What would it take for the atheist to believe in God?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You only acknowledged your mistake so you could blame tab for you making it.

It never ceases to amuse me that you often claim to know either what other people are thinking, or their motives.

I understood such skills were believed to the provenance of your deity.

[NorrinRadd]

This thread got huge before I ever looked at it, so I've only lightly skimmed it, and interacted a bit with tangential matters.

Pertinent to the OP, I'm reading Keener's latest book, Miracles Today. One reason he wrote it was that many people, like me, never managed to slog through his prior two-volume academic work, Miracles. The smaller, more recent one's miracle accounts are mostly selections from the much more numerous ones in the earlier work, plus a few he came across more recently. In the opening chapters, he notes that some people, not just atheists but some believers, simply will not accept the possibility of "miracles"; either the evidence is false, or the non-supernatural explanation just hasn't been discovered yet. Similarly, while miracles often lead to acceptance of Christ, sometimes they have the opposite effect, and cause an even angrier rejection.

The miracle stories he cites include healings of blindness, deafness, inability to walk, cancer, and various other ailments, and even a few instances of regeneration of tissue and eight chapters on resurrections. (He also notes that even in Scripture itself, there are no accounts of missing limbs being restored.)

[rogue06]

It never ceases to amuse me that you often claim to know either what other people are thinking, or their motives.

I understood such skills were believed to the provenance of your deity.

I just look at people's actions. When they repeat the same behaviors eventually you can draw conclusions from them.

[tabibito]

In the opening chapters, he notes that some people, not just atheists but some believers, simply will not accept the possibility of "miracles"; either the evidence is false, or the non-supernatural explanation just hasn't been discovered yet.

Scepticism is warranted. I note that in the book (just skimming after seeing your post) even some of the beneficiaries of the miracles have trouble believing them. I've also noted that a person performing a miracle can have the same difficulty. Also, there have been too many charlatans running around with fake miracles to take reports at face value.

Similarly, while miracles often lead to acceptance of Christ, sometimes they have the opposite effect, and cause an even angrier rejection.

I haven't read that bit as yet - is he saying that the miracle itself has that result, or reports of miracles? The latter would be expected.

The miracle stories he cites include healings of blindness, deafness, inability to walk, cancer, and various other ailments, and even a few instances of regeneration of tissue and eight chapters on resurrections. (He also notes that even in Scripture itself, there are no accounts of missing limbs being restored.)

No reports of such events in detail, but there is an outside chance that they are referred to: χωλος (lame) encompasses maimed. {Matt 11:5}

[NorrinRadd]

I haven't read that bit as yet - is he saying that the miracle itself has that result, or reports of miracles? The latter would be expected.

I believe that statement was mostly or exclusively based on the way some people reacted in Scripture -- not the recipients of miracles, but enemies of God who saw the miracles or the results of the miracles.

So, in principle, we shouldn't be surprised if the same reactions occur today.

[tabibito]

I believe that statement was mostly or exclusively based on the way some people reacted in Scripture -- not the recipients of miracles, but enemies of God who saw the miracles or the results of the miracles.

So, in principle, we shouldn't be surprised if the same reactions occur today.

I'll keep looking. (you don't have a page number, perchance)



ETA - Never mind - found it.

[NorrinRadd]

No reports of such events in detail, but there is an outside chance that they are referred to: χωλος (lame) encompasses maimed. {Matt 11:5}

Also Malchus's ear comes to mind.

[tabibito]

Also Malchus's ear comes to mind.

Also with a question mark, but only a very small one.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This thread got huge before I ever looked at it, so I've only lightly skimmed it, and interacted a bit with tangential matters.

Pertinent to the OP, I'm reading Keener's latest book, Miracles Today. One reason he wrote it was that many people, like me, never managed to slog through his prior two-volume academic work, Miracles. The smaller, more recent one's miracle accounts are mostly selections from the much more numerous ones in the earlier work, plus a few he came across more recently. In the opening chapters, he notes that some people, not just atheists but some believers, simply will not accept the possibility of "miracles"; either the evidence is false, or the non-supernatural explanation just hasn't been discovered yet. Similarly, while miracles often lead to acceptance of Christ, sometimes they have the opposite effect, and cause an even angrier rejection.

