Walking on Water

[Zzyzx]

.
In a current thread someone says:

You don't think that a fellow walking on water would be evidence that his god exists and has got his back?

IF someone actually walked on water in defiance of what we know of water and the human body, that would indicate that something unknown was involved.

There are stories told of someone walking on water long ago.

Should rational people accept stories of 'walking on water' as evidence that a 'god' exists? Why or why not?

Does 'something unknown involved' indicate involvement of a 'god'? Why or why not?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

No, there is no actual walking on water!
There are 2 possible metaphors as Bible is oftentimes written in metaphors.
1. Jesus, all 1000, is exalted, raised above life as text of respect and celebration.
2. Jesus' soul walks in afterlife over all life and has this worth as person.

Again, Jesus, a common name for all 1000 people from scholarly Bethlehem, is of profound importance for all God's righteous people and as such commands definite respect!

Clear?

[benchwarmer]

.
In a current thread someone says:

You don't think that a fellow walking on water would be evidence that his god exists and has got his back?

IF someone actually walked on water in defiance of what we know of water and the human body, that would indicate that something unknown was involved.

There are stories told of someone walking on water long ago.

Should rational people accept stories of 'walking on water' as evidence that a 'god' exists? Why or why not?

Does 'something unknown involved' indicate involvement of a 'god'? Why or why not?

As I indicated in the thread where this came from, someone walking on water is NOT necessarily evidence of a 'god'. Why? It could just as easily be evidence for an alien species. Or the skills of a good illusionist.

We know at least one living organism has sprung up and developed technology on one of the potentially billions of planets in our universe. It is far more plausible this trick is the work of another species than an invisible deity we have zero verifiable evidence for.

We know illusionists regularly fool their audience with amazing feats that appear to be 'magic'. Do audience members scream 'godidit!' when they can't figure out how the feat was performed or do they rightly come to the conclusion that it must be some mechanism they don't currently know.

An unknown can never be a useful argument for a god. How could it? Which god? Why not a band of pixies? A pack of leprechauns? A trio of 4 headed fairies?

Ascribing events that involve a mystery to a god is pure god of the gaps thinking and has led to the thousands of religions we see around the world today. If simply yelling 'godidit' was useful evidence of said god, there should only be one god that everyone is pointing to. Is this the case? No, of course not. Human imagination is a wonderful thing.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

One of the core princicles of scientific thinking is that predictive capability dramatically increases a theory's plausibility. If we were to imagine that a fellow came along claiming that God would verify his message with 'signs and wonders,' and proceeded to do stuff like walking on water, what else would you call it if not predictive verification?

We can invent ad hoc alien/leprechaun/conspiracy 'explanations' for literally any observation, so noting that possibility in the case of purported miracles hardly invalidates their evidentiary value! However such speculations tend to lack either parsimony, or breadth of explanatory power, or consistency with other widely-accepted theories, all of which may (though not always) be offered by a theistic explanation (albeit sometimes less so than 'natural' explanations).

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

One of the core princicles of scientific thinking is that predictive capability dramatically increases a theory's plausibility. If we were to imagine that a fellow came along claiming that God would verify his message with 'signs and wonders,' and proceeded to do stuff like walking on water, what else would you call it if not predictive verification?

Except that we don't have that. What we have are mostly anonymous, second hand (or third/fourth/?hand) accounts written down in 'scripture' that CLAIM someone said he would do wonders and then supposedly did them.

If I write a story about Bob claiming he has powers before unseen granted to him by a band of leprechauns and then proceeds to perform said feats, is this the scientific method in action? Or is it story telling with absolutely no basis in reality?

For the sake of argument, let's suppose Bob is actually walking around right now and claiming (via youtube or whatever) that he is going to perform great feats at the behest of this band of leprechauns. If you happened to live near Bob and went out to watch him perform one of his feats would you immediately start proclaiming the band of leprechauns exist? Would you not seek more verifiable evidence and not simply swallow whatever Bob is proclaiming?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]

Cheeky...

With science in hand, in some future, I'm going to talk to bushes, 2 of them, assisted by special radiology arrangement, using psychology of rewards by sugar in water!

So there. Maybe there will be a video on YouTube.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Should rational people accept stories of 'walking on water' as evidence that a 'god' exists? Why or why not?

Does 'something unknown involved' indicate involvement of a 'god'? Why or why not?

Stories are stories, nothing more. They are NOT proof of anything that a story exists.
Should rational people believe such stories? I've seen that the word 'rational' is not the same for everyone, I suppose it's because what's rational to one may not be for another (just like the walking on water example provided in the OP)
Over time, things thought to be of God were replaced by understanding, usually from scientific investigation. Given enough time, I believe all things could be understood. But I doubt humanity will exist for that long.

God and all things 'God' are about belief, not proof. That's why you need faith.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

One of the core princicles of scientific thinking is that predictive capability dramatically increases a theory's plausibility. If we were to imagine that a fellow came along claiming that God would verify his message with 'signs and wonders,' and proceeded to do stuff like walking on water, what else would you call it if not predictive verification?

Except that we don't have that. What we have are mostly anonymous, second hand (or third/fourth/?hand) accounts written down in 'scripture' that CLAIM someone said he would do wonders and then supposedly did them.

And when what we have are the named and sworn testimonies of 3-4 professionals who witnessed the miracle, what is the excuse then? They were conspiring and lying together to get more visitors to their shrine? Or when a trenchant critic and sceptic becomes persuaded by the evidence of his own eyes; merely a symptom of some deeper existential crisis, perhaps. When a purported miracle is captured on video, doubtless it's probably doctored. And when a committee of nineteen experts with no interests at stake carefully investigate and unanimously pass through a miracle verdict...? Or when the majority of experts in their field not only accept the conclusion that miracles occur, but actually report personal witness of them...?

We are all well and truly familiar with the fact that no weight of evidence will ever persuade folk who simply don't want to be persuaded: I was not even discussing the weight of evidence for the claim of Jesus' aquatic ambulations, in this or the other thread. As the best-known exemplars of the 'miracle' genre, those attributed to Jesus are simply a useful point of reference for exploring and refining how we think about the subject. Perhaps for folk who are unable or unwilling to consider such scenarios as abstractions or hypotheticals, their analysis will be limited accordingly.