Magic and god

[connermt]

Blaine.
Angel.
Cooperfield.
Magicians. They do 'tricks' that stun and amaze many people.
God/jesus did the same type of things.
So are they nothing more than magicians?
Let's compare:
Blaine/Angel/Cooperfield/jesus = human
Blaine/Angel/Cooperfield/jesus = doing actions that surprise and impress certain (though not all) viewers
Blaine/Angel/Cooperfield/jesus = men
Let's contrast:
Blaine/Angel/Cooperfield = alive jesus = dead
Blaine/Angel/Cooperfield = verifiable in the real world jesus = unverifiable

It sure seems god can be called nothing more than a magician. Is that true, or is it something else?
How do we know this?
-

[RonE]

[Replying to post 49 by sizzle-d]

Sizzle'd, I don't mean to offend but I don't think your answer made any sense either. I'm willing to cut you some slack as English is probably not your first language, but you might what to re-read your post from the perspective of the recipient not from the perspective of what was in your mind as you wrote it.

[sizzle-d]

[Replying to post 51 by RonE]

It is. I meant I DON'T HAVE A FAITH HEALER. That's what i meant.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 34 by dianaiad]

"there is no evidence to show that the miracles of God ever happened because we can't identify the laws of nature that would allow them to happen" and "because we can't confirm the existence of the miracles, then there is no evidence for the existence of the One Who is given credit for them" and finally "if we ever can identify the laws which would allow these miracles, or duplicate them ourselves, that proves that those miracles were not supernatural and therefore there is no evidence that a Deity was involved."

Well, no, I don't think that's what I said, it seems actually backwards. Without first establishing that god exists how can you credit god with doing anything?

Isn't that a little bit like saying that you must first prove a hypothesis to be true before you can present any evidence in favor of it?

Or, as an example of this, that I must prove that my sister took me to lunch the other day before I can claim that she had the cheese-steak and paid the check?

The issue of whether man can duplicate those things now or in the future seems like a red herring.

I think you and I had an exchange a few months back related to the existence of god and your comment:

I actually got there by performing an experiment with specific parameters

is of interest at least in helping me understand your criteria for proof. Would you be willing to expand on your experiment?

That's no secret:

It's found in the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10 3-5:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The basic parameters are 'read,' 'ponder' and 'pray.'

Read: You know, read the stuff in question....and it's not just about the Book of Mormon; according to verse 5, it's 'all things." If you have a chance to read something that purports to be religious truth, then do so.

Ponder: According to the dictionary definitions I've read, "Ponder" means to 'think deeply and thoroughly,' to 'consider carefully.' In other words, you don't simply skim the text; you dig into it. You think about it. You examine it. You learn all you can about it. Then, when you find yourself leaning one way or another about it, you ask God for confirmation.

Pray: notice that verse 4 has some rather strict rules about this. You have to be sincere. You have to have faith...not that there is a God and that Christ is the Savior, but rather that if there is AND if Christ is the Savior, that They WILL answer you; They did promise, after all. You don't believe in God? No problem; everybody starts somewhere; just trust that if there is One AND the promise is real, then He'll keep it. The biggest problem I've found in this 'experiment' is that few really pay attention to the rules; they come into it with their minds already made up. They skip the reading, or the pondering, or feel stupid about the praying (because they are already convinced that either there is nobody to answer or that the answer would be something he might not want to hear) and so don't bother...something.

Or they get confirmation of a truth (thou shalt not spy on your neighbor's wife when she skinnydips in her backyard pool) and figures that if that's true, then the next item on the list is true, too...for instance, 'thou shalt eat blackberries only on alternate Thursdays." That's not God's fault. He confirmed the 'no skinnydipping.' Did He confirm the blackberry thing? Maybe not.

It's a lot of work, actually.

I wouldn't agree that "belief in god is a very subjective thing",

I can think of nothing more subjective than belief--in anything. After all, one's belief in something has nothing to do with the reality of that something. A rock spewed from a volcano was spewed from a volcano no matter how many people in the geology class insisted it was sedimentary.

but I think that the standards of proof that are acceptable by any two people can vary greatly and that might give the impression of subjectivity.

