are you saying that "miracles may be possible"?

Yes, I am quite convinced that MAYBE miracles are possible. But maybe NOT.
I am NOT so convinced that anyone has demonstrated them to be TRUE.

You tell us a story.
You MIGHT be taken as a "credible witness".. but I can't really TELL if you are credible or not. For all I know, you might NOT have invented the whole story, after all.

Maybe the story happened JUST the way you said it did.
So, what now?

• Do I just believe in alien abductions?
  Yes or No?
  
  Do I just believe in miracles?
  Yes or No?
  
  Do I just believe in magic?
  Yes or No?

Because someone SAID SO?

Do you imagine that we will believe in miracles because you told us a story that you believe is miraculous? Is that what it takes YOU to be convinced of a fantastic claim?

Do you believe ANY testimony?
Or are you skeptical of claims the way deBlastcat iz?

I don't just believe ANY claim because the person is "credible". Credible or not, the claim stands on it's OWN.

What if a person appears to be VERY credible, but is MISTAKEN, or worse?
Blastcat be skeptic, yo.

Can some people believe in things that aren't TRUE?
Is a strong belief a GUARANTEE for the truth?

Next, the traveling minister would have to know the exact time the swelling would subside, and call her up to pray for her and lay hands on her.

Why would a faith healer "have to" know ANYTHING at all about medicine if God is doing the actual healing?
Don't these faith healers insist that they aren't healing but that GOD is?

Your response supports my point.

WOW.. how ironic THAT would be !!

In order for the woman's recovery to come from natural causes, all of the above would be required.

What do you mean "all of the above".. do you imagine that a natural cause.. has to be a LONG LIST of causes?

If I am being poisoned, for example, the natural cause for my symptoms MAY be the poison, and nothing else. But I'm not sure what you mean, actually.

Maybe you can clarify.

In order for her recovery to be from natural causes, and the timing to line up perfectly, the traveling minister would have to know of her condition, and the expected time frame of her swelling to go down.

Why do you say that the faith healer has to know in advance what he will pray to God to cure? What does a faith healer need to know about medicine at all?

Lay hands.. pray.. that seems to be enough for him to "know" how to do, right? Faith healers should not pretend to practice medicine, right?

Then, isn't it all up to "God" ?

Is it the minister healing them or is it God who is healing them?
Does the minister have miraculous powers, or is it God who does?

Is the "faith healer" actually qualified to practice medicine?
( wouldn't they need a medical practitioner's license for that kind of thing? )

Sounds like you have asserted assumptions and personal opinions. There was no obligation to "pay what you can."

You must have read the word "OBLIGATION" that I didn't write.
Perhaps you have asserted an assumption and a personal opinion, instead.

It would be best if you wrote about what I wrote, and not what you imagined that I wrote. Would save us all some time. I just spent some time on your spurious charge.

People also go to the medical doctor or hospital because of a belief that modern medicine can help them. Most in the western world seek divine intervention as a last resort or when modern medicine has failed them.

I might be tedious, but I'm going to repeat that I am skeptical of your claims.
I am skeptical that you happen to KNOW the motivations of "most in the western world".

You make a claim.. it's a very nice claim.
I challenge you to offer evidence that it's a true claim.
OR.. you can just drop it.

I don't have anything to say to a person whose swelling did not go down, because I have no knowledge of such a person. The person in question was healed. Are you asking me about a fictitious person who was not present in the assembly?

If you can pretend to know why most people go to faith healers, you can pretend other things, too. I'd like facts, though. In debates, I don't want to indulge in pure fiction. Debate facts please. I will too.

Deal?

What is the ratio between people who go to faith healers and those who get BETTER by the "treatments"?

You would rather believe in magic than a miracle.

Just for the record:

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAGIC OR MIRACLE

What happened to all the natural explanations you presented earlier. Have you concluded that these are not viable explanations either. Is this why you claim magic is the only possible explanation?

Just for the record:

I DID NOT CLAIM THAT

People tend to overuse the word miracle, but that does not discredit or disprove that people have been healed by prayer and the laying on of hands in the name of Jesus Christ.

Does the use of a word mean that the concept it represents is TRUE?

Even atheist on this forum have described certain events using the word miracle. ref:What is Love?

Are there possible SECULAR usages of the word "miracle"?

Wrong. Magic has to do with the will of a person.

For the record:

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC?

And

DO YOU CLAIM TO KNOW HOW TO PERFORM MAGIC?

Miracles are the result of the will of God.

Yep, that's your claim, alright.
Care to advance any evidence for the claim?

