Naturalism

stevencarrwork · Post by **stevencarrwork** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:59 pm

Exodus 8
10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake.

On a naturalistic view of the Universe, is this story to be taken
as untrue on the grounds that the Egyptian sorcerers could not work miracles and were unable to change wood into snakes?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:11 pm

On a naturalistic view of the Universe, is this story to be taken
as untrue on the grounds that the Egyptian sorcerers could not work miracles and were unable to change wood into snakes?

Yes and no. A naturalist (i.e. Me) would say that no supernatural things or powers exist. This st ry contains two sources of supernatural claims, the powers of YHWH and the "arts" of the sorcerers.

Given that neither power can be shown to exist in any reasonable manner, it is best to conclude that the story is a falsity.

This story does, however, make the claim that YHWH is not the only source of supernatural power. So it can be used against christians who claim that supernatural things are no longer witnessed because YHWH doesn't do miracle anymore.

DanZ

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:08 pm

Stevencarrwork: On a naturalistic view of the Universe, is this story to be taken
as untrue on the grounds that the Egyptian sorcerers could not work miracles and were unable to change wood into snakes?

If Pharaoh's magicians did not perform a genuine miracle, how could they have created such an effective illusion? For the magicians to change the staffs into snakes by the use of some type of illusion or magic trick, rather than by supernatural powers, they would have at least two options, maybe three. First, would be to disguise the snakes to look, or at least momentarily represent staffs and perform some type of quick switch of the staffs for the snakes. Secondly, they could hide the snakes in something that gave the appearance of a staff. Both methods would be relatively easy to accomplish.
Walter Gibson in his book Secrets of Magic, shares how modern Egyptian wizards perform the staff to snake trick, Pharaoh's magicians may have used the exact method:
Actually, the stick is a snake at the very start. The trick depends upon a species called the naja haje, or the Egyptian cobra. A peculiarity of this snake is that it can be made motionless by pressure just below the head. Thus temporarily paralysed, the naja haje becomes rigid, like a stick, but when it is thrown on the ground, it is jolted back to action.

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:37 pm

Pharaoh's magicians may have used the exact method:

But by this explanation the story is still false. The bible does not say "then the Pharoah's magicians did a simple stage trick". It says they turned staffs to snakes.

DanZ

stevencarrwork · Post by **stevencarrwork** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:57 am

Sadly the Bible never claims that the Egyptians staff was a stiff snake,
and that it was a trick. It says clearly that they used a staff.

Incidentally, the trick has only been documented since the 16th century
AD, and it is not a convincing staff. The trick is that the snake is
'charmed', not that it looks like a staff.

Here is a photo showing a flaccid snake and a 'stiff' snake.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/evil/hod/img/26400.jpg

And this is supposed to be a duplication of a miracle involving a
genuine piece of wood?

Why would God choose a commonplace magic trick, as a method of
persuading Pharoah that Moses was from God? That would be dumb.

Just how dumb must Moses have been not to be able to show the Pharoah
that his staff was real, while the magicians staff was still a snake?

How did the sorcerers turn all the water in the Nile into blood?

If people can't work miracles, how do we explain the following well-
documented miracles?

There are named eyewitnesses who claim to have seen Mohammed split the moon in two.

Josephus's 'Wars of the Jews' was written with ten years of the events ,
by a direct participant , and he records eyewitness testimony - 'I
suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related
by those that saw it' . He is referring to a heifer giving birth to a
lamb in the middle of the Temple. Should we believe a cow gave birth to
a lamb, in a work written within ten years of the event? Surely this is
just as well attested as the raising of the widow of Nain's son.

In the 'Histories' by Tacitus, he records that the Emperor Vespasian
cured blindness with spittle and cured lameness. Tacitus writes 'Persons
actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be
gained by falsehood.' Should we believe Tacitus's reports, based on
eyewitness testimony, and attributed by him to the god Serapis?

In Mark 8:23-26, Jesus cures blindness, partly by spitting on someone's
eyes. Should we believe this story?

In the Histories, Tacitus also records that a priest of the god Serapis,
Basilides, was seen by Vespasian in the Temple, although Vespasian knew
, and checked by sending horsemen to verify, that a moment earlier
Basilides had been in a town some eighty miles distant. Should we
believe Tacitus, reporting the eyewitness testimony of the hard-headed
Emperor/Soldier Vespasian?

How should we evaluate miracle claims from antiquity?

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:24 am

Does anyone have a an answer as to why god no longer sends men on errands to prove his existence? Just why is it that everything stops with the "publication" of the bible?

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that all accounts of miracles and other supernatural phenomena are pure fiction. Our story-telling abilities are amply displayed in deliberate works of fiction, as exemplified by some of the greatest works of literature.

Quite frankly anyone that makes an exception for the scriptures, could be seen to be nothing short of naive. The problem is that such people start from a slightly more reasonable position - a belief in a supreme being (I can accept that this might make sense for many, although it does not for me) and are then 'forced' to accept the nonsense that is written down in a crude attempt by early philosophers to support the notion.

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:46 pm

Quite frankly anyone that makes an exception for the scriptures, could be seen to be nothing short of naive. The problem is that such people start from a slightly more reasonable position - a belief in a supreme being (I can accept that this might make sense for many, although it does not for me) and are then 'forced' to accept the nonsense that is written down in a crude attempt by early philosophers to support the notion.

What early philosophers are you talking about?

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:05 pm

That would be the priests and shamans (I believe QED would say).
Well intended, but sorely mistaken.

TQWcS · Post by **TQWcS** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:13 pm

The problem is that such people start from a slightly more reasonable position - a belief in a supreme being (I can accept that this might make sense for many, although it does not for me) and are then 'forced' to accept the nonsense that is written down in a crude attempt by early philosophers to support the notion.

I don't know of many people that were forced to accept the miracles described in the Bible. Most people accept the miracles they read about based on the nature of the God they believe in. If you believe it is logically possible for a God that can do miracles to exist, then why would it be illogical to believe he did perform those miracles?

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:44 pm

I don't know of many people that were forced to accept the miracles described in the Bible. Most people accept the miracles they read about based on the nature of the God they believe in. If you believe it is logically possible for a God that can do miracles to exist, then why would it be illogical to believe he did perform those miracles?

Well, many people have died in the last 1700 years for denying the truth of the bible as taught by man.

Many of those who lived did so by no longer disagreeing with the bible (as it was taught by man).

Peer pressure causes many to refrain from being a doubter.

A belief in god does not require a belief in miracles.
The founding fathers such as Jefferson, Franklin, Washington were tight chested about their beliefs because of social pressure. They were Diests who did not accept the miracles.

I agree with your logic that IF one believes in a god that can do miracles, one could easily believe in a god who did miracles.

A long time ago I posed myself the question “Can god break the moral laws of the universe (that god created)?” I decided yes, god could, but would always chose not to. I decided it must be the same for the physical laws of the universe. Of course god could, but it would serve no purpose. There is always an easier way to accomplish the same result.