Miracles

[Adrift]

I've been very careful not to make personal attacks to anyone on the board, and I try my best not to offend people, even when disagreeing strenuously with their ideas. I do appreciate the intelligent, careful and respectful manner in which you conduct yourself here, but I can't help but think you are dodging on this particular topic by referring me to quotes from commentaries rather answering simple questions yourself. It just seems like you are avoiding the plain and obvious meaning of the text.

Nevertheless, I admit I can be quick to judge and I am prone to being ill-mannered. :( Sometimes I want to post quickly at the cost of being careful. My apologies. If you will respond to my last post, I promise I'll do my darned best to consider what you say carefully before responding.

I thank you for the apology, but I'm sorry to say that I don't think it likely we'll make much more headway on this topic. At least, not at this point anyways. Just so you know, I respect your right to disagree with the view/s I've suggested. I believe a lot of this type of discussion hinges on our preconceptions, and unfortunately, I'm hardly the most elegant at expounding upon the Christian perspective. That's one of the reasons I tend to default to those who are far more authorized to speak on these sorts of subjects.

[Enjolras]

I thank you for the apology, but I'm sorry to say that I don't think it likely we'll make much more headway on this topic. At least, not at this point anyways. Just so you know, I respect your right to disagree with the view/s I've suggested. I believe a lot of this type of discussion hinges on our preconceptions, and unfortunately, I'm hardly the most elegant at expounding upon the Christian perspective. That's one of the reasons I tend to default to those who are far more authorized to speak on these sorts of subjects.

Fair enough. There are plenty of times when I've kept going on a topic long after it has ceased being productive. Yours may be be better path of wisdom. :)

[whag]

If Samson was the Servant, then the water and vengeance must have aligned with the Master's will.

That doesn't discount Samson's coin-operated theology. All it says is that all prayers that actualize God's will are answered, no matter how Aladdinish in intent. God doesn't decline to answer prayers because they're petulantly asked for or greedily coveted. Alignment with will is what matters.

That "cosmic slot machine" metaphor is insulting and tired. You need a new rap.

Darrell Bock points out, "Since it puts God in a 'show me' position, the action is really a private test of God and a sign of a lack of faith."

And that's what was so hideous about Samson, to whom God was as real as terra firma. It's so unbelievable from that angle alone as to not be true history. That's about as alien as you can get.

[Adrift]

That doesn't discount Samson's coin-operated theology. All it says is that all prayers that actualize God's will are answered, no matter how Aladdinish in intent. God doesn't decline to answer prayers because they're petulantly asked for or greedily coveted. Alignment with will is what matters.

That "cosmic slot machine" metaphor is insulting and tired. You need a new rap.



And that's what was so hideous about Samson, to whom God was as real as terra firma. It's so unbelievable from that angle alone as to not be true history. That's about as alien as you can get.

Coin operated slot machines rely upon chance. Was it by chance or by God's will that Samson's request was answered? I suggest the latter.

[whag]

Coin operated slot machines rely upon chance. Was it by chance or by God's will that Samson's request was answered? I suggest the latter.

I think you're confusing the metaphor. What you really mean is "gumball machine" in post 170.

Chance being irrelevant in the discussion, can you rephrase?

[Adrift]

I think you're confusing the metaphor. What you really mean is "gumball machine" in post 170.

Chance being irrelevant in the discussion, can you rephrase?

The context was a chance game of heads or tails. Not sure how a gumball machine fits that context.

[whag]

The context was a chance game of heads or tails. Not sure how a gumball machine fits that context.

True, but a slot machine doesn't have 50/50 odds.

Let's forget the chance bit and go back to what Bock said about challenging God. Samson challenged God, questioning the divine logic in saving him only to let him die of thirst hours later. His prayer amounted to "show me." Then God showed him.

Whether he prayed or not, the spring would have opened because it was within God's will.

[NormATive]

All puff and no substance, huh?

No, it's just that it would be a waste of time. It's been done many times before on T-Web. Always a stalemate.

So, there is no PoE, then. Why did you get so upset about your mother, if Christianity's answer is to a problem that doesn't even exist?

Because it was painful to lose her, and self-serving platitudes do not help. Caring and understanding do, as I said.

NORM

[Tassman]

Yes, but it could have been falsifiable.



