Topic: Observations on prayers and miracles? - page 5. (Read 2686 times)

LOL. Im sorry you misunderstood me.  I actually didn't say it would be direct evidence of a creator .   Read again.   I said my first inclination would be to accept cloning or reanimation of the life that I witnessed die.  God is a more far-fetched explanation even in your example.  I would also consider a winged fairy dancing on a pin and shitting elephants as possible evidence of god.  But why on earth do we consider stories without evidence such as your example and mine, as something that "could be evidence if it were true"?   There can be no greater waste of time than pondering whether god could be considered real if crazy shit without evidence were to start happening in front of us.

I have a better idea.  Lets talk about REAL things and not stories without evidence.  What real evidence do you have ?   Body of facts indicating God is real.    Can you name one?

Your answer is yes, that it fits your criteria that it is both unexplainable, and direct evidence of a creator.

I already answered yes.  I would first assume something more probable such as reanimation of tissue by cloning by an advanced civilization, which is far more logical than a supreme being waved his magic wand.

But pondering fairy tales is not my forte.  How about some evidence?   Got any?

If being evasive is an answer, sure.

Ok, lets 'assume' you did.  Humor me.  "Answer" "again" the question below: simple yes or no to below:

If you, Skwanderer, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.  

That is twice now that you refused to answer to a specific example.  Simple question below: yes or no?

Ill give you some examples :

1) The world is an amazing place that we cannot fully explain.

That's all fine and well but because we are stupid and cant explain everything is hardly evidence for anything other than we are stupid.

2)  There are writings that say people spoke to god.  There are writings of (insert anything here)

Heresay of heresay.  Not evidence of anything.  Not even indirect evidence twice removed.

3)  Unexplainable (miracles) happen.

If unexplainable and seemingly impossible events NEVER happened, that might constitute evidence of god.  Statistics says the unexplainable should happen with a certain regularity.


Your turn.
  Got anything?

f you, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.

Because you need to first establish what it would take to make such evidence convincing.  And, since you say you are understanding what I am asking, and yet not providing such, let me ask you in a different way, since you did not answer the other question.


If you, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.

I repeat.  What it would take is actual factual evidence that not only could not be explained in naturalistic terms, but provides factual evidence of god. That is quite clear.   Got anything? 

Not being explained by men in naturalistic terms is not evidence of god, it is evidence of something as yet unexplainable by men who aren't too smart.  It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.

I have never seen or been made aware of any direct factual evidence of god.  If you think evidence of god exists......I have asked you to present it and yet you obfuscate.    You are so in love with your belief of god, why do you fail to present any evidence that you believe exists?

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume I was not clear (again).

Give an example of evidence that would lead you to conclude there is a Creator - what would be something that you admit, if it was to ever happen, could not be explained in naturalistic terms.  That it could only be explained by the existance of the Creator.


For example - if you saw someone rise from the dead - not just read about it but actually saw it yourself - would that do it?  And, if not, what would?  What kind of event can you conceive of that could not ever be explained through science?

It would look like evidence.  Do you need a dictionary? 

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Do you have any evidence?    Please list the BODY OF FACTS that indicate your god is real.   They should come rolling off your fingertips Tomas.

Ready go.

That is fine - but that did not answer the question that was asked.  I am not asking how much evidence you need - but what would such evidence look like for you?

Not much.  Just one piece of evidence would convince me.  Care to present any?  I know you think you have, but you have not presented one single shred of evidence that can be held up as proof of a creator. You can do so now and convince me.  All I require is a single proof.

Clearly, saying there is no evidence is rather foolish. Interestingly, the hostility that folks such as yourself feel towards the idea that God exists is evidence in and of itself. At least, evidence that you might think He exists.
Alot of energy spent for a non existent Being.Anyway, so, what evidence, what miracle, would it take for you to acknowledge there is a Creator?

Maybe god is a sadistic bastard who doesn't deserve worship, and he always answers prayers but usually the answer is 'no'!

One think is pretty clear. If God exists he does not interfere in the lives of the masses of humanity. At least not in a direct way. If he did there would be no wars, no children dying of terrible diseases, no 9/11's or senseless invasions of Iraq and a million children would not starve to death around the world every year. Saying God gave man "free will" and lets us make our own decisions doesn't explain why he would allow the Titanic to sink or aids to exist to kill millions around the world.
 
If God refuses to save millions why would he go out of his way to save one?
 
Millions pray and get nothing for it. The whole concept of prayer and miracles is more than a little ridiculous. God either gets involved in the lives of people or he does not. The evidence is overwhelming that he does not.
 
What could be considered a miracle of sorts is when people turn their lives around and dedicate themselves to helping their fellow man. There could be something miraculous about overcoming your personal hatred of other groups of people and setting aside racism and bigotry, misogyny and embracing equality for all. Something as simple as taking the time to try and understand another person's point of view instead of automatically dismissing it ......can seem a little miraculous at times for many of us.
 
Love is as intangible as faith or prayer but we can see it's impact on the world on a daily basis. Goodness and empathy are as incorporeal as miracles and yet unlike prayer and miracles we see them change the world. These may be secular miracles but they come about because of the potential for good that is latent in all human beings and not based on pie in the sky religious dogma and superstitution.

Real miracles are brought about deep in the essence of what and who we are as individuals and as a species. No one has to wait or pray for a miracles when they can make one themselves.

What do you think?

Miracles, the word is used in different ways.   But, in the sense of the God intervening in the world - of course, folks disagree about that, and for various reasons.  Used in the sense of something happening that cannot or can never be explained in naturalistic terms - one might say it be a miracle if such a subject could be discussed without folk getting all upset.


Used in the sense of folk turning their lives around, of a major victory in WW II, or a baby being born - I think in that sense, one is meaning it is a wondrous and fortunate event.  But, usually one that is explainable in naturalistic terms.