Well now, there may well be an intelligent form of moss somewhere in the universe. It's greatest scientific accomplishment may have been how to keep rocks still. I can't prove that there is such a species, and you can't prove that there isn't....and it's existence doesn't depend upon our doing either one.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 53 by dianaiad]

RonE wrote:
I wouldn't agree that "belief in god is a very subjective thing",

I can think of nothing more subjective than belief--in anything. After all, one's belief in something has nothing to do with the reality of that something.

Really? If you don't have a sense for the reality of something how can you have an opinion of it. IMHO the basis for a subjective opinion should be the evidence you gather relative to the subject. I doubt your "subjective" opinion is not based on some evidence, which means it's not really 100% subjective. If writing in a book written 2000 (or 150) years ago is the standard of evidence that works for you that is okay, personally I don't think it's a good standard but you do have some basis for this opinion.

And that's what I was looking for by asking for you to expand on your experiment.

By the same token what is your opinion on this T.B. Joshua healing HIV? Surely there is a level of evidence for his story, there's even a you-tube video and a website.

I don't mean to sound flippant but there seems to be about the same level of evidence for T.B. Joshua as you accept for your religion.

I don't see that the intelligent form of moss brings anything to our discussion.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 35 by sizzle-d]

Okay Sizzle-d, I went to the website and what was it suppose to do?

Convince me that this guy is anything other than another god huckster millionaire.

No, in this case seeing is not believing.

I would love to see Leo Igwe (a famous Nigerian skeptic) investigate T.B. Joshua. I have a feeling the "faith healer's" claims won't stand up to skeptical scrutiny.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 53 by dianaiad]

RonE wrote:
I wouldn't agree that "belief in god is a very subjective thing",

I can think of nothing more subjective than belief--in anything. After all, one's belief in something has nothing to do with the reality of that something.

Really? If you don't have a sense for the reality of something how can you have an opinion of it. IMHO the basis for a subjective opinion should be the evidence you gather relative to the subject. I doubt your "subjective" opinion is not based on some evidence, which means it's not really 100% subjective. If writing in a book written 2000 (or 150) years ago is the standard of evidence that works for you that is okay, personally I don't think it's a good standard but you do have some basis for this opinion.

And that's what I was looking for by asking for you to expand on your experiment.

By the same token what is your opinion on this T.B. Joshua healing HIV? Surely there is a level of evidence for his story, there's even a you-tube video and a website.

I don't mean to sound flippant but there seems to be about the same level of evidence for T.B. Joshua as you accept for your religion.

I don't see that the intelligent form of moss brings anything to our discussion.

I don't think you are getting my point.

Let's take a look at the scientific method, just briefly. "Science" isn't about establishing (or creating, in other words) truth, it's about discovering truth. I used the example of an igneous rock; it will remain an igneous rock no matter how many people point at it and claim that it was formed through sedimentary processes. It doesn't matter how long people people believed that the woman was responsible for the sex of the child she bears...the FACT is, it's the guy. Took science a long time to finally figure that out, but whether people knew about it or not, it remained true; the sperm decides the sex, the egg doesn't, and opinion regarding it did not change the process...and Schroedinger's Cat is only a thought experiment.

You seem to be (and many here have seemed to be) arguing that God's existence depends upon how many people believe in Him, and what their beliefs are. Like that rock, it's not true; either there is a God (or more than one) or there isn't. My opinion about the matter doesn't alter that, and neither does yours.

That said, you are quite right, and I've written this many times: nobody believes something with NO evidence. It might not be evidence that anybody else likes, but there is always something, no matter how wispy, weird or wild someone else might consider it to be, to support a belief.

That evidence, in religion, is pretty much always subjective: that is, something very personal that cannot be proven to someone else. I mean, how can I prove to you that my prayers were answered? I can't. Those answers are my evidence, in support of my beliefs. You want answers? Fine.

You ask and get your own.

Seems simple enough to me. Of course, it's not simple; as I wrote previously, there are a lot of rules to it. You know the sort of rules I mean: you have to be serious about it, you have to REALLY read, and REALLY 'ponder' (with all the work that involves) and you have to REALLY want to know, and be sincere in the asking.

