How about a Miracle!

[Sender]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see diferent opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]
When in the late 20s of the 19th century the Angel Moroni came down in a wood of the state New York and showed the Golden Plates to the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer), was that then a miracle or a vision

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #30]
When in the late 20s of the 19th century the Angel Moroni came down in a wood of the state New York and showed the Golden Plates to the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer), was that then a miracle or a vision

I don't believe a word of it, and don't know what that had to do with answered prayer or growing back missing limbs, anyway. As to LDS, on the Other piano, an ex Mormon explained the Abraham papyrus to me. Being something of an Egyptology stud myself, I recognised what it Really was, and also suspected that some bits had been snipped off so that Smith could'Reconstruct' the drawings as something different. The writing was Heiroglyphs (which we can read today) degenerating into scribble.

It is a fraud. Totally and utterly. The excuse that it wasn't the originals collapsed when the original papyrus (which hadn't been destroyed in a fire as was thought) turned up. It utterly debunks Smith as a translator of any kind of Egyptian and why should anyone credit him as a translator of anything or reliable in any of his claims.

No, I am in agreement with Cartman here. It is utter nonsense and I'm not fooled by the smiling clean cut image either. They are as snarly as any evangelists - if their Faith gets threatened.

[Mae von H]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see different opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

Jesus did tons of miracles and still they didn’t believe. Why do you think modern people are different?

This is a serious question. Why, when Jesus did 'tons of miracles' didn't they believe? And this has been raised before in a thread or two - If God knew what it would take to make people believe, turn, repent and be saved, why didn't He arrange it so that would happen?

Because each man must choose to believe the evidence. And that choice will cost the man. The goal isn’t all believe whatever it takes. The goal that each man will lay his rebellion, surrender and walk with God. Miracles won’t guarantee this.

Why - the thread asked - wasn't Jesus' resurrection done openly and in public so there would be no doubt?

It says he appeared to hundreds.

cue: 'God knows best', and the answer would be to not interfere with free will. If people KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and if for surethat Jesus was god, then there is no room for Faith, and Faith requires an element of belief beyond mere convincing factual support.

He persuades. He doesn’t conquer. But “God knows best” is a weak answer.

Arguably what Jesus did back then, miracles and all, wasn't enough to persuade people then and could not be or Faith is undermined. And if it was intentionally not going to be enough to persuade people then, why should it be enough to persuade us now?

Some don’t want to believe. Miracles were done because people were suffering.

The thing about miracles is that they are either not verified, are credibly faked (it does happen) or are unexplained. Remission from cancer is a favourite 'Miracle', but until we know what does it, we do not know it is a miracle. Axiomatically, the unexplained is just unexplained; it is not Explained as a miracle, let alone to be credited to any particular god. It's the old problem and the irrational basis of Theist thinking: the assumption is that God's doing is the default hypothesis, so anything 'Unexplained' (or indeed hearsay) is God's doing until science proves 100% that it isn't. That is not how logic works.

You’ve answered your own question. You, yourself wouldn’t believe if a miracle happened right in front of you because you’ve concluded they’re faked, unverified or unexplained. You require that a miracle be verified or explained before they’ll convince you to believe.

God is a claim that requires convincing evidence and is not the default until 100% debunked - which will never happen, since scientific proof is dismissed as 'human opinion' at need.

Actually believing in the spiritual world is the default. One has to be convinced it’s all bunk.

No, it is validated science that explains how things happen, no god necessary, that is the 'materialist default'.

This you had to be taught. It’s not the position humans have naturally had down through time. There’s so much science cannot explain it’s not funny. And science has been wrong plenty too.

But Theist thinking totally and persistently thinks God is the go - to theory when logically it is not. This is why all theist - thinking is fundamentally illogical even before they start arguing.

Probably you haven’t interacted with many intelligent believers. And actually, evolution is the go-to theory when logic fails. Can’t explain something? Evolution did it. Logic not necessary.

NDE's was a good example. We know that the NDE enthusiasts tried to rush us all to Belief in a soul, heaven and God before we even knew what this stuff was. Giving benefit of doubt about good intentions, it was an object lesson (if poor old Anthony Flew wasn't enough of one) that letting Believers rush us into conclusions before we really know what is going on is not something we can allow to happen, just so we don't look silly afterwards.

I don’t recall hearing of an NDE or any other testimony and feeling I was being rushed into a particular thinking.

