XnForums

Clean Sword,

I see we better clear up the term “evidence” and then I will move on to your miracle story.

Imagine being in a courtroom. You see the witness, John, on the stand who testifies, “The car I saw was red.” Now—is the “evidence” the fact the car is red? NO! The evidence is: “John testified the car he saw was red.” Technically, every single piece of evidence is physical, in that it takes a physical person observing through physical means and then relaying that physical medium to a physical recipient.

This distinction is important. What if John was color-blind? Or what if the fact the car was red would render a favorably verdict for John? Or what if John was a car-painter by trade? All of these additional facts impact the weight we give to the evidence, “John testified the car he saw was red.”

It would appear, because of how you phrased your last post, you do not consider miracle testimony as being “physical evidence.” I wanted to clarify that ALL our evidence is physical. The only reason I used the term “partial” was my thinking the assumption permeating my life as I was raised was part of reason for believing in God. And really, this was physical too—just not in a solitary piece, but in multiple statements and observations on a day-to-day basis.

As to my denomination—I was a Calvinist, reformed Evangelical would be the best description.

Now as to miracle stories….

There are many reasons atheists have heard and not found convincing these claims. I will only touch on three:

1. Correlation does not mean causation.

The ancient Aztecs believed, in order for the sun to continue on its course, they must offer human blood sacrifice to appease the god blood sacrifice being made to the god who became the sun for it to continue on its journey. And…for the Aztecs…the proof was in the pudding. Yesterday they offered a blood sacrifice—today the sun rose. The week before, the same. The month before, the same.

To them, it was patently obvious this system was working because every time they offered blood sacrifice—the sun rose. We now have the knowledge there is no causation between the fact Monday there was blood sacrifice and Tuesday the sun rose—but miracle stories are no different.

A person becomes sick, sees a physician who performs tests and provides a diagnose. The medical personnel prescribe a course of treatment; the patient complies. The person, or their family, prays. They get better. All of a sudden, it was the few spoken words that cured them! Why couldn’t it have been the medicine? Or the medical treatment? Or the body’s own defense mechanism? Those other factors—the other reasons the person is IN the hospital—are forgotten. Only the prayer remembered.

Curiously, if prayer was so successful at curing—why do theists who believe God heals bother with doctors, hospitals, medicines, surgeries, chemotherapy, physical therapy, X-rays, MRIs, etc. etc. etc.? Why do they ALWAYS try all those other courses first? Some convincing belief in a god…

“We offer blood sacrifice; the sun rises.”
“We say words; person is cured.”

Correlation does not mean causation.

2. Why does God hate amputees?

This is a tongue-in-cheek question, made to emphasize the problem of proof regarding miracles. Miracle stories fall in line with what you provided. Some vague problem that doctors are unable to fix. A prediction of imminent problem. A prayer and voila—no more sickness. Never any medical records. Only these stories, stories, stories.

So we get stories (without proof) of tumors disappearing, headaches going away, teeth being filled with fillings (never cavities repaired…hmmm….), even blindness and deafness reverting.

We all know stories of people who did pray for cures and did not get cured. Christians die of cancer. So God, if he is in the curing business, is only curing a certain percentage of people asking for requests. Over the course of history, we could develop a statistical mean as to how much is cured. Say .1% of cancer, .01% of blindness, 1% of headaches, and so on.

Keep that in mind—think about amputees. What would be a GREAT, irrefutable proof of God curing? We can’t re-grow limbs. Yet. If God did THAT—it would astound every skeptic and cause us to face the fact something unnatural occurred.

And the proof is simple. Here is Joe who lost a leg in Iraq. Here is a picture of Joe yesterday before we prayed. Here is Joe today with a brand new leg.

Yet what is the one situation God never, ever, ever, ever cures? Amputees. Remember our percentages of cures of diseases? .1% of cancer, .01% of blindness, 1% of headaches, and so on. The percentage of Amputees is 0.000% Q.E.D.—God must hate amputees, ‘cause he never cures them.

The point of the argument is that the one almost irrefutable cure, God never does. The question, “Why does God hate amputees?” is really an argument as to how prayer is not really doing the curing—we are simply assigning cures to random acts.

3. This is more god-of-the-gaps argument.

Bodies are amazing, and there is so much we still do not understand. Part is the curing process. Our bones knit back together. Our blood solidifies, scabs and resolves lacerations. Our immune system fights off infections, bacteria and disease.

