This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe (page 46)

Saethydd

@ Saerhydd
Even though miracles take place in the physical world the nature of your consciousness is always metaphysical. And you still needs faith to accept reality. Doesn't matter if physical or metaphysical reality. You can't suspend reason and faith in the process of understanding the reality.

True, which means that our reason must be used to temper faith. Reason tells me that each of the "miracles" you brought up have several warning indicators that they are probably fabrications.

1. They happened a long time ago, or in a far-away land, thus removed from the scrutiny of the first world press. (In some cases both) Which means that they are left open to being wildly over-exaggerated. (Note: First world press coverage doesn't necessarily prevent this, but in my opinion, more coverage and thus more skeptical scrutiny helps reveal the truth.)

2. The photographic and video evidence is either unclear or non-existent.

3. First-hand accounts from reliable witnesses and experts are also non-existent.

I'm sure I could go on if applied more thought to this but I think my point is clear. If I accepted these miracles as true based on the provided evidence, then to remain consistent I would also have to accept Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Alien Abductions as true. Like miracles, however, I choose to simply view those events with skeptical disbelief until I find some evidence that the events in question couldn't easily be a fabrication or a false perception.

John_Mann

True, which means that our reason must be used to temper faith. Reason tells me that each of the "miracles" you brought up have several warning indicators that they are probably fabrications.

Never forget the act of reasoning can be mislead by following wrong premises.

That's why pure faith precedes the process of reasoning.

Always check your premises.

And you can only deal with premises through pure faith.

Bad premises, false conclusions.

1. They happened a long time ago, or in a far-away land, thus removed from the scrutiny of the first world press. (In some cases both) Which means that they are left open to being wildly over-exaggerated. (Note: First world press coverage doesn't necessarily prevent this, but in my opinion, more coverage and thus more skeptical scrutiny helps reveal the truth.)

True.

It's wise to start with the benefit of the doubt.

Agnosticism is best starting point.

2. The photographic and video evidence is either blurry or non-existent.

Physical world burden.

3. First-hand accounts from reliable witnesses and experts are also non-existent.

How do you know they're not reliable witnesses? What makes you cease your benefit of the doubt? This is the very "cat's jump", be very careful in this moment.

I'm sure I could go on if applied more thought to this but I think my point is clear.

I still have the impression that you tend to accept the position of Scientism.

If I accepted these miracles as true based on the provided evidence, then to remain consistent I would also have to accept Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Alien Abductions as true.

Do you really think these things are exactly the same Christian theology?

Like miracles, however, I choose to simply view those events with skeptical disbelief until I find some evidence that the events in question couldn't easily be a fabrication or a false perception.

My question is: what kind of evidence are you expecting?

You don't need to tell me.

Can you be honest with yourself and say you are not biased to Scientism?

Saethydd

Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't think you addressed my first point. Why would sensory evidence of God's existence, effect whether not worship is done in "spirit and truth?"

Saethydd

Physical world burden.

What is the purpose of a miracle if not to provide physical proof of divinity?

How do you know they're not reliable witnesses? What makes you cease your benefit of the doubt? This is very "jump of the cat", be very careful in this moment.

A reliable witness is one that leaves themselves open to cross-examination. A reliable expert is one with necessary training that produces repeatable results and then allows other experts to check and confirm their findings.

Do you really think these things are exactly the same Christian theology?

With regards to verifiable evidence, yes. Christian theology is older but logically that is the only difference I can see in the quality of evidence (metaphysical and physical) for both of these topics.

John_Mann

Also, perhaps I missed it, but I don't think you addressed my first point. Why would sensory evidence of God's existence, effect whether not worship is done in "spirit and truth?"

Miracles and personal paranormal experiences are sensory evidence.

But you can't have a " God in a vial" evidence. Like Scientism preaches.

This kind of thinking is against the very concept of God and against the very concept of "vial" (empirical) evidence.