Ok Apart from appeal to Belief and personal conviction, which is evidence of nothing,and claims he did tons of miracles and appeared to hundreds of people, which I personally doubt, you make a couple of points. If a miracle happened in front of me I probably would beleive, but I wouldn't expect others to believe it just because I say so. Miracle claimsin apologetics roll out that way. Someone says things in their life convinced them that God was intervening. This as 'open minded' (which i may post again as anyone who debates should watch it) says ' the other party has no way of verifying the event or knowing what parts might have been misremembered or left out. In my job I may say, I initiated (thanks to atheist -led critical thinking 'are you calling me a liar' policy where we had to say that anecdotal claims are not valid evidence for a case.

Sorry to return to snatches of response but you address different subjects in longer paragraphs. The problem with rejected personal testimony of an event, is that you are dismissing the primary source of people finding out what happened in an event. When something happens, what every investigator does is questions the witnesses. There are physical evidence to look at but the witnesses are vital and asking them what happened asap is important. You seem to dismiss those as "anecdotal." Others clearly seem them as vital.

In the testimonies of those who have encountered God, none are meant for you to hang your faith upon. But it is a reason to consider that you might be wrong on this question and they are right. And maybe you want to find out the truth one way or another.

No. Supernatural claims are not the default. You say yes, I say no.Neither you nor I are the authority view here, but people must decide - Faith or logic and evidence.

The fact that the overwhelming members of mankind saw the spiritual world and the atheists are a tiny and always western educated lot shows that faith is the default position. Faith is nature. Atheism comes from education towards that end.

It is religious claims that have been shown to lose ground. Science moved on, sure, but generally to better understanding, rarely to say they were wrong about black holes, relativity or indeed evolution. Even Creationists nmow accept evolution - except they claim with no valid evidence that there is some kind of genetic fnce between Micro and macro.No more than there is a wire fence stopping aircraft that fly to Chicago going onto Japan. Micro = time= Macro. Also they now seem to endorse both evolution of critters and the deep time geology, but want to cram it into 1,000 years between the Ark and the pyramids. Religion has Dogma, science has re-evaluation. That is why it is 'always changing its'mind' - it makes science stronger in the end. Persistent denial makes Religious dogma weak in its' case.

Evolution has lost considerable ground not being evidenced is real life we see nor examples of it happening although experiments have tried to enduce it. Science stuck to the eternal universe theory for centuries....and then found that the universe had a time when it started.....hummm...whom believed that first? Who lost ground?

You have a point that critical thinking and evaluating evidence logically has to be learned. Human instinct leads to what the Religious apologists call 'imperfect human perception'. It leads to illusion and delusion. It has to be taught and learned to do critical thinking and logical assessment of data. That is a point in its' favour. Rejection of evidence and reasons and claiming it is evidence and reason just weakens the religious case. You seem to be unfamiliar with th e case for evolution. I'll just say 'cetan sequence' (that is, whale evolution) That is why you present it as b ad logic and no evidence. It has compelling evidence; the denial and bad reasoning is on the Creationist side. I can see this will lead to discussion

I suspect I know more about evolution that you do. I know of its faults and inconsistencyies and limitations, for example. You seem to think it solves all questions without any hitch, right?

And you are mistaken if you think people of faith abandon logic and reason. I find in debates that the christians have been logic and reason. They are open to all the answers whereas the atheists have closed to door to some for sure.

I do recall, clearly, an attempt by the one who made the Big fat NDE claim to insist it was proof of a soul, Heaven and God, when the skeptic side were saying 'we don't know, yet; let'so the research'. The research generally showed that the results were in the human mind, not some outer reality.

Now let's post the mustwatch vid on critical thinking. You should watch it.

Well, maybe later. The last clip was anything but logical or rational. It was simply repeated mocking over and over again reminding me of junior high school. Does this have some intellectual quality or is it again simply jeering like a 13 jeer old?

Did you ever see the clip about Dawkins insisting that faith is something you believe for no reason and John Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife and was there a reason?

[Tcg]

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

Jesus would have to repent of his wickedness of planning to kill all his enemies before I'd accept him as Lord. Even so, I'd never get on my knees to do so as it is a meaningless gesture that a truly loving being would reject. He'd have to prove that I need to be saved from something and that he has the means to actually save me from whatever that thing is that I need saving from before I'd accept him as my savior.

Neither of these miracles are likely to happen.


