I suspect we all have these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The atheist's theology would try to disprove the existence of something others claim to be "God".
Printable View
I suspect we all have these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The atheist's theology would try to disprove the existence of something others claim to be "God".
By definition of the words, there can't be an atheistic theology, no matter what you suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
the·ol·o·gy /θiˈɒlədʒi/
[thee-ol-uh-jee]
–noun, plural -gies.
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
Origin:
1325–75; ME theologie < OF < LL theologia < Gk theología.
okay then....the atheist's atheology....Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Wonderful. They've started making up words. That would be 'atheism' then.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Not a Christian ( know nothing about Buddhisim so not going to comment) but I don' see the issue, a NDE is God (or Jesus if you like) giving people a second chance, to believe in him, or to get more good points or even giving them more rope to hang themselves with, depends on your version of religion I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Not THAT rare Atheist, I am closley releated to 2 and know about half a dozen others...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don't really hold with NDE as miracles, no more than life itself, science , math the universe being a miracle.
Then again I have serious issues with Miracles especially the so and so can cure people type miracles . I tend to have great diffculty in refraining from snorting or rolling my eyes and really offending people.
But to return to OP I think that we need a defintion of what is a miracle. I think ( not sure but I think) that for the most part as far as my religion is concerend big miricales are done, except for a few predicted ones which frankly should they happen I really do NOT want to be around for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Personally I think things happend everyday, little things that are still amazong, call it concidence , probablity, whatever else you want to call it , if you look around you you can come to your own conclusions as to wheatehr God and thus 'miracles' exist or not with out big spectacular things. Either way we shouldn't take life and the world for granted.
By saying that you imply that you, that mankind KNOWS the laws of nature. A naive statement at best. To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity. The human mind is to feeble, to mortal, to ever comprehend anything but a microscopic fathom on the fringes of the laws of nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by lichtrausch
Oh and as another note, while may scientists say they are atheists or agnostic, a portion of those who say that are truly deists, they just don't say that they are deists as there is not set of rules or thought on deism, it very individual, and thus a great difficulty to explain, so its just easier to say they are agnostic.
Sorry, I should have made that point clearer as it specifically related to a discussion about ICU/CC patients.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
I don't mean the typical "You have six months/a year to live" scenarios, but cases where multiple trauma has a patient expected to die in the very near future - hours or a day.
Actually I was talking about ICU patients too :D But lets just say my family aside ( I will admit we are a bizzare bunch medical wise adn only one of those 2 was actually in ICU ) I happen to be postioned to hear and know about the freakiest ICU/CC cases... and meant quite a few of them. BUt then like I said I don't think those count as religious mircales as such, Its just proof we are not infallible and don't know everything!
Can you expand on this, because I think I have an excellent grasp on "the laws of nature" such as we understand them to date. So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
You don't need to understand infinity and eternity since they are merely human constructions and do not exist in reality.
That's a frequently-stated opinion, but as noted, unless there is a secret universe we haven't discovered yet, there just aren't enough gaps in human knowledge to make it stick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I don't agree with this either - deism has been popular with scientists for centuries and there are still plenty around who hold publicly to the belief. I can't imagine the subject is worth covering up; most deists are just as proud of their beliefs as any worshipper, and against some religious beliefs, are quite sane and reasonable. If some scientists can believe that the earth is 6014 years old, I don't see others who happen to be deists finding it too hard to explain their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Why are so many posters so snotty in their replies?
You are begging the question about miracles, Athiest. Of course everyone agrees that IF the universe behaves in totally predictable ways, there are no miracles. Miracles are CALLED "miracles" precisely because they are unpredictable, and contravene the apparent "Laws of Nature". Look back at post 25, where I explain the "problem of induction".Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'll put it another way: If Jesus rose from the dead, he was behaving in an unpredictable way. However, it is fallacious reasoning to suggest that He cannot have risen from the dead because normally thing are predictable, and therefore nothing that is unpredictable can ever happen. Either Jesus rose from the dead (in which case unpredictable things CAN happen), or He didn't rise from the dead (in which case unpredictable things may or may not be able to happen).
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Asking for non-snotty posters here is like asking for a miracle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jassy Melson
I'm not sure why you've typed that post, because it has nothing to do with what I said, which was specifically aimed at Alexander's claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
It is not begging the question in any way. Alexander has made a strange claim and I would like clarification of it as it appears to challenge what human knowledge actually is.Quote:
To say that we have minds capable of grasping at the fringes of the laws of nature, is akin to saying we understand eternity or infinity.
