Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

[Keith&Co.]

That would be technically than logically ... which means someone can't believe in two different words of God that aren't much harmonious to each other.

Really? So, your solution to Barker's Easter Challenge manages to hold all the gospels as accurate reports?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The report that it happened is EVIDENCE which overrides the scientific claim that it's impossible.

As long as there is EXTRA EVIDENCE, such as from multiple sources. That something normally cannot happen, based on observation, does not overrule the EVIDENCE THAT IT HAPPENED in this or that reported case.

What we need for miracle claims are extra sources, like we have for the Jesus miracle acts but do not have for all the other miracle claims from the ancient world.

I disagree. I believe that extraordinary claims, especially those that involve the suspension of the natural laws of the universe, require extraordinary evidence. Adding a few extra witnesses adds no credibility to such claims.

As has been explained to you many, many times in the other thread, the claims related to the supernatural events described in the Bible are not credible. People can't walk on stormy waters. People can't be healed by a touch. Snakes and burning bushes don't talk. And most importantly, dead people don't rise up from their graves and fly off into space. These are all extraordinary claims that are contrary to what we observe in the natural world.

But what we commonly observe as "impossible" is sometimes contradicted by particular reported cases. If there is sufficient evidence, in a reported case, we believe that evidence, or report, even though it contradicts the common observation "in the natural world."

... snip ...

Can we get serious? Here's a REAL example of a claim which no one knows the "natural" explanation for, and this was reported on NBC News. (click forward to 19 minutes into the video)



___________________________________ 19:00 _____

Here's a kid who began playing the piano and singing at the age of 11 months. This has to defy the "laws of nature" as much as a claim about a miracle healing. Yet it's credible because it is reported on a mainline news source. Someone says it happened and so we believe it. We don't believe it if one character alone makes the claim, but we believe it if there is some corroboration, such as extra sources claiming it, or it's from a source which has extra witnesses reporting it and checked enough to ensure it's not just one wacko saying it.

... snip ...

I found a similar 'miracle'. This little dog is also a self taught singer and piano player... miraculous. :::

You score points for sarcasm with this, but it's a false analogy. The dog is performing random notes only. It could not repeat the same "song" a 2nd time.

If you understand anything about music, you have to recognize that the kid in the NBC News video is able to play chords, which harmonize, and also to sing tones in harmony with the chords he is playing on the keys.

If you can't understand this, because you know nothing about music, then you're incapable of recognizing the significance of what this kid is performing. It is something which virtually no human can do, to play chords on the keyboard and sing in tune with the chords, with no previous training. Even at 15 or 20 years old virtually no one can do this, and his mother said he began doing this at 11 months old.

A smart teenager with keen musical instincts perhaps could learn to do what this child does with a few hours of experimenting with the keyboard. Though it would require some natural talent to sing in tune along with coordinating the voice with the fingers playing the keys. But for a child under 5 years to do this without any training or practicing goes contrary to normal experience and any possible scientific explanation. If someone claimed this but provided no evidence, we would have to disbelieve them. We could not believe this mother's claim if we did not witness the performance, plus also some verification by the interviewer about her claim that this happened without any previous training.

If this kid, at age 4 or 5, had practiced it over many weeks or months of working on chords and listening to the music over and over, getting the right tones and correct keys to play the right chords, it might conform to normal experience, for a kid with some extra talent. But this cannot be done by any normal person without any training. This is abnormal ability which goes contrary to common experience, and thus is something you cannot believe without extra evidence proving that it happened.

It is dishonest to imply that this is the same as a dog playing random keys on the piano and howling. There are no chords being played by the dog, and there is no harmonizing of any kind.



What is the bottom line? It is that
WE BELIEVE THE REPORT that it happened,
even if the claim defies normal experience. This child is performing something we cannot believe unless we have evidence. We believe it ONLY because of the REPORT THAT IT HAPPENED, even though it defies normal experience.

I.e., it contradicts the observable scientific evidence for normal events. Just as dead bodies don't get up from the grave and fly up into the sky, neither do people sit down at a piano keyboard and play chords and musical tunes and harmony and sing in harmony with the piano notes without ever having any training with music and a piano keyboard.



So, the report that it happened is EVIDENCE that it happened, and is believed even if this contradicts normal experience, or normal observation, including scientific observation which tells us this does not happen.

Even though it does not normally happen, it did happen in this case, and perhaps a tiny few other cases, like maybe 10 or 30 or 50 cases, out of billions of humans over 100 years, or more.

This is in the category of "miracle" or "superhuman" -- in that it is something which normal humans cannot do.

In some cases of SAVANTS who perform such acts, the performance is something which can be LEARNED (by a normal human) with training or practice, but in other cases there are performances which are not possible for normal persons to learn. So, the kid in this video is doing something which could be learned by normal humans, or those with some extra (but normal) talent, through training and practice over many months or years. But to do this with no training goes contrary to normal experience and requires an explanation which our current science cannot provide. I.e., it is CONTRARY to common scientific observation.

Yet we believe it, because of the report which says it happened, or the evidence, which in this and other cases overrides the general scientific observation that such things are "impossible."

There are other cases of unusual events, "miracles" etc., which are reported and for which there is some evidence. Not all reported cases are necessarily true. But some are probably true, and others not, or very doubtful. It's reasonable to believe some of these claims, or reports, based on the evidence, even though they go contrary to the known general science and are judged by some as "impossible" based on the normal experience or observations.