Tcg

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Tcg in post #34]
How should Christ prove that?

What would you accept as evidence?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #34]
How should Christ prove that?

In whatever way he chooses.

What would you accept as evidence?

Proof.


Tcg

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Tcg in post #34]
How should Christ prove that?

In whatever way he chooses.

A christian could say: "He choose to give you the bible."

What would you accept as evidence?

Proof.


Tcg

Answer as above

[The Nice Centurion]

Did you ever see the clip about Dawkins insisting that faith is something you believe for no reason and John Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife and was there a reason?

What did Dawkins answer

[TRANSPONDER]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see different opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

Jesus did tons of miracles and still they didn’t believe. Why do you think modern people are different?

This is a serious question. Why, when Jesus did 'tons of miracles' didn't they believe? And this has been raised before in a thread or two - If God knew what it would take to make people believe, turn, repent and be saved, why didn't He arrange it so that would happen?

Because each man must choose to believe the evidence. And that choice will cost the man. The goal isn’t all believe whatever it takes. The goal that each man will lay his rebellion, surrender and walk with God. Miracles won’t guarantee this.

Why - the thread asked - wasn't Jesus' resurrection done openly and in public so there would be no doubt?

It says he appeared to hundreds.

cue: 'God knows best', and the answer would be to not interfere with free will. If people KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and if for surethat Jesus was god, then there is no room for Faith, and Faith requires an element of belief beyond mere convincing factual support.

He persuades. He doesn’t conquer. But “God knows best” is a weak answer.

Arguably what Jesus did back then, miracles and all, wasn't enough to persuade people then and could not be or Faith is undermined. And if it was intentionally not going to be enough to persuade people then, why should it be enough to persuade us now?

Some don’t want to believe. Miracles were done because people were suffering.

The thing about miracles is that they are either not verified, are credibly faked (it does happen) or are unexplained. Remission from cancer is a favourite 'Miracle', but until we know what does it, we do not know it is a miracle. Axiomatically, the unexplained is just unexplained; it is not Explained as a miracle, let alone to be credited to any particular god. It's the old problem and the irrational basis of Theist thinking: the assumption is that God's doing is the default hypothesis, so anything 'Unexplained' (or indeed hearsay) is God's doing until science proves 100% that it isn't. That is not how logic works.

You’ve answered your own question. You, yourself wouldn’t believe if a miracle happened right in front of you because you’ve concluded they’re faked, unverified or unexplained. You require that a miracle be verified or explained before they’ll convince you to believe.

God is a claim that requires convincing evidence and is not the default until 100% debunked - which will never happen, since scientific proof is dismissed as 'human opinion' at need.

Actually believing in the spiritual world is the default. One has to be convinced it’s all bunk.

No, it is validated science that explains how things happen, no god necessary, that is the 'materialist default'.

This you had to be taught. It’s not the position humans have naturally had down through time. There’s so much science cannot explain it’s not funny. And science has been wrong plenty too.

But Theist thinking totally and persistently thinks God is the go - to theory when logically it is not. This is why all theist - thinking is fundamentally illogical even before they start arguing.

Probably you haven’t interacted with many intelligent believers. And actually, evolution is the go-to theory when logic fails. Can’t explain something? Evolution did it. Logic not necessary.

NDE's was a good example. We know that the NDE enthusiasts tried to rush us all to Belief in a soul, heaven and God before we even knew what this stuff was. Giving benefit of doubt about good intentions, it was an object lesson (if poor old Anthony Flew wasn't enough of one) that letting Believers rush us into conclusions before we really know what is going on is not something we can allow to happen, just so we don't look silly afterwards.

I don’t recall hearing of an NDE or any other testimony and feeling I was being rushed into a particular thinking.

Ok Apart from appeal to Belief and personal conviction, which is evidence of nothing,and claims he did tons of miracles and appeared to hundreds of people, which I personally doubt, you make a couple of points. If a miracle happened in front of me I probably would beleive, but I wouldn't expect others to believe it just because I say so. Miracle claimsin apologetics roll out that way. Someone says things in their life convinced them that God was intervening. This as 'open minded' (which i may post again as anyone who debates should watch it) says ' the other party has no way of verifying the event or knowing what parts might have been misremembered or left out. In my job I may say, I initiated (thanks to atheist -led critical thinking 'are you calling me a liar' policy where we had to say that anecdotal claims are not valid evidence for a case.