It is this conflation which you have made which results in a lack of appropriate understanding.

"Appropriate understanding".

Yeah, maybe I don't play by the "appropriate" Christian rules so much as a Christian might, due to the fact that I'm not a Christian, remember?

Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you is being INAPPROPRIATE in other ways?

If your concepts are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong. Your concept of magic / miracle as the same is a great error, which results in the obvious confusion of your responses.

"A great error"

It's one thing to accuse an opponent of a great error.
It's an other thing PROVING a great error has taken place.

Care to give us evidence for THAT claim?
( How many claims do you have to provide evidence for now? I quite lost COUNT )

Do faith healing and magic shows have anything in common?

Many things have at least something in common. Both involve humans. Does that make them equal, no. Both involve supernatural phenomena.

Again, just to be precise as to your meaning:
DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC, TOO?

If that's the case, as a skeptic, and a member of this forum, I respectfully ask you for some evidence for MAGIC.

( the list of evidences you need to provide is getting long, yo ! )

A star and a planet are both made up of matter, but the two are fundamentally different. You could categorize both a star and a planet as a celestial body, but you cannot say a star is a planet. Likewise you cannot say a miracle is magic.

A bit of set theory might help you with that reasoning.
You are quite wrong about sets.

Magic is a general category.. "Miracle" is a special god caused KIND of magic.
In other words, "miracle" is a SUBSET of "magic".

Not the other way around...

I use this definition for magic:
"The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/magic

Do you think that your god is somehow mysterious or supernatural?
I've heard of that... have you?

Are you saying that the word "miracle" can't be defined by "kind of magic"?

Laying on of hands and POOF by some invisible mysterious force people believe in. she is healed?

No poof.

Oh, sorry.
I thought you said it was "sudden".
Instead of "poof" , I should have used the word "suddenly". Sorry.. My bad.

This is your lack of knowledge attempting to describe a phenomena you cannot explain.

I'm not trying to explain or prove miracles happen, YOU are.

I don't have to explain it.. YOU DO.. I don't believe in magic or miracles or God or anything supernatural YOU DO. What I am TRYING to do here is to understand what YOU mean by miracle, and specifically, how you came to the conclusion that your story PROVES a miracle happened.

So, if I DO have your definitions wrong, fine.
Correct me.

Right now, I have to GUESS at your meanings because they don't make SENSE to me yet. Sorry about that.

I'm trying, but
"It aint easy".

I don't have a definition for how YOU use your terms.. those are YOUR terms here.. not mine. I have NO idea what magic or miracle is.. The dictionary defines magic as some MYSTERIOUS POWER .. that's it. POOF describes sudden magic and sudden miracle pretty well, in my opinion... POOF represents something mysterious that happens suddenly, and that is attributed, in this instance, TO A GOD.

Call "poof" anything you like.. call it "Sudden healing " if you want to.
Do we know HOW the sudden healing happened?

How about I change the question to this:

"Laying on of hands and SUDDENLY by some invisible mysterious force
she is healed?"

Do you agree with the statement now?

Isn't that what we are trying to figure OUT here? What WAS the sudden mysterious cause for her so called "healing"?

You say it's God.. ok.. fine.

PROVE IT.
Provide your evidence.

What I have seen so far as your "evidence" seems to be:

• 1. Your belief that miracles occur.
  2. Your witnessing of an event that seems to you remarkably like what you think of as a "miracle" happening.
  3. Your insistence that it cannot have a natural cause of any kind.
  4. Your insistence that if something happens SUDDENLY, it cannot be natural. Apparently, nothing natural can happen suddenly.

That's the best I can do.. if I really missed something, please feel free to add to the list. And if I got something wrong, please forgive me, and then correct me.

I don't LIKE to be wrong, but I'm having to guess.
I'm doing my best to help your case.


"It ain't easy. "

Instead of "Abracadabra", religious people tend to use phrases like "Hallelujah".
But still claimed magical ( ok, ok, miracle ) words.

Knowledge gap is growing. When a person does not have knowledge of a topic, it is said they are "in the dark." This description is appropriate because you are mixing terms and are very confused.

Hallelujah is a shout for joy, not a word to "get a miracle".

Are you sure you want to go with assuming that I am ignorant?

"Hallelujah" is a word commonly heard in churches.. and sometimes in parts of prayers. I did not say that Hallelujah means "get a miracle".. those are YOUR words.

Please, try to not confuse YOUR words for MINE in the future.
It will save us both a lot of time, and help to make the posts back and forth SHORTER.

I do not dispute that people can heal naturally.

It's great to be able to agree on something with you.
We agree about natural causes.