 

[skepticalbip]

The report that it happened is EVIDENCE which overrides the scientific claim that it's impossible.

Amazing... So you are declaring that Joseph Smith did indeed do all he and his witnesses reported. I guess that means that you are anxious to convert to Mormonism.

You may also think about a little prayer to Julius Caesar too. He is reported to have been a god.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If the "EVIDENCE" is not worth quoting, we needn't take it seriously.

Examples of the Jesus miracle acts in the Gospels have been quoted here many times. Don't claim there are other examples if you're not willing to quote them here for us.

The report that it happened is EVIDENCE which overrides the scientific claim that it's impossible.

You omitted: "As long as there is EXTRA EVIDENCE, such as from multiple sources. That something normally cannot happen, based on observation, does not overrule the EVIDENCE THAT IT HAPPENED in this or that reported case."

Amazing... So you are declaring that Joseph Smith did indeed do all he and his witnesses reported. I guess that means that you are anxious to convert to Mormonism.

You, and others who keep repeating this, never quote any of those reports. If there were any good reports of miracle acts, such as we have in the Gospel accounts, you would quote them here.

But further, every reported miracle of J.S. was done by him in the name of Jesus Christ, who was invoked by the Prophet every time. This was a necessary prerequisite for him to be able to convince his disciples, who were the only ones ever present.

By being unable to give any better example than this, you are proving once again that the case of Jesus in the Gospels is the only one for whom there is evidence.

You may also think about a little prayer to Julius Caesar too. He is reported to have been a god.

You need to tell us what miracle acts he reportedly did (and the evidence).

It's what a "god" DOES that matters, not what he IS.

 

[Learner]

Well the problem is imo.. if one of them were actually true, you would by your post, still see all religions and theiir individual claims in the same way. Perhaps pitching them against each other, in a manner of speaking, may reveal the most consistent of the diffrent religious scriptures (EDIT: actually Lumpen has). Although obviously - you may still not accept the one that is more consistent as true, but you would know that the other religious scriptures - not being so consistent, is more likely to be far less-true, or at least having less weight.

"If one of them were actually true?" That is the very core subject under discussion here. I am a bit offended that you have already tried and found me guilty of not being willing to accept the truth when to date I haven't been given the chance. Show me some actual and objective evidence that one religion is clearly true and the others are false and at least give me a chance.

All I was saying is the same thing, because you aren't convinced any religion is true, while at the same time you (plural) are telling Christians, that they should also believe in J.Smith, because you see them as the same when we don't. IOWs If J.Smith is not part of the discussion and Jesus is the debate, we won't (not surprising) satisfy the underlined ablove.

But don't ply me with odds games or hide behind the fog of thousands of years of lost writings, incomplete history and obvious pious fraud. If a god existed and used miracles such as were described in the Jesus myths to prove it existed there is no reason it could not continue to do so for all time. Unless of course it ran out of power, or died or grew bored messing with humanity and moved on to a more interesting planet with decently intelligent life forms.

Atheos, I'm just as simple man using ordinary plain language (a little simplistic at times) posting my pov of the scriptures. ( who's being found guilty now? I would ask of the underlined)

There is absolutely nothing about the christian bible or about the Jesus myths that makes it smack of being "more true" than other scriptures. This very same Lumpenproletariat to which you have appealed freely admits that the gospel writers made up the genealogies and the virgin birth narratives, perhaps many other things. So we're reading fantastic stories concocted by known liars who have not one piece of evidence to back up their fantastic claims and we're supposed to just swallow it whole? C'mon. This is insanity. For every wise saying in the Bible there's a verse where this loving god commits an atrocity such as killing 70,000 innocent bystanders to punish David for conducting a census. For every noble thought expressed in its most lofty passages there's a reference to men pissing against a wall. The entire flood myth, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan -- all bullshit. So much of the claims written in the bible have been thoroughly debunked the only miracle remaining is that such a large contingency of people continue to cling to it.

I learn't a new phrase from a Christian (Mike Winger) who demonstrated something similar of Aaron Ra's adding for effect. Its called DUMPING. A wall of text IS required to address the above when broken down into individual segments.

We have to appreciate Lumpy's efforts.

If there is a difference between me and you it's that I am willing to be convinced against my will of the truth of a religion, and I apply exactly the same level of critical skepticism to the claims of every one of them. Are you willing to apply the same level of critical skepticism to the claims of your own religion that you apply to all others? You don't have to answer to me, it's a question you must answer for yourself. I will only say that if you are not willing to do so then you are not deserving of the appellation "Learner."

I acknowledge and accept what you say on scepticsim. Christians criticise themselves (some more than others ), which is part of the process when they call-out false preachings and those that don't, should do. I was critical of Christianity especially God in the OT before I became a born again.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oh, so long as there is EXTRA "evidence" then. Well, how stupid of us.

 

[atrib]

A wall of text IS required to address the above when broken down into individual segments.

We have to appreciate Lumpy's efforts.

In the legal system it's called a data dump or document dump - where one side floods their opponent with large volumes of irrelevant information in the hope of wasting their time, and obscuring a few key documents that may be relevant to the opponent's case.

