|
Post by elephantchang51 on Dec 29, 2008 8:10:06 GMT
Eric, 2 points,firstly if my view requires every claim to be non-miraculous,this is just the conclusion I have come to based on the proponderance of evidence as I see it and my experience of life.Of course I may be wrong.Secondly I agree that we should all be prepared to constantly re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence both for and against such claims.It is only in such an atmosphere that civilised discourse,as I think we are enjoying now,can flourish. Best wishes,Peter.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 29, 2008 9:44:47 GMT
Peter
Not sure if I am misunderstanding you. My thinking was this. I understand you do not at present believe in God. Thus you are committed to a naturalistic explanation of all alleged miracles. You have to believe every claim is not genuine, for if even one was a genuine claim (i.e. it could not be explained naturalistically), your naturalism/atheism would be shown to be mistaken.
I think this would have to be the evidence relating to things other than alleged miracles. I'm guessing you haven't investigated many miracle claims in great detail, so it seems to me your disbelief cannot be because of the lack of evidence for miracle claims, but because of other evidence. Thus your disbelief in miracles is not based on the evidence for miracles, but on the view you bring to the question.
(I'm not denigrating your view by saying that, for it is similar to what I do with the problem of evil. Evil in the world cannot be anything other than a problem for a believer, but I hold to my belief because of the evidence on other grounds. But just as evil is a "problem" for me, alleged miracles are a "problem" for you.)
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Dec 29, 2008 10:24:48 GMT
Eric, I edited my original post as I realised it was badly worded,of course I accept the consequences of my belief.I also agree I have not investigated the evidence for miracles as fully as I might,perhaps you can suggest some sites that I can refer to?
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Dec 29, 2008 15:00:19 GMT
Metacrock, Pretty angry eh?You will get nowhere trying to browbeat dissenters into submission.Now I understand why you have met with hostility in your dealings with atheists elsewhere.I have treat you with civility and respect,but if you are unable to reciprocate then I am sorry to say our correspondence is over.Perhaps you could learn from some of the other regular posters on this site who are able to disagree without nastiness? Yours,Peter. Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. but I find a certani smugness in your refusal to consider the issue I really brought up. You go off on a little tangent about what you want to deal with. And what you are saying is totally prejudicial and ideological. you are not not being ultra logical as you think. You are being ideological. there's a smugness there that I'm sick of seeing on message boards. I think it is easy to get angry with arbitrary positions. atheists want to pretend that they are being thoughtful when in reality they are doing nothing more than hawking their pet ideology and being arbitrary and prejudicial.
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Dec 29, 2008 15:02:58 GMT
you are still not address the logical issue I broguht up about post hock....
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 29, 2008 21:01:44 GMT
Eric, I edited my original post as I realised it was badly worded,of course I accept the consequences of my belief.I also agree I have not investigated the evidence for miracles as fully as I might,perhaps you can suggest some sites that I can refer to? I'm not sure that I'd bother. As I said before, I don't think alleged miracles are the best evidence for God because (1) I think we (both "sides") find it difficult to separate our preconceived opinions from evidence, and (2) because it takes a lot of time and effort to truly investigate. (e.g. I tried to further investigate the apparent miracle I referred to by emailing the doctor at his practice but received no reply. Where do I go from there?) I have discussed the question because I disagreed with your original suggestion that miracles cannot be scientifically verified and are hence a matter of faith. I have made the counter suggestion that they can at least be partially verified ( we can check if the incident did indeed occur and if there are plausible alternative explanations) and are hence a matter of verified knowledge and faith. I further suggested that the power of the argument from miracles comes not so much in the verification of any individual event but the statistical improbability of all such claims being in error. That is about as far as I think the argument can takes us, unless some miracle like Paul on the Damascus road happens to us personally. I suggest the apparent occurrence of some miracles ought to leave atheists less dogmatic and more agnostic about God's possible existence, and hence more willing to consider the possibility. From there, I think the way forward is to (1) ask God (if he is there) to show us, (2) consider the classic theistic arguments in a new light, and (3) consider the historicity of Jesus. But if you want to pursue the matter further, I have little more to offer you than the World Christian Doctors Network site I mentioned before, though unfortunately (for these purposes) many of them appear to be from overseas and hence would be difficult to follow up. Other possible starting points would be to check on the conclusions of the medical commission which investigated apparent healings at Lourdes, and to follow through further on the Dr Crandall case I quoted on my website, where I gave a number of press references.
|
|