Sorry to return to snatches of response but you address different subjects in longer paragraphs. The problem with rejected personal testimony of an event, is that you are dismissing the primary source of people finding out what happened in an event. When something happens, what every investigator does is questions the witnesses. There are physical evidence to look at but the witnesses are vital and asking them what happened asap is important. You seem to dismiss those as "anecdotal." Others clearly seem them as vital.

In the testimonies of those who have encountered God, none are meant for you to hang your faith upon. But it is a reason to consider that you might be wrong on this question and they are right. And maybe you want to find out the truth one way or another.

No. Supernatural claims are not the default. You say yes, I say no.Neither you nor I are the authority view here, but people must decide - Faith or logic and evidence.

The fact that the overwhelming members of mankind saw the spiritual world and the atheists are a tiny and always western educated lot shows that faith is the default position. Faith is nature. Atheism comes from education towards that end.

It is religious claims that have been shown to lose ground. Science moved on, sure, but generally to better understanding, rarely to say they were wrong about black holes, relativity or indeed evolution. Even Creationists nmow accept evolution - except they claim with no valid evidence that there is some kind of genetic fnce between Micro and macro.No more than there is a wire fence stopping aircraft that fly to Chicago going onto Japan. Micro = time= Macro. Also they now seem to endorse both evolution of critters and the deep time geology, but want to cram it into 1,000 years between the Ark and the pyramids. Religion has Dogma, science has re-evaluation. That is why it is 'always changing its'mind' - it makes science stronger in the end. Persistent denial makes Religious dogma weak in its' case.

Evolution has lost considerable ground not being evidenced is real life we see nor examples of it happening although experiments have tried to enduce it. Science stuck to the eternal universe theory for centuries....and then found that the universe had a time when it started.....hummm...whom believed that first? Who lost ground?

You have a point that critical thinking and evaluating evidence logically has to be learned. Human instinct leads to what the Religious apologists call 'imperfect human perception'. It leads to illusion and delusion. It has to be taught and learned to do critical thinking and logical assessment of data. That is a point in its' favour. Rejection of evidence and reasons and claiming it is evidence and reason just weakens the religious case. You seem to be unfamiliar with th e case for evolution. I'll just say 'cetan sequence' (that is, whale evolution) That is why you present it as b ad logic and no evidence. It has compelling evidence; the denial and bad reasoning is on the Creationist side. I can see this will lead to discussion

I suspect I know more about evolution that you do. I know of its faults and inconsistencyies and limitations, for example. You seem to think it solves all questions without any hitch, right?

And you are mistaken if you think people of faith abandon logic and reason. I find in debates that the christians have been logic and reason. They are open to all the answers whereas the atheists have closed to door to some for sure.

I do recall, clearly, an attempt by the one who made the Big fat NDE claim to insist it was proof of a soul, Heaven and God, when the skeptic side were saying 'we don't know, yet; let'so the research'. The research generally showed that the results were in the human mind, not some outer reality.

Now let's post the mustwatch vid on critical thinking. You should watch it.

Well, maybe later. The last clip was anything but logical or rational. It was simply repeated mocking over and over again reminding me of junior high school. Does this have some intellectual quality or is it again simply jeering like a 13 jeer old?

Did you ever see the clip about Dawkins insisting that faith is something you believe for no reason and John Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife and was there a reason?

The last clip? About atheist dictators? It made the point that their dogmas were based on political ideas and not on atheism. Atheism is not the reason they did what they did. Nor does it mean that atheists have to be bad or even less that it makes it invalid. It is simply mud - slinging.

The old 'Faith' apologetic is rubbish. If one has a wife, it's like having a friend in that you know them enough to trust them. Just as we have reason to believe our car will start, or our house will not fall down. We know how the world works. We know cars sometimes fail, houses can start to develop cracks and we may get worrying signs about cracks in a spouse too. That is not at all the same thing has supposing supernatural beings exist when there is no good evidence for it, and more than that, Religious 'Faith' is the kind of belief or trust taken to absolute conviction in the face of no good evidence or even against the decent evidence.

Essentially, that apologetics is an equivocation fallacy.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #34]
How should Christ prove that?

In whatever way he chooses.

A christian could say: "He choose to give you the bible."

That's past tense. The question here concerns a current miracle.

What would you accept as evidence?

Proof.


Tcg

Answer as above

Ditto.


Tcg