It's simply senseless.

kepler

Admittedly, missed more than 400 entries between 1st and current page. However:

It would seem that "evolution is, ergo atheism reigns" arguments rely greatly on physical law or biological observation. Mechanistic in the same sense as Marxism. That's meant to illustrate, not to take offense at.

But what appears absent, unless I missed something in the middle which was uncharacteristic, is consideration of the Descartes proposition: "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo sum).

Why is it possible for us to think and have conscientiousness? Has that aspect of existence been revealed to us by natural science or physical law? I know or assume I have it,and I suspect that most of us in this discussion link think similarly - including Cofty. Maybe evolutionary theorists don't mind this one, but it bothers cyberneticists, cosmologists, neurologists, physicists and others. Ever run across the book "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. He's not a evolutionary biologist (nor an evangelist) but he does have a physical science credential or two.

Artificial intelligence of the Turing type does not necessarily mean you have conscientiousness. It means you have someone on the other end of a phone call fooled about whom they are talking to. No one. Now maybe Penrose thinks this dilemma can be solved by discovering another exotic particle such as a Higgs boson, but I doubt it. There's something odd about us and many of our animal friends. If I look at the world through the window of my senses, I suspect that you do too and so do many of our counterparts.

Where did that come from?

And given that, is human kind the apex of such evolutionary counter enthropic flowdown?

Could there be other examples elsewhere?

Could it flow down from a higher source?

Can something out there even beyond time and space have a similar sense of conscientiousness but orders of magnitude higher, one that permeates creation and beyond it?

That we exist at all suggests a greater purpose. If there isn't any readily apparent, then perhaps it is part of the plan to make it so via our minds and hearts.

John_Mann

What is the purpose of a miracle if not to provide physical proof of divinity?

The primary purpose is always metaphysical and usually a mystery.

The "physical" purpose is always to satisfy the physical nature in humans: "there's something really mysterious beyond physical reality".

A reliable witness is one that leaves themselves open to cross-examination. A reliable expert is one with necessary training that produces repeatable results and then allows other experts to check and confirm their findings.

Did you really ruled out all of these from the miracles I've mentioned?

With regards to verifiable evidence, yes.

What you mean by verifiable evidence? Scientism bias?

Christian theology is older but logically that is the only difference I can see in the quality of evidence for both of these topics.

Historical evidence is a convincing one too.

Christian theology (especially Catholicism) is very older but kept the same logical consistency throughout 2000 years.

Buddhism and Judaism are older but evolved a lot with several basic premises.

Catholicism possess much more premises than Buddhism and Judaism combined.

This is a very convincing historical evidence to something very mysterious at least.

Scientism barely has 200 years of formal existence.

Saethydd

Miracles and personal paranormal experiences are sensory evidence.
But you can't have a " God in a vial" evidence. Like Scientism preaches.
This kind of thinking is against the very concept of God and against the very concept of "vial" (empirical) evidence.
It's simply senseless.

I never said I needed "God in a vial." I just need something that is not as erratic as supposed miracles. If a reliable God produces evidence, does it not make sense that evidence would be reliable? Miracles and all other supernatural events are not repeatable, therefore they are not reliable.

John_Mann

Why is it possible for us to think and have conscientiousness? Has that aspect of existence been revealed to us by natural science or physical law? I know or assume I have it,and I suspect that most of us in this discussion link think similarly - including Cofty.

I don't know if I understood right but I think you said that you share the same view of Cofty: Scientism.

But I failed to find where did you explained why do you accept this view.

John_Mann

I never said I needed "God in a vial." I just need something that is not as erratic as supposed miracles. If a reliable God produces evidence, does it not make sense that evidence would be reliable? Miracles and all other supernatural events are not repeatable, therefore they are not reliable.

Not repeatable, not reliable.

This is the axiom called "Law of Induction" in the scientific method.

Why do you apply the axiomatic "Law of Induction" to events that you personally defines as not repeatable?

Can't you see the clear contradiction in your position?

Truth can't be contradictory.

Can't you see you have a very bias toward the logically flawed Scientism?

Do you think no repeatable events are inexistent in physical reality?

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

Share this