Now.. how about we try to prove supernatural ones?

What I dispute is natural causes which explain a person being healed just after being prayed for and a person laying on of hands. The combination of healing and timing does not fit into any natural cause.

"Does not fit into any natural cause."

Could you elaborate on how you arrived at that conclusion?

Still does not explain why the healing manifested at the exact timing of prayer and laying on of hands. All of the above causes you listed would result in gradual recovery and swelling going down over time. Not a sudden change.

You seem quite sure that medical science does not admit to any "sudden" change.
I'm challenging your claim, of course.

Please provide evidence or drop it.

Not that faith healers deal in EMOTIONS.. right?

Your opinion.

Well, that sentence HAD a question mark at the end.. It was meant to be taken as a question.. I could have worded it better.

For the record:
ARE YOU SAYING THAT A FAITH HEALING SERVICE IS DEVOID OF STRONG EMOTION?

None of that happening in THAT tent, sweet Jesus lord love love love hallelujah praise the lord. Heal heal heal if you have enough faith heal heal heal... LOOK there's a blind woman over there.. mam, nod if you can see.. LOOK, nodding.. SHE CAN SEE ladies and gents!!!! ( er... was she really completely blind? ) Never mind.. JESUS is with us.... FEEL the love ... FEEL it praise God.

This is what a lack of knowledge on a subject looks like. You don't have any actual knowledge so you make it up and declare it to be true.

"Lack of knowledge"

Again, you seem to assume my "lack of knowledge". I wonder how you arrived at the conclusion?

I've been to a few traveling faith healing services.
I have watched quite a few on TV.

I have even heard some on the radio ( that's pretty bad radio, but I'm weird like that )
So, yeah, I'm "witnessing" what can happen at a faith healing ministry.

Lots and lots of talk about faith and healing and so on.. lots of happiness.. lots of baskets being passed for donations.. Lots of people seemingly ecstatic... Lot's of praising the lord and so forth.. lots of very fervent prayers and music and shouting and dancing and shouts for joy.. Yep.. I made that scenario up.. BUT.. stuff like that happens in those events. ( lots of talk about "Jesus", too, by the way )

I've witnessed them first hand. ( not that I was a believer, nor that I payed for the privilege )

Heal heal heal... feel, feel feel, are the rambling of one who is uneducated on the subject matter.

I do hope that you realize that an ad hominen attack isn't a good argument. Please refrain from calling your opponents "rambling" or "uneducated".

But to the point:

Are you saying that one has to be "educated" in order to report what one hears?

So you should see why your argument is failing. Your argument is from a position of ignorance on spiritual knowledge.

I am coming from an honest admission of ignorance on spiritual matters.
I don't see your point. I'm not trying to make an argument, I am trying to help you make your case for miracles.

"It ain't easy".

I'm an agnostic. I don't PRETEND to know anything about spiritual matters.
You resent as a believer.

The case we are debating is whether your case that miracles happen has any merit.
It's not my case.. it's yours.

Apparently, you would like us to believe that miracles happen.
I am skeptical that they do, and question your evidence. I don't think that so far, it can prove what you imagine it does. So, I suggest better evidence for your claim.

Trying to help, but

"It ain't easy".

Don't know who Frank is.

He wrote the book titled " I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist

Sorry, I thought that Frank Turek was famous in Christian circles.. in any case, he is a very popular apologist and author.

"Frank Turek is an American Christian author, Christian Apologist and public speaker at universities, conferences, and churches. He is the author of two books, Correct, Not Politically Correct and Stealing from God, and co-author of two more with Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and Legislating Morality. He hosts a call-in talk show called CrossExamined on American Family Radio. His television show, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, airs on the NRB Network."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Turek

What I do know is that outsiders of the faith such as yourself are more likely to accept a statistical impossibility over any scenario that includes God. Even if the scenario with God has a greater probability of being true.

What a fantastic statement!!

To be able at all to agree with it, we would first have to agree that:

• 1. I am likely to accept a statistical impossibility.
  2. I am closed minded about the existence of God.
  3. You have somehow established the probability of God being true.

Do you have ANY evidence for your claims?
( this is a challenge, by the way.. )

I don't have to hear an atheist proclaim their faith

Maybe it's good enough for you to just imagine that.
But I don't ask for your IMAGINED evidence.

You will NOT hear Blasctat proclaim a "faith" in atheism.. or for much of anything at all.. it's a word that I tend to AVOID when describing myself in a religious forum. All of this religious talk is confusing ENOUGH... so I just avoid the word "faith".

Meow...