:smilielol5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Haunted
However, I haven't seen any "snotty" posts. But I probably don't know what "snotty" means. Perhaps whatever annoys the reader?
Actually, you said, "So far, every human discovery outside of a few quantum [and probably meaningless] behaviours, shows the universe, matter and energy all behave in totally predictable ways." If humans have "discovered" miracles (as some claim), this is manifestly false.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas. So your statement begs the question of miracles (if there ARE miracles, the universe does NOT behave in predictable ways). In addition, it is a leap of faith on your part to make such an assertion. We can't even predict whether the dice will come up seven or eleven, let alone many more complicated things about the universe. You seem to be saying, "Because we can scientifically predict some things about the universe, given better scientific knowledge we could predict everything." This may be true -- but it is far from proven.
I don't mean to pick nits with you, Atheist. Instead, I'm suggesting that such a "scientific worldview" (asserting that with superior data and better theoretical constructs we COULD predict the behavior of the universe) is itself a mighty leap of faith.
No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Alexander believes the universe is neither understandable nor predictable. That is wrong.
You will note that I started my sentence with "so far". That means, every discovery up until now.
If a miracle is ever proven, then I will change the statement, but in the meantime, with all evidence of miracles being disputed at the very least, I don't believe the statement is deficient in any way.
Claims of miracles to date have not had sufficient evidence to support them to be given any credence whatsoever. I file them along with all the other personal anecdotes - those about Loch Ness Monster and sasquatch sightings, alien abductions and the myriad of other deluded fantasies people try to claim as "evidence".
This, however, is just rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Predicting the outcome of a dice throw is very, very simple - it will be a number between 1 and 6, inclusive. Blaming science for being unable to predict a random number generator bears no relationship to knowledge of the universe whatsoever.
Feel free to think that way, but it just shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process, because no faith is involved. I don't have any faith that science will ultimately answer all questions, but logic tells me that it's extremely likely, given the record of science vs myth for the past few thousand years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Once you get past solipsism, reality begins to exist, and is measurable. Science doesn't prove reality, it just shows how it works.
If a genuine miracle happens, it will be outside of science - except for perhaps measuring the effect upon the terrestrial subject in question - and therefore will not change "natural laws". That's why the term "supernatural" exists.
As I've already stated in this or another thread - a supernatural miracle can be taken as proof of god. This is about the only thing I agree with Tommy Aquinas on.
While I keep waiting for the real thing I enjoy reports of miracles; from Indian statues in farm ponds to visions at Medugorje there are always plenty of people prepared to give miracles a free pass.
You are merely repeating your prejudices. Of course I and most other modern people share these same prejudices, so its easy to avoid seeing them. Nonetheless, if "matter and energy behave in totally predictable ways" (as you claimed) we should be able to predict the results of a dice throw. I don't see why you say we can't. It's all a matter of the electrons firing off in the brain of the craps thrower; the muscles spasming in his hand and arm; the friction of the dice with the air and the cloth on the craps table.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm science oriented myself -- I'm completely willing to say that with more complete data, and better understanding of the physics of the human brain and muscles, we could predict which number would come up on the die every time. My point is that we're a long way off from being able to do so. So my claim that we COULD (given better science and data) is a mere leap of faith.
So is your suggestion that miracles can't happen because nature operates according to strict "laws", which never alter. If you are right -- then I'm right about potentially predicting the roll of the die. But both claims involve a leap of faith.
Can I interest you in a game of poker?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Sure. I play regularly. Playing according to the "odds" is the best tactic given our imperfect knowledge. But given better scientific knolwedge, the chances of hitting a third ace on the river is either 0% or 100%. We only say it's 2/46 because we don't know what card is second from the top of the deck. The odds are a useful fiction.
I'll give you poker as long as I get craps!Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Look, I really don't want to give you a hard time here, but your understanding of maths is a level below my 11 year old daughter, and she is decidely average at maths. Regardless of claims about science, faith and all the other bits, only in Orwell does 2+2=5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
There is clearly no point contuining.