From Wiki: A document dump is the act of responding to an adversary's request for information by presenting the adversary with a large quantity of data that is transferred in a manner that indicates unfriendliness, hostility, or a legal conflict between the transmitter and the receiver of the information. The shipment of dumped documents is unsorted, or contains a large quantity of information that is extraneous to the issue under inquiry, or is presented in an untimely manner, or some combination of these three characteristics. The phrase is often used by lawyers, but is in increasing use in the blogosphere. It is often seen as part of the characteristic behavior of an entity that is engaging in an ongoing pattern of activities intended to cover up unethical or criminal conduct.

Lumpy's "walls of text" force people to go looking for needles in haystacks. And there are often no needles to be found. Lumpy uses walls of text to hide the fact that he has nothing to say.

 

[abaddon]

It's also an argumentum ad nauseum (or argument by repetition). The repetition is meant to give the impression the point has never been refuted so therefore it's true. And also to simulate the effect of many people voicing the opinion so it'll seem generally accepted as true.

 

[atrib]

It's also an argumentum ad nauseum (or argument by repetition). The repetition is meant to give the impression the point has never been refuted so therefore it's true. And also to simulate the effect of many people voicing the opinion so it'll seem generally accepted as true.

My study of Lumpy's posting habits has revealed an extreme version of the argumentum ad nauseum style that Lumpy uses. I call it the argumentum ad cockatoo. Just as cockatoos repeat words and sounds they have learned to simulate conversation with humans, Lumpy uses words and concepts he has learned to simulate conversations with people on these forums. He doesn't actually converse with people, he just repeats the same combinations of words over and over and over, regardless of what other people say.

An update on Mr. Max the cockatoo: I had originally become interested in cockatoos after watching the antics of a bird named Mr. Max on YouTube. Mr. Max is a well behaved little bird most of the time, but he has one weakness, the dreaded pet carrier.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Mr+Max+carrier

Mr. Max hates visiting the vet, and has associated the carrier with these periodic visits. If you watch some of the videos I linked to above, you will find that Mr. Max reacts with a comic and extremely entertaining combination of apparent anger, outrage and disgust every time the carrier is unveiled. Which is really, really fun to watch.

I have observed a similar reaction from Lumpy whenever someone mentions Dr. Richard Carrier. If you cite Carrier in your posts, Lumpy will react with a long winded rant that is filled with the same sort of anger, outrage and disgust as Mr. Max' rants. Coincidence? One has to wonder.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Your theory about "the laws of nature" doesn't overrule the reports or evidence of what happened.

You could say the same about this child playing the piano at age 11 months. Such a thing is "impossible," except that we have reports saying it happened. It's "impossible" and yet it's reported by a reliable source as having happened. According to your logic, the claim is "false" because it's "impossible," and yet it's reported as true. Sometimes the evidence that it happened has to overrule your theories about what is "impossible" or contrary to "the laws of nature."

No, you couldn't. A child learning to play the piano at a very young age is an unusual event, but . . .

You're rejecting what this news item is reporting, i.e., that the child began doing this without any training. He did not just learn this faster than normal, as some kids do at a young age, through training.

You're assuming that the mother is lying and that the interviewer did nothing to verify her claim that the child started performing this without any training. I'm assuming the news report is correct, because there have been some other reports of similar phenomena, where someone acquired an ability suddenly without any training. Such performers are called "savants," showing a high level of skill or talent without the normal training or learning period. There are not thousands of these, but probably only dozens, which are verified cases, reported in news items and documentaries.

It's not just someone learning at a faster rate than normal, like a child prodigy. It's a much more rare phenomenon. And it's not necessarily the young age. There is one case of a savant who, as an adult, suddenly acquired the ability to perform complicated math problems, after a head injury accident. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-brain-injury-has-turned-a-man-into-a-mathematical-genius

. . . an unusual event, but it doesn't defy the laws of nature, nor is it impossible.

And maybe the miracle acts of Jesus did not "defy the laws of nature." This is not the point. They were acts of unusual power, not possible for normal humans. So "impossible" for normal humans, and not something which humans can learn, through training. And that he raised the dead and also resurrected means the possibility of eternal life. One can argue about the theology or "the laws of nature" or what's "impossible" etc. But those arguments don't erase this fact, that there is evidence of this as something demonstrated by someone who lived in history.

According to my mother, I learned to swim before the age of one; does that make me a messiah?

I'm sure you could toss a hundred babies into the water, and a good number of them would learn to swim immediately, and others would drown. Science, or normal observation probably confirms that this happens in many cases, probably without the need to actually do the experiment to see how many would drown and how many would learn to swim. My guess is that in your case that's not what happened, but even in the extreme life-and-death situation it could be confirmed that an infant can learn to swim immediately in some cases.

Some fathers tell their kids how they learned to swim by being tossed into the water and told to swim or drown.

But this isn't about learning faster than normal. The SAVANT performs something which in some cases cannot be learned at all, by any normal person, or in other cases requires a long learning or training period in order for a normal human to acquire the skill, and yet the savant somehow acquires the skill immediately without any learning period.

Get back to me when the child rises up from the grave after three days, wanders around on the streets, and then flies off into the sky under his own power. Or at least learns to walk on water.

You're ignoring the point. Which is that the miracle act is essentially something which hardly anyone can do -- or maybe no one at all, or ONLY ONE person. So to ask for other cases of the same thing misses the point.

We have evidence of this one Resurrection event, 2000 years ago, and maybe it's the only case. But there are reported cases of someone who died and then resuscitated a day or 2 later. The explanation generally is that they did not really die. I haven't studied all the reported cases of someone dying and then coming back to life. Maybe in all those cases they had not really died, but there's no way to prove that.