But instead of believing what I say about myself, why don't you read Frank Turek's very popular book " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"?

It's on sale at a reputable book store close to you.

to see their claims of faith all over the place.

How about you give us an example of my "CLAIMS OF FAITH"?
Just one.. so that we know what you are talking about?

Or.. are you talking about THOSE OTHER ATHEISTS OUT THERE.. who you are NOT debating right now?

Please provide evidence of this claim or
DROP IT.

Just because some claim to have no faith in God, that does not automatically make a person not able to have faith at all.

Well, that's true.
I use the word faith all the time in my private, oh so secular life.. but in purely SECULAR ways.. Since I am not a god believer.. I don't use the word faith to designate anything to do with the supernatural. I generally use the word "faith" the same way that I would use "trust".

Hey, it's a way.

"Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
‘this restores one's faith in politicians’"

( by the way, I don't necessarily always agree with Oxford. For example, I don't use the word faith to mean COMPLETE trust.. because as a skeptic, I don't trust ANYTHING completely )
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

For example, on this website you have claimed that you believe the laws of nature will perform the same tomorrow as they do today.

I like people to actually quote me when they "quote me"... I can't check what the context was or what my ACTUAL words ACTUALLY were. So, if you are thinking of what I ACTUALLY wrote.. copy paste oughta be enough evidence that I DID say it.

Because you seem to sometimes invent what I write.. I caught you twice doing that in this one post alone. So, a little evidence might help you.

You may have heard of a straw man arguments?

Avoid those.
But let's assume that I DID write those words, shall we?
I like to help you out with your argument, after all.

This is a statement of faith.

Well it might be... depending on our use of the word "faith".
In your example, I can say that based on the evidence of the past, the laws of nature seem to have been QUITE reliable in the past.. and don't seem to ever change. But I would not say that I know the future. Maybe they CAN change... But I just don't know. A good skeptic will admit when he or she doesn't know something.

I go by the evidence, but I don't have ANY evidence of future happenings.
Sorry. I don't happen to HAVE that time machine to go check.

You may wish to call it something else because you don't like it, but by definition it is a statement of faith.

By whose definition?

Maybe by YOUR definition it is.
Do other people get to define words, too?

Do people have many uses for the same words, in English?
You know.. like the numbered LISTS of meaning ( usages ) in dictionaries?

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary says one of the meanings of "dictionary" is. Notice the last part about USAGE.

"A book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dictionary

Sometimes, words have more than just one meaning.
This causes language difficulties in debates like this.

It's like people think that words can only mean what THEY think it means, and nothing else. Of course, this is a fallacious bit of reasoning. Often USED in apologetics.. they are quite famous for that, as a matter of fact.

How often do religious debates devolve into debates over the CORRECT meaning of a realty common word? In my experience, all TOO often.

Once was enough for the Blastcat !!

But here we are ... debating over the correct meaning of words.. Instead of getting to the evidence that would support your claims.

I am skeptical that you are the final authority on what words are supposed to mean for the rest of us. You are, of course, quite free to define any word any way that you so choose.

And if you want to convey some MEANING by using the words, you should try as best as you can to tell us what you mean. It's no use debating what we do not understand.
I'm a skeptic maybe, but not a mind-reader.

Many atheistic scientist place faith in theoretical explanations of events because it makes sense.

"Place faith in"

Well, I would have MORE faith in something that makes sense than didn't make sense. That seems reasonable of the scientists, if they would, too.

Could you explain how you mean "place faith in" in a scientific context? I've never heard "faith in" as a scientific method. How about "forming a hypothesis in order to TEST IT?" I've heard of that.. not "faith in". But, I suppose that scientists are also free to use the word "faith" anyway that THEY want to, as well.

There is no law against using certain words in science.
Unjustified claims are not allowed.

Ambiguous terms doesn't resolve claims well at all.

There is faith that the planets orbits are fixed.

What KIND of faith are you talking about?

• Blind faith?
  Faith based on the best evidence?
  Religious faith?
  The church of Scientism kind of "faith"?
  The faith that is identical as "trust"?
  The faith that what they hope is true turns OUT to be true?

But I run out of imagination and energy.. if I didn't nail it in that list, could you PLEASE explain THE TERM you are using so that we know what it IS you are talking about?

Because YES, I am VERY ignorant of the way you use your terms and of any conclusive evidence for your miracle claims.

That's the problem, you see.

You seem to want to defend the proposition that "miracles happen".
I'm asking for evidence, and so far, what you offer doesn't do the job for me.