You are obviously not very bright, so I agree. Atheistic arguments like yours serve to make atheists look stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
For anyone else reading this thread, the odds are a useful fiction in poker because (given an honest dealer) once the cards are shuffled either an ace is second from the top in the deck or it is not ("second from the top" because the top card is "burned" in Texas Hold 'em). The 2/46 odds (there are 46 unseen cards in the deck, and two of them are aces) are irrelevant to the person with perfect knowledge of the facts. They are relevant to the card player, who is ignorant of the facts.
I understood, Ecurb.
Thanks. I didn't think it was that difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
W a r n i n g
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Off-topic posts or posts containing inflammatory/personal comments will be removed without further notice.
So a favorite nature writer of mine --Bernd Heinrich (professor emeritus [of biology] at the University of Vermont) -- still holds out for miracles, though his source is nature and not religious dogma.
He's observed that certain moth larvae will will metamorphose into odd, though genetic variant caterpillars, . . . . say a larvae that normally changes into a spotted green caterpillar, changes instead into a dark brown one. . . based on genetic or environmental conditions. Of this as yet unexplained phenomenon. . . . that in insects certain genes are turned "on" or "off" based on unexplained genetic or environmental factors, he writes:
While I know that Heinrich is not using the term "miracle" in the religious or dogmatic sense, he is using it to express the idea that there are many things in the world that we do not understand, and that it may be an overstep of our self-confidence to say that everything is explainable.Quote:
We humans cannot change into any radically different body color, body shape, or behavior. We have evolved to maintain a certain homeostasis, or staus quo that has proved to be adaptive in the past. However, the genes of a butterfly are the same as those in a caterpillar. The difference is which are turned on or off, and when. . . .
Once an end result is achieved, it is hard for us to imagine an alternative that has proceeded along a different developmental trajectory without crediting it to magic or "talent." When we see in others something that we find incomprehensible for ourselves, it is easy to pass this off as "genetic." Naturally, it is exactly that; but this description still omits the essence of development, the miracle on the miracle. The possibility of individual caterpillars to generate amazingly different forms makes me appreciate what is possible in the debate over nature versus nurture.
I'm sure that that there are many here who will eagerly belittle and demean the simple idea that a miracle is not necessarily supernatural, but that miracles are those things beyond our current ability to understand. To them, I can only shrug my shoulders.
I'm quite happy with that usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
Life is a miracle - so unbelievably complex that it's taken us millions of years to begin to understand it, and even now, we have no real idea of how it started.
It saddens me that that kind of miracle, which we're actually a part of, isn't enough for some people.
Since this is a literature board, I suppose it is appropriate to post:
Miracles
by Walt Whitman
Why, who makes much of a miracle?
As to me I know of nothing else but miracles,
Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan,
Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,
Or wade with naked feet along the beach just in the edge of the water,
Or stand under trees in the woods,
Or talk by day with any one I love, or sleep in the bed at night
with any one I love,
Or sit at table at dinner with the rest,
Or look at strangers opposite me riding in the car,
Or watch honey-bees busy around the hive of a summer forenoon,
Or animals feeding in the fields,
Or birds, or the wonderfulness of insects in the air,
Or the wonderfulness of the sundown, or of stars shining so quiet
and bright,
Or the exquisite delicate thin curve of the new moon in spring;
These with the rest, one and all, are to me miracles,
The whole referring, yet each distinct and in its place.
To me every hour of the light and dark is a miracle,
Every cubic inch of space is a miracle,
Every square yard of the surface of the earth is spread with the same,
Every foot of the interior swarms with the same.
To me the sea is a continual miracle,
The fishes that swim--the rocks--the motion of the waves--the
ships with men in them,
What stranger miracles are there?
By the way, when Jesus (supposedly) turned water into wine for the wedding at Canae, he was merely performing the same miracle that occurs every time that the rain falls, and grapes grow and ripen and are picked and fermented. The miracles of the Father are echoed in those of the Son (the Bible suggests).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
So, within the terms of the word as you mean it, everything in nature is a miracle. This is perhaps a bit difficult for those of us - including the World English Dictionary - who tend to use the word to mean pretty much the opposite of that - to wit, any occurence that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature.
World English Dictionary
miracle (ˈmɪrək ə l)
— n
1. an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause
If we're going to go with your definition of the word, we're going to need another word to cover stuff like the parting of the Red Sea and the raising of Lazarus. Unless, I suppose, you'd argue that those events - historically verifiable or not - are no more remarkable than photosynthesis and the fermentation of sugar.