But not producing any other cases doesn't disprove that we have at least this one case 2000 years ago. It's OK to look into all other reported cases of a body resuscitating. I don't think there's any reported case of a person being tortured and killed, such as with crucifixion, and yet returning to life.

Josephus in the 1st century reported about three crucified victims being taken down before they expired. Two of them died anyway, and one survived. Life of Josephus 420-21.

I also wanted to add that comparing the alleged miracles of your god to a young child who plays the piano speaks more for your conception of god than you appear to realize.

You're ignoring the purpose of this example. I am showing that it is proper to believe the evidence, or the report that something happened, regardless of someone's claim that it "defies the laws of nature" or is "impossible" because it contradicts common observation, or known empirical science.

The report that it happened is evidence, regardless of the known science and the common observation. Nothing about this imposes anyone's "conception of god" onto anyone. If you're saying the facts and the evidence don't matter, then you're disagreeing with me. But that's all I'm claiming -- that the evidence and the facts do matter, whether we're talking about "god" or about the Great White Pumpkin or about the nature of the Cosmos or the Ultimate Reality, etc.

It matters whether the Jesus miracles really happened, and the evidence from the historical record is that they did happen.

Your god has the power to create an infinite universe, but the only thing you can say about him is that he is at least as smart and as talented as a one-year old. Wow!

What's wrong with citing an example which can be witnessed, as a particular event?

So you're saying individual facts or events don't matter, and all that matters is the "infinite universe" or the ALLness of the Cosmos etc. OK, that's where we disagree. You're saying the facts don't matter, because the evidence that something happens doesn't tell us what the truth is, or gives us no reason to believe something happened, because your theory about the "laws of nature" overrules the evidence, or the reports of what happened. While my point is that the reported evidence is important in determining what happened, and it does matter what happened.

One can use many examples to show that the evidence does matter and that we believe based on the evidence. There's a wide range of examples to use in order to illustrate the point. You don't disprove the point by giggling and cackling about the particular example. There are many single individual cases which all matter as part of the whole truth, which can be used for illustration, and it's appropriate to choose from among all the possible examples.

I recall an earlier savant who could play Beethoven -- would that have been more pleasing to your taste buds?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's also an argumentum ad nauseum (or argument by repetition). The repetition is meant to give the impression the point has never been refuted so therefore it's true. .

impression? That's the mechanism.

When Lumpy first started posting here, he'd post, get several refutations.
Some time later, post the same argument, get almost as many refutes.
Kept doing this until people realized there was no real point to refuting the same shit yet again. So the 25th time he posted an argument, there are no replies, he could then crow "and no one can refute it!"

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

No need to get bogged down on "miracle" - "supernatural" - "laws of nature" terminology.

All that matters is: Did Jesus do them things or not?

My questions were asking what gave them grounds to believe that a supernatural event had occurred, but your . . .

Maybe you're right that they did not have grounds to believe it was "supernatural," . . .

Well that seems an understatement. I do think we can sustain a stronger position than "maybe" they did not have the grounds to believe that. Let's just say it flatly---they *would* not have had any grounds to believe that (setting aside if they did actually believe that or not).

They thought it was something highly important that everyone would want to know about, and they had "grounds" to believe that. There's no explicit claim that it was "supernatural." There's so many goofy claims about the "supernatural" that actually some such claims could be less important than the claims about the Jesus "miracles" (or whatever you want to call them) and his power.

An act of great power -- greater than normal humans are capable of -- can be very important even if it's not "supernatural" by someone's definition, especially by some goofy definition of this or that religious cult. There is no need to insist that those acts, such as healing the sick, or rising from the dead, were "supernatural" if someone insists that they don't fit this or that technical meaning of the word. They were acts of great power, beyond anything normal humans can do.

The "argument from miracles" doesn't necessarily have to include this or that philosophical notion of "supernatural" in order to be a legitimate argument. The argument can simply be that the unusual event(s) took place, and that it was something important.

Saying that an event is unusual and important is much lesser than saying it is an outright miracle event.

The acts of power Jesus performed indicate that eternal life is a possibility. That's very important even if it's not a "miracle" according to someone's criteria for what constitutes a "miracle." The "gospel" or "good news" is about this possibility of eternal life, or the power which Jesus demonstrated which could make eternal life possible. If that power or that possibility is not a "miracle" and I'm offered a choice between the eternal life or the "miracle" having nothing to do with eternal life, I think I'd choose the eternal life and pass up the "miracle" (whatever that means) as being of lesser value.

What we humans perceive as unusual and important is very much subject to our own cognitive biases, comprehension limits, etc.

The healing acts Jesus performed -- curing the blind and lepers etc. -- do matter to everyone, if they really happened. And of course the Resurrection matters. To say it doesn't matter or is not "important" and varies with one's bias or comprehension limits is in effect to say that those claimed acts of Jesus did not really happen.

Before you say the Jesus miracle acts are not really unusual or important and are only a product of bias or comprehension limits, you need to first answer whether that's the case even if they really did happen. I.e., suppose the Resurrection and the other miracle acts of Jesus really did happen: now, if so, and they are real facts of history, from the 1st century as described in the gospel accounts -- hypothetically -- do you still insist that they are not important or unusual and that they're just subject to our bias and comprehension limits?