Your "Tu quoque" argument doesn't help, either.
Yeah, even secular people use the word "faith", but I have NO idea how that helps your case about miracles. Sorry.

No comprende amigo.

There is faith that the tilt of the earths axis was caused by it being struck with a large object. All of these statements are claims of faith which are not and cannot be empirically known.

So, when you use the word faith, are you saying that it's identical to the way scientists use the word "hypothesis"?Because scientists form hypotheses in order to TEST them with the facts. Is "hypothesis" what you mean by "faith"?

If so, what TESTS do you propose we use to prove the "miracle" hypothesis true of false?


Lots of questions, eh?
Welcome once again to debates !

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 159 by Blastcat]

How does our IGNORANCE prove a miracle happened?

Our ignorance of natural causes that would explain her recovery manifesting shortly after someone prayed and laid hands on her, leads us to rely on a miracle as the best possible explanation.

Just like the theory of the composition of the center of the earth is the best available explanation for what we have witnessed. Or just like the theory of cosmic inflation is the best explanation for the relatively even disbursement of matter what we witness in the known universe. A miracle is the best explanation for this woman being healed just after being prayed for and the laying on of hands. No other explanation presented thus far explains both her recovery and the timing.

If you think there is a better explanation than a miracle that explains both her recovery and the timing, please present it. Thus far your list only attempts to offer explanations of her recovery and not the timing. The explanation needs to explain both.

Science often accepts a theory because it is the best known explanation, not because it has been proven to be true. There are many theories which are taught as true even though there is no direct empirical evidence supporting these theories as true. Theories about the tilt of the axis of the earth are taught as fact, even though we have no way of proving these theories to be true. They are accepted because they are the best available explanation. Likewise, a miracle is the best available explanation.

To go from IGNORANCE to a conclusion is known in the business as

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam.. and that is something to be avoided in an honest debate, and NOT embraced so lovingly.

Blastcat say SHUN the argument from ignorance.

Then I guess you shun a great deal of modern science. There are a plethura of theories which are accepted as true even though there is little to no direct evidence of these theories being true. These theories are accepted because they offer the best available explanation of a certain phenomena.

Do you shun the theory of cosmic inflation? We started with observing an expanding universe and evenly disbursed background radiation. We began with ignorance as to how the universe was expanding. We then began to conclude that the universe must have been smaller at some point in the past. We then needed a theory to explain the universe expanding and even disbursement of matter and background radiation. Thus leading to cosmic inflation.

Do you shun the theory of the composition of the center of the earth? We have no way of directly measuring or proving that the earths core is made of mostly iron. There are many assumptions which have to be accepted as correct to arrive at the final theory. These assumptions are arguments that begin with ignorance and postulate a conclusion.

If every assumption was proven true, these theories would then become natural laws. It is because we have to rely on assumptions and best guesses, we cannot call these theories science fact. Should one of these underlying assumptions be proven false in the future, the theory will be corrected or updated. Likewise if a natural explanation is ever discovered in the future which can explain both the woman's recovery and the timing, we will no longer call this event a miracle. Thus far, none is presented, so a miracle is the best available explanation.

In order for the woman's recovery to come from natural causes, all of the above would be required.

What do you mean "all of the above".. do you imagine that a natural cause.. has to be a LONG LIST of causes?

If I am being poisoned, for example, the natural cause for my symptoms MAY be the poison, and nothing else. But I'm not sure what you mean, actually.

Maybe you can clarify.

The all of the above I mentioned was specifically about

For the woman to have been healed by natural processes, the root cause of the swelling would have had to been remedied in advance, and then the exact timing of when her swelling would subside calculated. Next, the traveling minister would have to know the exact time the swelling would subside, and call her up to pray for her and lay hands on her. Next, her body would have had to comply exactly with the estimated time frame for recovery.

You lifted a section of this paragraph and ask why the minister would need to know anything about medicine. My response was in order for the woman's recovery and timing to be explained by natural causes the minister would have to know the estimated time of when she would get better. This would provide an explanation for the timing which thus far is unexplained.

Are you sure you want to go with assuming that I am ignorant?

I'm an agnostic. I don't PRETEND to know anything about spiritual matters.

By your own words I can continue to presume your ignorance of spiritual matters. You affirm that you do not have an understanding of spiritual matters. This is what we call being ignorant of a topic. Visiting a miracle service a few times or watching it on tv does not mean you understand what is actually taking place. I can travel to CERN and witness scientific experiments happening right in front of my eyes, that does not mean I understand what may be occuring. I lack the fundamental understanding required to adequately interpret and explain what I have witness. Likewise you affirm that you do not have the ade