Just to make the comparison, could you list a few things that aren't miraculous?
I think you are confusing me with Walt Whitman. Thanks.
No, this is misleading at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
"Miracle" has always required qualification. You only need to watch sport to realise that, and you've been just a teensy bit naughty with the dictionary definition, because they all go on to record meaning 2 of the word. Thus:
Merriam-Webster:
an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
Or, you could just take Oxford's three definitions:
noun
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency:
the miracle of rising from the grave
a remarkable event or development that brings very welcome consequences:
it was a miracle that more people hadn't been killed
an exceptional product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something
Isn't that why the thread is entitled "Religious Miracles"?
The crash and saving of every life aboard the plane that hit the Hudson River is an example of something truly miraculous, but purely human.
I'd say that was a figurative use, like That woman is an angel, or Mark Bastable is a pedantic a**hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
However, the original point stands: if everything in nature is a miracle, as Walt Whitman and ecurb suggest, we need to make it clear somehow that we intended to talk about the stuff that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature. As you say, the thread name implies as much, but ecurb has just cited Cana and the Loire Valley, and I'd say a distinction needs to be made between the two methods of wine production.
Many religious people refer to “the miracle of creation”. Like Whitman, they see God’s creative hand in the usual and everyday, just as in the parting of the Red Sea. My analysis of the miracle at Canae was literary (this is a literary board, after all). The literary value of Jesus turning water into wine is in part that it makes the reader reflect on the normal method by which water turns into wine, which is “miraculous” in Whitman’s sense of the word, and which, to religious people 2000 years ago was a gift from God, like Jesus' gift to the wedding party.
I'll grant that until The Comedian's post, we were not using the word thus.
i think we shld not take religion to seriously. its jus a set ideology to guide our actions in life.
its precisely when we overzealously protect or proselytising the belief that created much friction
in the world. there is nothing that can prove the existence of those spiritual entiies or realm,
yet we are fighting tooth and nails over it. the best approach is live and lets live.
I realize this is an old thread/discussion, but I felt compelled to state that Ecurb is actually correct. Probabilities reflect our level of knowledge and ignorance about reality, not reality itself. However, I think he is mistaken in what he's implying here: "We puny humans certainly can't predict many of the ways in which "the universe, matter and energy" behave. If we could, we could make a fortune at Las Vegas." If "us puny humans" had internal and accurate General Relativity calculators we could, indeed, make a fortune in Vegas. It's the limitations of our brains-as-processors that create the probabilities in Vegas and that Casinos capitalize on.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
However, The Atheist is equally correct in saying that science's best models can, indeed, predict everything that happens in Vegas with 100% accuracy and predict much more complicated things with just as much accuracy... the problem is creating a processor that can process those models within the time-span of a dice roll. The problem with those scientific models is that they're so complicated that they take time to compute, and we don't exactly have time to jot down all of the necessary information about a dice roll (force of the throw, the angle at which the dice exited the hand and hit the table, the material of the table, etc.) and come up with a predictive answer that's better than 1/6. But that's a statement about OUR limitations, not those of science. Quantum mechanics predictions are far more complicated than those of dice rolls, and they work swimmingly.
I don't think that scientific models (given the current state of science) can "predict everything that happens in Vegas with 100% accuracy." I'll grant that once the dice have been tossed, perfect knowledge of the angle, force, and orientation of the dice would probably allow us to predict how they will land. Where scientists have been less successful is in understanding the human mind. When will the crap shooter throw the dice? How hard will he throw them? At what angle will he throw them? Once the dice are in the air, no bets are allowed (I think, I don't play craps).
I don't doubt that some day our understanding of the mind will improve, and we may be able to predict these things more accurately. But will we be able to predict them ten years before the crap shooter even goes to Vegas? Two years? A day?
It is reasonable to say, "If our science were improved, and we understood how neurons firing in the brain work more completely, we could predict all human choices scientifically." But my original point was that although this is a reasonable position, it is also a leap of faith. Since science cannot help us predict these things today, we cannot be certain that we will be able predict them in the future.