Then you have to recognize the answer and be willing to accept it.


It means going into the proposition with an open mind. No preconceived notions. It doesn't have to STAY wide open; of course, during the 'reading' and 'pondering' phase you are going to learn stuff and form opinions...but you have to, at least, begin 'fresh.'

I honestly haven't seen all that many people who are willing to do that.

As for your faith healer....nah.

Do I believe that people can be 'healed by faith?" Sure...I believe I have my sister's life to show for that one. Do I think that the placebo effect works? Sure. Who cares whether it's a placebo or not, if it works? Do I think that the mind can have an effect on the body, positive or negative, so that someone can literally 'think' himself well...or sick?

Absolutely---and so does the medical profession.

Do I think that this guy is an honest to goodness faith healer?

Not on your tintype, though perhaps some of the folk who believe in him have some positive results, it's their minds and faith working, not his.

I have had some experiences with 'faith healing,' but that's such an officious term. My own experiences have been far more simple than that; normal, natural, just part of my faith; no big productions going on. Quiet. Personal, without audiences.

But then my faith system simply folds that into the totality of what is available; there is no 'God will heal you, you don't need a doctor' from us, because one of the reasons we believe we are here is to learn how to heal each other and to understand how stuff works.

In other words, we are likely to pray for help so that the surgeon's mind is clear and his hands are steady..........NOT so much to fix it so that the operation isn't required, though that would be nice, too.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 56 by dianaiad]

You seem to be (and many here have seemed to be) arguing that God's existence depends upon how many people believe in Him, and what their beliefs are.

I'm not sure where this came from, but that's not a part of my thoughts on god's existence.

I do agree that truth is what matters, and everyone must find their own.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 56 by dianaiad]

You seem to be (and many here have seemed to be) arguing that God's existence depends upon how many people believe in Him, and what their beliefs are. Like that rock, it's not true; either there is a God (or more than one) or there isn't

Yes and no.
Either God exists or it doesn't. I can't honestly say it doesn't simply because it DOES exist in your mind/belief.
You have no way of proving to me this god exists in this world - like I exist.
You CAN prove that it exists to you.
Without proof of existence outside your own personal bubble, the only thing that is certain is that god exists within you - your mind.
So, the christian god your worship (assuming you worship the same one as regular christians which many regular christians would disagree with) does exist by your ability to prove it, but ONLY in your mind.
This means, in the reality you & I share, there is no god outside your mind.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 56 by dianaiad]

You seem to be (and many here have seemed to be) arguing that God's existence depends upon how many people believe in Him, and what their beliefs are. Like that rock, it's not true; either there is a God (or more than one) or there isn't

Yes and no.
Either God exists or it doesn't. I can't honestly say it doesn't simply because it DOES exist in your mind/belief.
You have no way of proving to me this god exists in this world - like I exist.
You CAN prove that it exists to you.
Without proof of existence outside your own personal bubble, the only thing that is certain is that god exists within you - your mind.
So, the christian god your worship (assuming you worship the same one as regular christians which many regular christians would disagree with) does exist by your ability to prove it, but ONLY in your mind.
This means, in the reality you & I share, there is no god outside your mind.

Actually, both you and Ron are going at this precisely backwards: true, the number of people who believe in God do not prove His existence....but then the number of those who don't do not prove His non-existence, either. As your last sentence indicates, your opinion is that if you don't believe in Him, then obviously His existence can't possibly be 'real' outside my mind.

My point is....it doesn't matter whether I believe or you don't: His existence is entirely apart from that and is not dependent upon my belief---or your disbelief, anymore than my existence depends upon your belief that I'm sitting here typing.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 59 by dianaiad]

Actually, both you and Ron are going at this precisely backwards...

Actually, irrelevant. Ron & I aren't trying to 'go at it the same way'.

...the number of people who believe in God do not prove His existence...

You're right, but I didn't mention QTY so another irrelevant point.

My point is...

Vapidly wrong.
You can prove god exists to you, not me
Therefore, the most logical (I know, but stay with me) conclusion is that god exists only in your mind (the mind of a believer), not in the reality you and I share.
Otherwise, you'd be able to show me.
You can't.


Nothing more to say.