Some of these processes we know; most we do not.

During the U.S. Civil War, a bullet wound would kill. Not from the wound itself hitting a vital part as much as the subsequent infection developing from the wound. This is why, when you were shot in the arm—they cut off your arm. They had no other means, to their knowledge, to prevent the infection.

There were, of course, people who were shot and their bodies had sufficient immuno-fighting ability to ward off infection. We understand, now, it would depend on the person. At the time, I am sure there were plenty of calls of how this was a “miracle” the person lived.

We didn’t know at the time—calling it a miracle. We know more now and realize a simple mold would have prevented the piles and piles of limbs left at the battlefield hospitals.

As in all god-of-the-gaps arguments, we look at the past and see how inaccurate this method was. Why should we presume it is any more accurate now? Taking your situation, the doctors of 64 years ago did not know how to cure you. Perhaps in another 64 years we will know what was wrong, and why you survived.

Why is it “the doctors don’t know” MUST translate to “Goddit” when in the past we see this as a failed method?

There are other problems with miracle stories (Jedi Mind Trick pointed out another), but I will leave it with these three.

Clean Sword, I am not posting this to argue with you as much as getting you to understand. Perhaps you have never talked to an atheist. Perhaps you have, but haven’t considered what they said. I don’t know.

Understand we have heard everything you have written multiple times. We have considered it. We aren’t atheists to get good parking spaces on Sunday Morning—we are atheists because what you and all your predecessors have said, fail to take into account ALL the facts—ALL the arguments against your position.

I only optimistically wish theists in general (and many do) and Christians in particular (fewer do) could actually understand why their position is not convincing to so many of us. To lose the arrogant presumption their worldview is SO obvious we must be blind or hard-hearted or heathen to reject it. To begin to see, by maybe a glimmer, that there are strong arguments against Christianity and we can intellectually reject it on grounds of being unpersuaded; Not simply immoral reprobates.

For this reason, I am explaining why I have considered the statements you make and fail to be convinced.

I understand your argument.
Maybe you need proof or a picture or documentation, or maybe not. But, why should
atheists hold christians to a standard that they don't follow themselves?




If you went into someones' home, and they asked you to have a seat, do you
require proof that the chair will not collapse if you sit in it? After all, you have
never sat in that chair before.
No, you sit down without giving it a second thought. Why? Because, other people have sat in that chair, and it held them up. Do your really think that you should demand a picture of someone else sitting in that chair, before you make that commitment?
Do you examine
the chair in the theater before you sit down? You don't know the owner..you don't know who constructed the chair...you may not even know the person sitting next to you, but
you, with your popcorn and soda, plop in that chair, having confidence that you won't
end up on the floor.





If you asked your host to provide these things before you sat down, he would feel insulted, and rightfully so. We have to trust people to a certain extent. We have to
trust people that we don't even know are trustworthy.
Driving down the highway at seventy miles an hour, we have to have a certain amount
of trust that the guy heading our way at seventy miles an hour doesn't swerve in our
lane. We know he could, but, we drive on that highway anyway. We take a risk, but, one
we feel is worth it to get where we want to go. Accidents happen all the time. But, people still drive on the highway because their destination is more important to them than a
potential accident on the way.

Yet, we want from God...proof...a picture....a document...

“We offer blood sacrifice; the sun rises.”
“We say words; person is cured.”

Correlation does not mean causation."

If the Aztecs stopped offering blood sacrifices, would the sun still rise? Yes, it would.
If we "say words" would a person be cured? Maybe yes, maybe no. The sun wasn't dependent on the Aztecs. The sun never asked for a sacrifice, but, God, did ask His people to pray for a cure.


In my case, the "words" to a divine entity brought about my cure instantly.

I didn't just get better gradually, as would be the case in a particular medical procedure or
my body healing itself. It was instantaneous. The body doesn't do that. No medicine can
do that. No documents, no pictures to show you. Sorry..
Just a story, but a true story...

clean'

At the risk of offending you, I think that I'm going to pass. I guess I'm not that interested
in non-theism.

clean'

Clean Sword,

The chair/driving analogies are inadequate. I will explain that in a bit, but first let’s get on the same understanding regarding standard of proof.

You complain atheists hold Christians to a standard they don’t follow themselves. (I tend to make the same complaint about Christians.) So let’s see if we can agree on a standard. Or at least understand what standard the other is applying.