I wrote this about 20 minutes after it happened so it was fresh in my mind:






Really Boxing, do any two philosophers agree on anything?

From your link: "...but I have never seen something so seemingly violate the laws of nature. Was it the tender hand of God, I think it was - though I could never prove it".

The "seemingly" is the clue, I think. You acknowledge the possibility exists that it could well have been a natural occurrence and that it couldn't be proven to be anything more than that. But that you prefer to think of it as "the tender hand of God". OK, that's your prerogative, just as mine is to consider your experience to be an unexplained natural event. The likelihood is that I'm correct given that there is no substantiated evidence of miracles, despite the many anecdotal claims to the contrary.

[Tassman]

[QUOTE]

So you agree that Enjolras can base a general skepticism against miracles on things like human fallibility, confirmation bias, wanting to fit in, and yet not apply that same general skepticism of human nature to claims in areas that he feels comfortable with?

Good for you.

Address the hypothetical please. The question is not 'Is it irrational for othersto believe?'.

1. You have a number of fallacious approaches to considering evidence and argumentation. You prefer to avoid addressing actual arguments and evidence, resorting to disqualifying the because of who makes them.

2. You seemingly have a dislike of Christianity that goes beyond 'I just don't think it's true'. You're biased against Christianity and you don't take that enough into account in your evaluation of evidence for it

3. You insist on using 'escape-hatch' words like "credible", "substantiated", "verifiable", these words either have enough flexibility in their meaning that you can always say that your criteria hasn't been met; or they are subjective enough that you can easily move the goalposts to avoid accepting something as evidence.

Qualifications, such as lack of

4. You're probably not as smart or as rational as you think you are. Pretty much no-one is (myself included), so don't get upset.

[seer]

The "seemingly" is the clue, I think. You acknowledge the possibility exists that it could well have been a natural occurrence and that it couldn't be proven to be anything more than that. But that you prefer to think of it as "the tender hand of God". OK, that's your prerogative, just as mine is to consider your experience to be an unexplained natural event. The likelihood is that I'm correct given that there is no substantiated evidence of miracles, despite the many anecdotal claims to the contrary.

Well Tass, I'm open to a natural explanation. Like I said, if someone could reproduce this or tell me how it is possible I would change my mind.

[Enjolras]

Well Tass, I'm open to a natural explanation. Like I said, if someone could reproduce this or tell me how it is possible I would change my mind.

Have you considered the possibility you were hallucinating? This very natural explanation is far more likely than that of a supernatural being suspending gravity. We have lots of documented cases of hallucination, and none of actual floating ferns. Did you have your phone with you on the walk? If so, you could have taken a picture or video of the event, which would disprove the hallucination hypotheses.

[seer]

Have you considered the possibility you were hallucinating? This very natural explanation is far more likely than that of a supernatural being suspending gravity. We have lots of documented cases of hallucination, and none of actual floating ferns. Did you have your phone with you on the walk? If so, you could have taken a picture or video of the event, which would disprove the hallucination hypotheses.

No I haven't, never mind a young man on a mountain bike witnessed the same thing. Though I think he thought I was doing a magic trick or we were on Candid Camera or something. And I don't own a cell phone. There is no question about what I saw Enjolras. Do what you will with it.

[NormATive]

...If you could reproduce the same event by natural means I would seriously reconsider my conclusions.

OK, just drop a little acid, and I will have you believing in your heart that you saw a floating fern. In fact, I could make you believe your car was floating.
You're too much, Seer! LOL!!

NORM

[Tassman]

Well Tass, I'm open to a natural explanation.

With all due respect seer, I don't think you really are open to a natural explanation. The evidence to date is that you resist all possible natural explanations, which indicates an emotional investment in your apparition. In psychoanalytic theory, this could be explained in terms of 'wish-fulfilment', i.e. "the satisfaction of a conscious or unconsciousness desire, need, or impulse through a dream, an hallucination or some other unconscious exercise of the imagination". Medical Dictionary.

Like I said, if someone could reproduce this or tell me how it is possible I would change my mind.

Except that you are approaching this back-to-front. Usually one assumes a natural explanation and then (if no such explanation is forthcoming ) maybe comes to the reluctant conclusion that it warrants a non-natural explanation. Whereas you have assumed from the outset that the explanation is supernatural and demand a natural explanation to prove you wrong.