Or, when you downplay it like this, are you not really just saying you don't believe those events really happened? In which case the real question to deal with is whether those events really happened. Because if they happened, they are important, to everyone, and are not just a result of bias or comprehension limits etc.

Planets crash into each other, stars explode, species become extinct, new species are derived, occasional massive disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.) occur and they will be perceived as unusual and important to others, especially to those most directly impacted by them.

Yes, importance is relative to those impacted by the event. But if the Jesus miracle acts really did happen, then there is an impact on us all. Because it means the possibility of eternal life, to everyone.

And yet -- perhaps this possibility is rejected by some as not important. Though, more likely those who say this are really just saying they don't believe it's possible, and they think it's wrong to hope for something which surely is not possible.

But others do leave open the possibility of it, even though we don't know for sure. So at least for these ones who leave open the possibility you have to grant that it does matter, or is important, and it's reasonable for them to hope it's true. So at least in their case you have to grant that it is important. And this is a pretty large number, because it surely includes all agnostics, who don't know, and so cannot rule out the possibility that it's true.

In the geologic and astronomic perspective and timescale though, they are more ordinary events.

The Jesus miracle acts are not ordinary. There aren't any other cases of such events for which we have evidence (or at least events which anyone is quoting the evidence for -- instead many here claim there are other cases but are embarrassed to quote from any written record of those cases) such as we have for Jesus in the Gospels.

When someone says that a law of nature has occurred though, i.e. a supernatural or miracle event, that is a much stronger claim than some unusual/important event from our very narrow and limited perspective.

Again, the miracle acts of Jesus indicate the possibility of eternal life, which is very important if it's true that such life-giving power exists and was performed or demonstrated to humans, such as we see in the Gospel accounts. You can describe it with words like "stronger" or "weaker" or "narrow" or "limited" and other terms, but these depictions don't reduce the importance of these events. The only question is whether it's true, or whether it really happened, and whether this eternal life offer from him is real, or if it is just a fiction or fantasy or delusion. If the latter, then of course it is not important.

But that means the only question is whether it's true that these events really did happen, and there's no point in coming up with these depictions of it as "limited" or "narrow" or being subject to "bias" and so on. To debunk the Jesus miracle acts you really have to show that they probably did not happen, not that such claims are "limited" or "narrow" or inferior to a "supernatural" or "miracle" event, and dozens of other words to try to downplay this event in history. You can't TALK away the event or the miracles or the "good news" which this event represents in history, if it really did happen.

Or, if you can, then first you have to grant that it did happen. Hypothetically. Just say "OK, even if it did happen, just as the Gospel accounts describe it -- those acts of power, the healing acts, and the Resurrection -- it all did really happen, and he offered eternal life to all believers, and yet it doesn't matter and is "limited" and "narrow" etc.

But, probably you're really just saying you don't believe it, and you think there's something wrong about hoping for something which you're sure is only a delusion.

Again I ask---how they would have been justified in believing that a supernatural event occurred, rather than.

Maybe they were not justified in believing that. And in fact maybe they did not believe it.

Something about your take on this is unclear to me. If some event really was a miracle, do you think that necessarily implies that it was a supernatural event?

Not necessarily, because "supernatural" means too many different things. A "miracle" can just be an act of power, without necessarily meaning it's "supernatural," depending on what that means. The words used in the New Testament (dunamis is the most common) can include "supernatural" in the meaning, but not necessarily. It can just be an act of power, probably superhuman. Maybe of divine origin.

One cannot get technical about the exact meaning, whether it has to be "supernatural" to qualify as a "miracle." There isn't any theology or doctrine in the writings dictating exactly what qualifies as "miracle" and what does not. The English phrase "signs and wonders" is used, and you can argue that it usually suggests some connection to God as causing it. In the Gospels Jesus is sometimes accused by his detractors of relying on devils or demons for his power, or "Beelzebub." So it can be a "miracle" (dunamis) even if the Devil is the source of the power. So it's an act of power regardless of the source of power.

Or are you saying that miracles occur which are completely in accordance with the laws of nature?

I don't see why it can't be in accordance with "the laws of nature" and still be a miracle. A "miracle" can be highly unusual, impossible for normal humans, or a superhuman power, but still also conform to the natural law. But there's no fixed doctrine on this which defines it for all believers. Not all Christians or all believers or all theologians have come to agreement on what "miracle" means exactly, and whether it must mean "supernatural" or "divine" -- it just has to be an act of power beyond normal human ability. And from there you can add your own extra requirements if you wish.

Or something else? Can you elaborate on that please?

It's best to just say it's an act of power, no matter what causes it, or what the source of the power is. It has to be something an ordinary human cannot do. It isn't necessary to pin it down exactly. If someone gets very precise and creates a checklist of qualifiers for identifying exactly what is or is not a "miracle," that's just their theory which not all believers have to accept.

They never said it was "supernatural."

Did they ever say it was a "miracle?" I am not familiar with the stories, and especially not of the original languages, to know myself.

There are different words used. An example is in the Luke version of the trial, ch. 23, where Jesus is sent to Herod Antipas:

8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.

The word "sign" here is semeias, as in "signs and wonders." It often can mean something caused by God, but it doesn't have to mean that. There's no clear doctrine saying it has to mean "supernatural" or "divine," though it includes that.

Rather than get bogged down on the exact meaning, it's best just to consider the examples of acts he did, which are mostly the healing acts. And also the Resurrection. Did these events happen or not? regardless what term is applied to them?