What standard of proof do you think atheists hold Christians to? I will make it easy by making this a multiple-choice question in gradually greater standards of proof:

A. No evidence.
B. Any evidence at all.
C. Possible.
D. Probable.
E. Even proposition.
F. More likely than not.
G. Clear and convincing evidence.
H. Beyond a reasonable doubt
I. Absolute proof

So what standard do you think we hold Christians? What standard do we hold ourselves? What standard do you propose?

No offense taken Clean. Most "believers" experience difficulty when they begin to understand, that like Unicorns, the deity you call God, is a mthical creation of the human psyche; and has no independent existence beyond the psyche. All of the gods, goddesses, demons, spirits, and the like are all functions of the psyche. The interesting thing about myths is that they often have some very interesting and informative psychological truths in them. This includes the Christian myth which contain some easily observable psychological insights. It is also interesting to note that the core teaching of the Christian myth, the incarnation of God in man, is psychologically accurate in that God is a creation of the psyche. The unfortunate thing is the total perversion of the Christian myth by organized Christian religion in order to perpetuate their own dogma and the loss of the psychological insights that might aid human development.

Whew!...and to think, I didn't even have to go through seven days of questions and
answers before I got your analysis...This was free, wasn't it? I didn't bring my check book
with me...

clean'

I don't believe that I said standard of Proof. There are moral standards, ethical standards,
social standards, etc.
However, I will use the list that you posted,and say that we can't prove a negative.
When, I say that God healed me...you can't say, "No, He didn't"
You may postulate why you believe that, but that is just a belief, not proof.

Does what you believe carry any more weight than what I believe?
There is NO kind of proof (A-H) that God doesn't exist.

What if the Aztec indians forgot to offer a sacrifice, would the sun still have came up
the next day? Yes. The sun didn't depend on the sacrifices.
If, when "words are said" is someone cured? In my case, yes, but if the One who
told us to "say words" is the healer, we have a cause, and not a correlation.

Really want to see a miracle? You can take pictures and everything...

Go to any nursery in any hospital, and look through the glass..
Better yet, look in a mirror..

clean'

Hey if you want to write a check, make it out to: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer I understand that my "analysis" though based on understanding the nature of the human mind, has no sway with narrow fundamentalist thinking. But I take heart because HOR has demolished each and everyone of your specious arguments. My mistake was in thinking you really wanted to understand something, my bad. Well since your were in such a hurry you missed the opportunity to understand that in one critical sense God does exist. But then you have all the answers don't you? Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental. And, in answer to your question about looking through the nursey window, I see the awesome beauty and natural creativity of the Universe, but nothing having to do with a supernatural, imaginary being. As I made clear at the outset, I see in your posts both moral and intellectual cowardice.

Bad Form, Clean Sword. You didn’t answer my question. You indicated atheists hold Christians to a “standard” they don’t follow themselves. I asked what the “standard” was atheists are holding Christians to, and you didn’t answer.

I made it as simple as pie. I put it in the form of a Multiple choice question. You STILL were unable to answer. You don’t know—do you? You spew out anachronisms you hear, thinking they have some meaning, and don’t even understand the context or what is being said. I suspect somewhere you heard this statement, “atheists hold Christians to a standard they don’t hold themselves” and found it clever enough to store away in your tiny mind to use again.

Yet when some skeptic dares ask for clarification, you realize you have no support for the statement, so you dodge with the idea you weren’t talking about standards of proof. Oh, no—maybe you were talking about some other standard.

How stupid do you think we are? How many (thousand) times do you think we have had this conversation?

Look over our past conversation here. Go back a few pages and start reading. We have been talking about argumentation. Proofs. Evidence. “Standard of Proof” is merely the amount of evidence sufficient to meet the standard proposed. If it is “any evidence” I only have to present the barest form. If it is “preponderance of the evidence” I have to present evidence that makes my proposition more likely than the counter-proposition.

We have talked about things like Kalaam’s, and evidence of miracles, and god-of-the-gaps arguments, and evidence, and proofs and so on. So when you cough out:



…and then go on talking about the level of proofs necessary to sit down or drive a car one naturally assumes you were talking about “standard of proof.”

Caught in your own inadequacies, you pull the bonehead move of saying you weren’t talking about “standard of proof”—oh, no—you, perhaps, were talking about some other standard such as moral or ethical or societal. I am tempted to demonstrate the humorous result of this idiotic tactic by asking you to demonstrate how sitting in a chair, an atheist is holding a Christian to a MORAL standard they don’t hold for themselves. Or an ETHICAL standard. Or a SOCIETAL standard.