I think I see the problem here... The Atheist was talking about the abilities of our models and what they tell us about reality being predictable; while you're talking about our failures in engineering those models to help us do things like predict the outcome of Vegas games. These are two very different things. I have no doubt that given the complete data that General Relativity could deterministically predict the outcome of a dice roll, but just because we can't figure out how to build a machine that can calculate all of the necessary data in the time-frame of a roll is not a knock against our models or what they have to say about reality being deterministic and predictable. It's the latter that The Atheist seemed to be addressing in his response to Alexander, who was exaggerating in minimizing how much we can "know" about reality.
I think calling odds a "useful illusion" has false ring to it, though I understand what you mean. I prefer Yudkowsky's "probability is in the mind, not in reality," which more distinctly explains that odds are the result of our combined ignorance and knowledge of a situational outcome. That level of knowledge and ignorance isn't really an illusion as much as it is as a factual statement about our mind. The only "illusion" would be to think that the probabilities are an inherent part of reality.
While we're "picking nits," as you said, I want to address this point on the issue of falsifiability:This reminds me of Yudkowsky's The Parable of Hemlock. A generalized induction would be falsified if we ever observed the opposite, so "dead people don't rise again" is falsifiable. However, saying "Jesus did not rise from the dead because it is impossible to rise from the dead" is, essentially, saying that the consistency of our modern observations are not/should not be considered falsified by the mere existence of a falsifying account, especially since we know it is not only possible but prevalent in texts to give "accounts" of things that didn't actually happen. Given the absolute consistency of our observations, the burden of proof would be on those claiming it did happen, and I honestly don't think there IS any evidence good enough to support an account of such an event over our own observations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Obviously, the “evidence” for someone rising from the dead is the first person accounts. We read them in the Gospels, which were written decades after the fact. So we read the Gospels and ask ourselves, “What is the most plausible explanation for this evidence (the written, first person accounts)?” One explanation is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. However, that contradicts our observation that people rarely, if ever, rise from the dead. So we ask ourselves, “Since this story is accepted by a great many people as true, are there plausible explanations for both the story and its widespread acceptance OTHER than Jesus rising from the dead?”Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
In the case of the dying and rising Gods, there are a great many competing explanations, including, but not limited to: common literary motifs in Middle Eastern mythology; psychological desires on the part of mortal humans, etc., etc.
So most agnostics and atheists think, “I don’t believe that the most plausible explanation for the evidence (i.e. the written eye witness testimonies) is that Jesus rose from the dead. I think there are other theories that are equally consistent with the evidence and are more plausible.”
Obviously, if the evidence was sturdier, we might have to re-evaluate. My friend who claims to have seen a Sasquatch doesn’t persuade me; it seems implausible that IF sasquatches were roaming the Pacific NW we wouldn’t have discovered sturdier evidence. But I’m not emotionally invested in the non-existence of Sasquatches. If compelling evidence arises, I’m glad to accept Sasquatches existence. It’s just that the evidence would have to be sufficiently compelling to overcome my grave doubts, based on the LACK of more compelling evidence, and the fact that there are competing theories consistent with the evidence of his eyewitness account (that he saw something else, and thought it was a sasquatch because he is obsessed with sasquatches).
One can also look at it from a Bayesian perspective and say that "given that Jesus rose from the dead, what is the probability it would've been written down?" and "given that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, what is the probability it would've been written down?" As for the former, I think it's fair to say that the former probability is close to 100% (hard to imagine someone rising from the dead and nobody writing about it!). As for the latter, I think we have to look at things like mythology and even fiction and say that it is very common to depict messianic figures as rising from the dead... but let's be conservative and put the estimate at 40%. If you put the prior probability of someone rising from the dead at a CONSERVATIVE 1%, then it would still be almost 40:1 against the accounts being true. The case gets worse, though, the more factors you take into account, as Carrier's Proving History convincingly argues. The problem is that I think people massively over-estimate how much a mere account should influence the consistency of our own experiences.
People who report near-death experiences could reasonably be portrayed as having risen from the dead. I don't think such resurrection stories should surprise anyone today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Although I'm not that familiar with the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, I do recall some years ago reading the post crucifixion events to see if these accounts could be interpreted as shared-death experiences. As I recall, I came to the conclusion that they all could be interpreted in that manner, although I might have missed some. That means they all could have happened.
For me, the most amazing parts of these accounts is not a physical resurrection but the massive amounts of shared death experiences that occurred after Jesus' crucifixion. That is what makes them stand out and that would be enough to justify a believer's faith.