Here's another example (Matthew 9):

27 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly charged them, "See that no one knows it." 31 But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.

The key word here is dunamai ("I am able"), meaning to have power. Related to the dunamis word, power. The word does not seem to require that it has to be "divine" or "supernatural" even though it obviously includes that in many cases, or it's assumed that the power demonstrated in this case came from God. But the word itself just means being able or having power, no matter what the source.

Christ belief is not about the precise meaning of this or that "miracle" word, in Greek or whatever language. It's just whether those events (like this "miracle" healing of the blind men) really happened, even bringing the dead back to life, and whether eternal life is possible because of this power. It's a reasonable hope, even though there is doubt, and we have EVIDENCE that it's true, even though it's not 100% proof. And of course a believer hopes it is true and thinks it matters or is important.

If someone really wants it not to be true, and hopes there is no such power as this or any possibility of resurrection or eternal life, then they would likely disbelieve these accounts and say there's not enough evidence. If they're honest they have to admit that this evidence exists, but they can reasonably disbelieve it because the evidence falls short of being the PROOF they require.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Round and round and round she goes.

We have EVIDENCE. No, you do not, no matter how many times you lock your caps.

I hereby claim to be the second coming of Jesus and just yesterday five hundred people saw me raise someone from the dead to prove it.

Does my claim make any of that true? But how could it not be? I just gave you EVIDENCE IDENTICAL TO BIBLICAL CLAIMS.

What's more, my EVIDENCE is ONE DAY AFTER THE MIRACLES HAPPENED!!!! Therefore, by your illogic, my EVIDENCE is the best EVIDENCE there could possibly be and that therefore means that I am Jesus and you are simply a disbeliever and biased against me and therefore your objection to my argument doesn't matter, because your mind is closed.

 

[skepticalbip]

No need to get bogged down on "miracle" - "supernatural" - "laws of nature" terminology.
All that matters is: Did Jesus do them things or not?

There is no more reason to believe that Jesus did them than there is to believe the 'witnessed' claims made about Joseph Smith.

Wait a second... there is more reason to believe that Joseph Smith did those things since we know he actually existed and there is better evidence for his miracles - actual sworn testimony of eye-witnesses.

 

[atrib]

Round and round and round she goes.

We have EVIDENCE. No, you do not, no matter how many times you lock your caps.

I hereby claim to be the second coming of Jesus and just yesterday five hundred people saw me raise someone from the dead to prove it.

Does my claim make any of that true? But how could it not be? I just gave you EVIDENCE IDENTICAL TO BIBLICAL CLAIMS.

What's more, my EVIDENCE is ONE DAY AFTER THE MIRACLES HAPPENED!!!! Therefore, by your illogic, my EVIDENCE is the best EVIDENCE there could possibly be and that therefore means that I am Jesus and you are simply a disbeliever and biased against me and therefore your objection to my argument doesn't matter, because your mind is closed.

You have failed because you do not meet Lumpy's standards for believing in supernatural events.
Your evidence is not based on hearsay. Hearsay accounts are best and the sworn testimony of named witnesses is of no value.
Your evidence is current. The evidence can only be considered valid if it has been circulating in the public by word of mouth for 60 to 120 years. This timescale is critical, in fact, since Lumpy rejects everything outside this narrow window.
You have 500 named eyewitnesses. This is a strict no-no. The evidence is only valid when there are 4(5) anonymous sources for the story, all copied from each other, and none of them were eyewitnesses.
Your accounts have not been copied and translated over and over and over within the past 2,000 years. Thus it cannot be deemed accurate.
You do not preach hope of an eternal life. Thus your second coming is of no value.
Your post doesn't have a video of a dog/child playing a piano. I'm not sure what the significance of this is, but Lumpy has referenced such events multiple times, so it must be important.
You don't have "extra evidence", just the normal amount.

Nice try, but we are not convinced.

 

[Atheos]

All I was saying is the same thing, because you aren't convinced any religion is true, while at the same time you (plural) are telling Christians, that they should also believe in J.Smith, because you see them as the same when we don't. IOWs If J.Smith is not part of the discussion and Jesus is the debate, we won't (not surprising) satisfy the underlined ablove.

No, I was not telling any Christian that they should believe in Joseph Smith. I was merely suggesting that if you were willing to look at your own religion with the same level of skepticism and critique that you apply to that of the Mormons you would discover that the evidence for the veracity of the history of the Mormons is considerably better than the evidence in support of the christian myths about Jesus.

There are eight named and signed witnesses who swear to God that they saw the golden plates, that they handled them themselves, and that they witnessed a portion of the translation process and verify that it was as described. There are other named witnesses who claim to have observed various miracles (and the dates on which they occurred) performed by Joseph Smith. In spite of all this you know as well as I do that God did not translate the plates from Reformed Egyptian into English through the agency of Joseph Smith. We both know that the Golden Plates didn't magically disappear into Heaven when Joseph Smith was finished translating them, and in all likelihood they never existed. We can both be equally certain that the witnesses who claim they saw Joseph Smith perform miracles were dishonest, deluded or deceived.

These "events" are not included in standard history books along with details of the Civil War, the assassination of Lincoln or the completion of the trans-continental railroad, things that happened during roughly the same time period. Why? Because they are not part of history! Historians understand the difference between history and mythology and no matter how many religious "witnesses" claim oddball things happened they know that this is exactly the sort of thing you get when people get involved in religious cults. Happens now, happened then and believe it or not human nature hasn't changed that much over the last 10,000 years.