But I don’t want to lose the forest for the trees, so we will leave that for our own amusement and continue on…

Somehow you manage to even surpass yourself in this imbecility by demonstrating you have no concept regarding standard of proof by stating:



Do you understand the answer “A” (no proof at all) and “B” (any evidence at all) are mutually exclusive? Wait…I forgot who I was talking to…obviously not. So you said the claim “God does not exist” does NOT meet the standard of proof of “A”—no evidence. Therefore, there MUST be evidence of God’s existence, meaning it DOES meet the standard of proof of “B”—an iota of evidence.

I will ask again. (They will warn you in these parts, I will keep asking this question on each and every post until you answer.) When you claimed the atheists hold Christian to a standard (and we all see you mean “standard of proof”) they do not hold themselves—what standard do you mean?

Moving on, I will make three points.

1. Why Christians whine about standard of proof.

It is my experience, in discussing with many Christians, they are cloistered and in-bred when it comes to argumentation. They only argue with themselves, and therefore certain things are assumed. The fact of God’s existence, absolute morality, creation, etc.

At some point they wander out into the actual world and encounter skeptics. Me. And then the hard questions come. With people who do NOT accept God’s existence. Who do NOT accept absolute morality. And the Christian is out of their league. They don’t know how to answer these situations.

They feel as if they are being held to a higher standard, because they are being asked questions they were never asked for, and are completely inadequately prepared to respond.

It isn’t a higher standard. It is moving your education beyond “Theism for Beginners.”

2. Chairs, Cars and Standard of Proofs.

I’ll help you out and give away the answer. We hold Christians to the Standard of proof of “more likely than not.” Given two competing propositions, based upon what we know, the one that seems more likely to be true is held convincing. We do not see a god as being “more likely than not.”

Now let’s see how that plays out when it comes to chairs and cars. What is the evidence we have regarding chairs? We sit down dozens of times per day. We have sat in hundreds of chairs. We have observed others sit down in chairs. In the vast predominance of those situations, 99.99%--the chairs were sufficient to support the weight. We have billions and billions of instances where the chairs did not collapse.

We have our own observation of a chair—its material, the weight, the sufficiency of the thickness of material, the observation of others sitting in similar chairs. It is not as if we take the situation of sitting in one chair in a vacuum. It is not as if we have never sat in a chair before, or are not familiar with the strength of wood and metal.

Odds are EXTREMELY in our favor that the average chair provided by a host will sustain our weight.

The same thing with cars. Cars have passed each other trillions of times without crossing the center line. We understand the danger of hitting another car head-on. We drive avoiding collisions; we know other drivers who equally drive avoiding collisions.

Why do Christians also resort to these lame examples of chairs, cars and bridges? (You missed that one—we often see it used, too.) They act as if there is NO evidence, yet actually we have billions and billions of pieces of evidence, and vast amounts of support from past experience and observation.

Chairs that sustain our weight and cars not crossing the center line met the standard of proof “More likely than not” as much as the claim a god exists. There is no “different standard.” Lose the Sunday School statements and start to actually activate some synapses.

3. Your miraculous cure.



Bwahahahahaha. Let’s look at the ACTUAL evidence of this claim. As you have previously indicated, you have no documentation. No pictures. (Typical when it comes to “miracles.”) All you have is your account.

But wait…you were six months old. This isn’t from personal experience. This isn’t from personal memory—this is from what someone told you! Someone who happens to believe in “miracles” and this bolsters their claim. (If you will recall in my pervious posting, it is like John who needs the car to be red to obtain a favorable verdict. The bias of the witness must be taken into account.)

When challenged as to whether the medicine or the treatment may have been the cure, you rushed to the defense, saying this was “instantaneous.” Something the body and medicine could not do. But you don’t personally know that—this is what you have been told.

So our evidence is: Clean Sword telling us what his mother and/or grandmother told him about a situation they were biased to believe, without any independent facts Clean Sword even knows, let alone can provide.

Nuts, your mother may have told you about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. This is no different. You believe because of what someone else said, with no means of verification.

Just because you are gullible, does not rise to the level we must accept it as well.



You guys all say the same thing. When first requested for proof, you scrounge up some personal miracle (“I found a great job,” “I was cured,” “I used to be a drug-dealing, orgy-initiating, village-pillager and now I give to charity every day”) and when even you are able to realize how insufficient and pathetically weak this argument looks—you resort to how “life is a miracle.”