The miracle stories he cites include healings of blindness, deafness, inability to walk, cancer, and various other ailments, and even a few instances of regeneration of tissue and eight chapters on resurrections. (He also notes that even in Scripture itself, there are no accounts of missing limbs being restored.)

Does he provide independent medical attestation for all these "miracles"?

Do these "miracles" only occur for Americans?

Does he offer a suggestion for why this deity so selective and arbitrary in who It decides to cure?

For example, why one older lady in a nursing home and one young woman with MS but not all those suffering from MS or all older people experiencing difficulties in walking?


Might Dr Keener might have fallen of his perch?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

While there is no explicit references to archangels in the Hebrew texts, they do appear to identify Michael and Gabriel as being archangels.

I think we need to remember that the Hebrew texts are premised on the Canaanite pantheon of a Divine Council with lower ranking deities to run errands for and do the bidding of the High God.. That pantheon was modelled on earthly monarchs with consorts, offspring, courtiers, messengers, servants etc. Furthermore and in reference to Isaiah 14 in Canaanite mythology, Mount Saphon/Zaphon was the place of the council of the gods, just as was Olympus in the Greek tradition. The later Hebrew texts modify the Divine Council with the sons of the High God becoming the higher ranking angels and among these serried ranks of angels there is a gradual move down the "pecking order" for those lesser angelic characters who represent the lower courtiers, messengers, and servants.

Contrary to an earlier remark Lucifer was not a man. He was not the human King of Babylon. This section of Isaiah consists of oracles. These are poetic, metaphorical and allegorical texts. The taunt in Isaiah 14 against Lucifer, Son of Dawn, who aspired to set his throne "above the stars of God" can be traced back to the Canaanite myths found at Ugarit, in this instance the myth of Ashar, the Day Star, who aspired to sit on the throne of Ba'al.

As for fallen angels, in 2 Enoch one of the angels, in fact the highest angel of all, had through pride attempted to set himself up to be worshipped as an equal to God [29.3-4]; “And one from out the order of angels, having turned away with the order that was under him, conceived an impossible thought, to place his throne higher than the clouds above the earth, that he might become equal in rank to my power. And I threw him out from the height with his angels, and he was flying in the air continuously above the bottomless."

Nor should we forget that throughout the ancient world the legendary narrative pattern of a combat between a hero and his adversary or the mythical narrative of a primordial cosmic struggle between two divine beings and their allies for sovereignty over the cosmos was widespread.

[seer]

Does he offer a suggestion for why this deity so selective and arbitrary in who It decides to cure?

Why would you say that they are arbitrary? God may have specific reasons for each miracle.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why would you say that they are arbitrary? God may have specific reasons for each miracle.

In that they appear to be so few and far between. One might expect this deity to be a little more pro-active.

[Markus River]

The miracle stories he cites include healings of blindness, deafness, inability to walk, cancer, and various other ailments, and even a few instances of regeneration of tissue and eight chapters on resurrections. (He also notes that even in Scripture itself, there are no accounts of missing limbs being restored.)

Well of course not. That truly would be a miracle. Everything else falls under the curve of greater or lesser degrees of medical recovery expectation.

For every "miraculous" cure of blindness or cancer, I wonder how many others were left groping in the dark or dying in agony?

[Markus River]

I believe that statement was mostly or exclusively based on the way some people reacted in Scripture -- not the recipients of miracles, but enemies of God who saw the miracles or the results of the miracles.

What's "an enemy of God"? Seems an odd position to hold.

[tabibito]

Well of course not. That truly would be a miracle. Everything else falls under the curve of greater or lesser degrees of medical recovery expectation.

For every "miraculous" cure of blindness or cancer, I wonder how many others were left groping in the dark or dying in agony?

Restoring a man three or four days dead to life - within medical recovery expectation ... Yep, I can see that.

People who have lost limbs are kind of rare. In that age, rarer still would be those who survived. Any number of reasons why explicit mention of restored missing limbs might be omitted from the Biblical record, but the most likely would seem to be that they weren't encountered.