There are zero named witnesses who met Jesus and attest to anything he allegedly did. Period. Zilch. Nada. Nobody who claims he met someone who met Jesus. We don't have a clue who wrote any of the Jesus gospels. Yet we as skeptics are expected to think that this is better evidence than what is claimed about Joseph Smith.

It baffles me that you cannot seem to understand why this is insane.

Christian Mythology belongs in the same category as Roman Mythology, Greek Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, Babylonian Mythology, Persian Mythology, Celtic Mythology, Nordic Mythology, Jewish Mythology, Muslim Mythology, Pagan Mythology and modern Mythology. The key word here being mythology. Popular mythology doesn't make it true. Just means it's popular. Sorry, but the harsh reality is that's all you got. Millions of Muslims can't be wrong, can they?

But don't ply me with odds games or hide behind the fog of thousands of years of lost writings, incomplete history and obvious pious fraud. If a god existed and used miracles such as were described in the Jesus myths to prove it existed there is no reason it could not continue to do so for all time. Unless of course it ran out of power, or died or grew bored messing with humanity and moved on to a more interesting planet with decently intelligent life forms.

Atheos, I'm just as simple man using ordinary plain language (a little simplistic at times) posting my pov of the scriptures. ( who's being found guilty now? I would ask of the underlined)

You've been openly endorsing Lumpenproletariat so I was referring to various tactics to which he resorts. If you wish to distance yourself from him I understand.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Does David Copperfield heal the blind and raise the dead?

a Google definition of "miracle"

Where does the word miracle come from?

A miracle is generally defined, according to the etymology of the word—it comes from the Greek thaumasion and the Latin miraculum—as that which causes wonder and astonishment, being extraordinary in itself and amazing or inexplicable by normal standards.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc.....0..35i39j0j0i22i30j33i21j33i160.IjmmgX_Ws8s

The above link might not be good anymore. So replace with:

a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
"the miracle of rising from the grave"

Similar:
supernatural phenomenon
mystery
prodigy
sign

a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

"it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed or injured"

an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
"a machine which was a miracle of design"

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwic9o_f9c_lAhUJrZ4KHfPfDvgQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

or with

A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (especially a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint, or a religious leader. ... Some coincidences may be seen as miracles.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...lAhXSqZ4KHfRtBmAQzmd6BAgKEAs&biw=1078&bih=593

This wouldn't necessarily include "supernatural" as essential to the meaning. It fits what the Gospel accounts describe as the healing acts of Jesus, and the Resurrection.

No doubt there are other definitions also, and some including "supernatural" or "against the laws of nature" etc. And requiring divine power.

An "Argument from Miracles" need not be forced to conform to any one definition, but to any of several standard definitions, including this one. Nor should it exclude any standard definition as "wrong" and try to impose another as the "right" definition.

So are you saying that David Copperfield's (if he were there at the time) act would have been reported as miracles . . .

Which "act"? You mean performance with modern 21st-century technology? Let's basically limit this to performances using 1st-century technology. We can easily compare Copperfield to a 1st-century parallel who did not have modern 21st-century technology. But if you require a comparison to a visitor from the future who shows up in the 1st century with 21st-century hi-tech devices, maybe that would astonish the 1st-century audience as something supernatural and divine. Possibly the shocking nature of that would be similar to that of Jesus healing lepers etc.

Yet even then, with 21st-century technology presented to the 1st-century onlookers, it seems the acts performed could be taught to others, even to the 1st-century folks, so that over time they could learn to operate the equipment and perform the tricks, being trained to do the same performance. And if it can be taught to others, to perform the same razzle-dazzle etc., then it's not really a "miracle," because miracle acts seem to be superhuman acts which normal humans cannot do, or learn to do through training.

. . . reported as miracles that would have made Jesus' (if he was an actual person) act look like he was a piker?

"piker"? Nevermind the "IF he were there" hypothetical. No doubt there were real cases, and they were not important enough to be recorded in written accounts.

Assuming we don't mean transporting 21st-century technology back to the 1st century -- then probably David Copperfield's act (or the equivalent) actually was performed by a 1st-century magician but just not ever reported/recorded. There were magicians who amazed people, but their acts were hardly ever reported, as 99.99% of what is reported today was not reported in the 1st century, when there was virtually no media or publishing industry to report events that are reported today. Presumably there was interest in magicians and illusionists and wonder-workers of many kinds, in oral reports, but little of their acts is recorded in the writings. (Though from about 100 AD and later there are some "miracles" in written reports.)

example:

Comparison of Jesus to a 1st-century exorcist (magician?)

Josephus reports an exorcist who caused a container of water to be knocked over when a demon was expelled (Antiquities 8.2.5, written about 90 AD), to give the impression that the invisible demon knocked it over, though Josephus believed it was a real exorcism of a demon, performed according to Solomon's rules for casting out demons. So this was reported as a "miracle" caused by both God and the expelled demon which knocked over a bucket of water.

Comparing this exorcist to Jesus, the differences are: this exorcist was able to gain some believers by performing his act in the name of the ancient teacher Solomon, who was revered by Josephus, whereas Jesus named no ancient religious miracle tradition as his authority or source for his healing acts; also, we have 4 sources for the Jesus miracle healings, whereas Josephus is the only source for this one 1st-century exorcist; and for the exorcisms of Jesus it's reported that the victims were healed, whereas Josephus reports no healing of the victim, but only mentions a container of water knocked over when the demon exits the victim's body.