Seen this one before, too.

Define miracle.

See, the POINT of a miracle is that it is different. Unique. Unnatural. Life, birth, babies, and gestation are things that occur all the time. In humans, animals and plants. (No one every says, “Look at dandelions.” They all think humanity has some special ability in becoming.)

Unable to support your own claim of a miracle, you now desperately turn to life forming. The problem with this--it renders miracle to the mundane. We lose any ability to determine the difference between “natural” and “supernatural.”

If you say baby developing is a miracle, then I ask you to define miracle.

Oh, one more time: What is the standard atheists are holding Christians to that they don’t hold themselves to?

Hammie...

In re-reading my previous post, I made a confusing statement in:

“Chairs that sustain our weight and cars not crossing the center line met the standard of proof “More likely than not” as much as the claim a god exists.”

I meant to say:

“Chairs that sustain our weight and cars not crossing the center line meet the standard of proof “More likely than not” as much as the claim a god DOES NOT exist.”

Whoops…almost became a theist there. *grin*

I'll be with you an minute Ham..

So, I take it that you don't agree with my world view...
No matter...usually a discussion is to form a mutual understanding. You want
me to understand yours point of view, then you lamblast me, because I don't want to
play your little game.

I was not trying to convince you of anything. Remember, you asked me if I was
interested in what you had to say. I never proposed anything to you.
As far as you agreeing with Ham...why should I be surprised? You're a non-theist
and he is an atheist..Not a dimes worth of difference.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, and I really don't care how you view my posts.

clean'

If a being is supernatural, as obviously a God must be, why do human beings decide that the supernatural being must comply with natural laws and reasoning? Presumably a powerful God could determine that he would be understood and reached by faith, not by reason.

"Supernatural" means something not perceived with our natural senses. It does not necessarily mean "imaginary."

Just my two cents.

Before I answer you question about what standard of proof you are holding us to, let me
ask what kind of proof are we talking about...To make it simple for you, here is a list of the types of proof you can choose from:

A. Axiomatic truth
B. Logical proof
C. Mathematical proof
D. Emperical proof
E. Historical Proof
F. Model-based proof
G. Relational proof

Let me see, if I can make it a little simpler for you concerning the chairs, and cars, and
oh yes, the bridges (never heard that one though).

First, I'll use Mount Rushmore (you've probably heard this one too). No one, no, not even
atheist, believe that the faces of the Presidents just appeared naturally.
There must have been some kind of intelligence involved. Why? Because we know that
words or pictures or faces just don't appear out of the blue. Someone or something
must have put them there. If those faces cannot appear naturally on the face of that
rock, would it seem probable that an intelligent human race could appear on the earth naturally?

A young man coming in from school, found a note, which said, "Take out the garbage."
Being an evolutionist, he naturally thought, somehow or another, that message
came together on its own. And with time, he would discover how it was done.
"hhmm...how did that paper get together with that pen, and then form an intelligent
sentence?"
Obviously, he ignored all the previous times that a message cannot come together
without an intelligent instigator. But, this was different. He had to make a decision,
because he really didn't want to take out the garbage. So, he decided that was a
intelligent message brought about by a non-intelligent entity.

There is a message resident in life, technically called specified complexity, that can't
be explained materially. It can't be explained by nonintelligent natural laws any more
than the words of this page can be explained by the unintelligent laws of ink and paper.

Human thoughts and theories are not just materials. Chemicals are involved, but they
can't explain all human thought. The theory of materialism isn't made of molecules.
Someone's thoughts, whether its love or hate, are not chemicals. How much does love
weigh? What is the chemical composition of hate? And since they are not completely
materially based, materialism is false.

What combination of materials can account for consciousness?

If materialism is true, then everyone in all human history who have ever had a spritual
experience has been mistaken. It made be possible...but given the vast number of
spiritual experiences, it doesn't seem likely.
If just one spiritual experience in the entire history of the world is true, then materialism
is false.

If materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. Because if mental processes are
nothing but chemical processes in the brain, then there's no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism) Chemicals can't evaluate whether
or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react.

Not only is reason impossible in a darwanian world, but the assertion that we should
rely on reason alone can't be justified. Why? Because reason requires faith.
A defense OF reason BY reason is a circular argument.

Oh yes, don't forget to tell me what type of proof are you requiring?

clean'