With no healing reported, we can assume there wasn't much excitement over this exorcist, whose only accomplishment is the water container knocked over somehow.

There's nothing about a "piker" in the writings, but in comparing the two cases, it makes a big difference if the victim was actually cured, as in the case of the Jesus healings, and it's noteworthy that Jesus did not rely on an ancient healing religion or cult as his authority, or his source of power, in order to gain credibility. Instead, his power to heal was believed based on something other than any appeal to an ancient healing cult or religion -- probably on the fact that his healing acts really did happen and a victim was really healed -- or at least that appears to be the explanation. While other miracle healing claims (which are very few in the written record) are always attributed to an ancient healing deity or authority, which wins credibility for the claims.

So to make such a comparison we have to ask why some events were reported, like the Jesus miracle acts, but most events (99.99% of them) were not reported. And the best answer so far is that Jesus actually did perform the miracle acts we see in the written accounts, while other alleged miracle-workers did not perform such acts. Real miracle acts would be important enough to get recorded in writing.

Of course we can assume a magician like Simon Magus did some magic tricks, but only the kind others could learn to do also, so those are not "miracles."


There are reported miracles beginning about 100 AD and later.

But virtually nothing earlier.

Reported miracles anything like the Jesus healings are absent until about 100 AD when such reports begin appearing in the literature. (The stories begin appearing not because the reported events happened, but because something in the first century caused this new wave of miracle stories to begin at this time.) E.g., Plutarch reports a miracle healing power of King Pyrrhus of Epirus (319-272 BC):

People of a splenetic habit believed that he cured their ailment; he would sacrifice a white cock, and, while the patient lay flat upon his back, would press gently with his right foot against the spleen. Nor was any one so obscure or poor as not to get this healing service from him if he asked it. The king would also accept the cock after he had sacrificed it, and this honorarium was most pleasing to him. It is said, further, that the great toe of his right foot had a divine virtue, so that after the rest of his [cremated?] body had been consumed, this was found to be untouched and unharmed by the fire. -- Plutarch Life of Pyrrhus, 3.4 (written about 100 AD)

Note that Plutarch reports this in a skeptical manner (they "believed" he cured them, and "It is said"). But further, we have only this one source and it's dated about 400 years after the alleged miracle events. Also it's interesting that the miracle-worker finds it necessary to perform an animal sacrifice, indicating that belief in a traditional healing god is also part of his procedure and probably helped promote popular belief in the king's power.

So here's a reported miracle act, performed by someone of wide repute and high position of power, easily explaining how the mythologizing could take place. No doubt there were many others never recorded, because they were dismissed as deceptions or tricks. The actual recorded miracles, like this one in Plutarch, are extremely rare. And prior to 100 AD there's virtually nothing like this, going back to about 600 BC where the Elijah/Elisha miracles appear.

A David Copperfield-type miracle probably would not have been recorded, because it would have been recognized as just good magical performance, but not something superhuman.


That which is reported in written accounts, and that which is not:

It matters IF the event really happened and
if it was a superhuman act which normal humans cannot do.

It isn't that there were no miracle claims or performances of magic, but rather that none of them was significant enough to be recorded in writing like the Jesus miracles were, because these really were superhuman acts. Whatever performances took place, they were probably recognized as just being clever stunts, like David Copperfield today, and not recorded back then like they are today when the publishing technology is so widespread.

In the literature there is a new flood of miracle stories beginning around 100 AD, or the end of the 1st century. These include miracles of Simon Magus appearing around 150 AD.

The only miracle healing legends earlier than the 1st century AD are the Asclepius miracles, from 200 BC and earlier, and the Elijah/Elisha miracles, appearing about 600 BC. The Asclepius cult was dying out after 200 BC, and there are no reported Asclepius miracles from about 200 BC to 100 AD, at which point the Asclepius cult revived and began producing a new rash of miracle stories, as part of the new pattern of miracle claims appearing suddenly around 100 AD and further into the Middle Ages.

If Copperfield's magic is something many/most people could learn, with instruction/training, then it's not in the "miracle" category. How his acts would compare to those of Jesus is answered by the fact that similar acts -- but with only 1st-century technology -- almost surely did happen, and were amazing, performed by 1st-century magicians, and are unreported because they are less important, being recognized as being magical tricks only which normal humans could learn, with training.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, once again, you are affirming Joseph Smith's story as the best evidenced story in existence.

Round and round she goes, where she stops, everyone knows!

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^
Indeed. Lumpy agrees absolutely with skeptics and atheists about all the nonsensical claims offered as 'proof' of miracles for any religion other than his. He then flips to special pleading and unquestioned acceptance of much weaker claims made about Jesus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

^ ^
Indeed. Lumpy agrees absolutely with skeptics and atheists about all the nonsensical claims offered as 'proof' of miracles for any religion other than his. He then flips to special pleading and unquestioned acceptance of much weaker claims made about Jesus.

But pretty much only for the healing miracles. If He can heal, especially heal Death, then He's divine, thus dropping His name at the host's table gets you into Heaven.
Other miracles can be ignored, as well as those parts of scripture which would indicate that Lumpy has to take positive steps, make actual changes to his life, in order to get into Heaven. Those passages might well be later edits. Can't be sure.

So it's not only special pleading, it's carefully targeted special pleading.