Christians showing love at Gay Pride

[Hobbs]

"It is so obvious that we live in a world in which a fantastic amount of logic, of rational lawfulness, is at work. We are aware of a large number of laws of physics and chemistry and biology which, by their mutual interdependence, make nature work as if it were following a grandiose plan from its earliest beginnings to the farthest reaches of its future destiny. To me, it would be incomprehensible that there should be such a gigantic master plan without a master planner behind it. This master planner is He whom we call the Creator of the Universe . . . One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be a Divine intent behind it all."

-Wernher von Braun

[HYHYBT]

Well, in the case of water to wine, that should be something that could be repeatable under laboratory conditions. That would be evidence enough of that particular miracle.

If it were repeatable by anyone, it wouldn't be a miracle. And you know that. What I'm asking is that, if it were to occur ONCE, and you yourself knew it had happened, how would you go about proving it?

even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean what supporters claim it means. A miracle is not necessarily evidence of a god.

This is true... but it would be evidence of *something* capable of overriding the physical laws. Because that's what "miracle" means. If you can repeat it and see how it works, then it isn't one.

But again, you were saying that if God existed there'd be results. How do you go about deciding that there are none?

Then you're saying that we can't tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one.

I believe we *could* very easily tell the difference, if we were somehow to have one of each to compare. You ask "why add the notion of God to a universe that, as far as we can tell, works perfectly fine without one," but then, that's only the bare mechanics... but that's getting far off even from the sidetrack.

Oh, no. Don't you go shifting the burden of proof. The ones claiming that God exists (and I'm not saying you're one of them) are the ones who have the burden to prove his existence.

Why? That's only for scientific proofs. I find it downright dishonest (speaking generally) that lately those pushing to advance atheism have switched from trying to argue it on its merits to simply insisting that their opinions MUST be assumed to be right unless absolute proof turns up showing otherwise and that until then to believe anything else is at best silly.

What, exactly, does Dawkins have to do with this discussion?

Well, up until today, he's the only place I've heard the "if miracles existed then we could repeat them" nonsense.

[Hobbs]

So your only objection to my statement that I won't accept the claims of the "Sun Miracle" on hearsay is my characterization of the children as "attention-hungry"? What about my actual questions, which you haven't addressed at all? How do you know the children weren't lying, or halucinating, or any number of other explanations? What reason do you have to think that the Virgin Mary actually appeared to them and that God made the sun dance?


What, exactly, does Dawkins have to do with this discussion?

He's your "prophet" even as young children and blessed people are my prophets.

The children had no reason to lie. Making up a story like this, if found out to be unfounded, would result in an even worse state then they were in. I have no reason not to believe that such a miracle happened. For one, how would they, "attention-hungry" though they were, be able to predict a meteorological event? They weren't educated-they were children-yet you seem to gloss over the fact that, within their vision, they were told an exact time for the event to take place. That seems like a lot of cunning and planning for a trio of poor Portugeuse children.

[Ghel]

That's pretty cold. What makes you think they were attention-hungry to begin with? Their lives didn't turn into flowery-fairy tales, ya know?

So your only objection to my statement that I won't accept the claims of the "Sun Miracle" on hearsay is my characterization of the children as "attention-hungry"? What about my actual questions, which you haven't addressed at all? How do you know the children weren't lying, or halucinating, or any number of other explanations? What reason do you have to think that the Virgin Mary actually appeared to them and that God made the sun dance?

Why do you believe the attention whore Richard Dawkins?

What, exactly, does Dawkins have to do with this discussion?

[Hobbs]

Hmm, I don't think I was taught Yahweh when I was little. It seems your Catholic upbringing was far different from mine.

[Ghel]

...Abrahamic religions...

Ah, well, looking back through the posts, I see that you only quoted me as far as Yahweh. Yes, I agree, Yahweh is only one god. It could even be said that Allah is the same god as Yahweh. But I also listed "Ptah, Viracocha, Unkulunkulu, Coatlique, and every other creator god that's ever been described to me." Would you still say they're the same god?

Or were you saying that the Christian God and Yahweh were the same? Yes, I know that. Although some Christian denominations call him other things, Yahweh was the name I was taught growing up.

[Hobbs]

Can you really believe the say-so of three attention-hungry children?

That's pretty cold. What makes you think they were attention-hungry to begin with? Their lives didn't turn into flowery-fairy tales, ya know? Why do you believe the attention whore Richard Dawkins?

[Nyoibo]

.You do realize that some of them have mutually exclusive descriptions, right? And that the creation stories vary widely, right?

There's a reason they're called the Abrahamic religions, because Christianity, Judaism and Islam are based around the god of Abraham.

[Ghel]

Actually, the miracle was predicted by the Virgin Mary. Since She was the one who predicted the miracle, and the miracle happened, what evidence do you have that She wasn't the one who produced the miracle?

The "miracle" was predicted by three children, who claimed that they saw the Virgin Mary. Nobody else saw her or the other saints they claimed to have seen. Additionally, the prediction was simply that a miracle would occur, not what it would be. So all these people showed up expecting something to happen, but not knowing what. Even if the miracle of the dancing sun happened as described, what evidence do you have that it was caused by the Virgin Mary? Can you really believe the say-so of three attention-hungry children?

[Ghel]

See, we can't find any evidence God does exist or doesn't exist. If a Creator deity exists, then there already is evidence of it. Namely, that creation exists. The 'mounds and mounds' of evidence you're looking for is already here. That is, the evidence is that there is a here to look for evidence in.

Then you're saying that we can't tell the difference between a universe with a god and a universe without one. Why add this notion of God to a universe that, as far as we can tell, works perfectly fine without one?

I object to you claiming that there is irrefutable proof He doesn't exist...

Please don't put words into my mouth. (I have to assume this is directed at me, since I'm the only atheist in this discussion.) I have never said anything like this. What I would say is that there is insufficient evidence for the claim that a god exists to convince me that it is true.

Calling all believers fools or deluded is just as bad as saying the same of all atheists.

I may have said this at some point, and I won't apologize for it. It may not be polite, but it is justified to say that theists are deluded into accepting their beliefs.

My problem is more than you seem to take an issue with people who disagree.

As long as people's beliefs don't impinge on the rights of others, I don't take issue with their beliefs. Here on Fratching, however, we should all expect to have our views challenged. And since I think that the notion of a god (for all useful definitions of "god") is absurd, I am free to argue my conscience without fear of recourse. Yes, these are exactly the types of things I would say to people offline if I didn't have to worry about backlash.

I don't claim I can prove God, I claim you can't DISPROVE God...

Oh, no. Don't you go shifting the burden of proof. The ones claiming that God exists (and I'm not saying you're one of them) are the ones who have the burden to prove his existence.

I would never claim that I can disprove God's existence. I don't even know what God is. I've never been given a satisfactory description.

... and therefore, do whatever makes your life feel the most rewarding.

I will. I am. I am using the only life that I know I will have to try to convince people to think rationally, to examine their beliefs, and to escape the chokehold that religion has put on society. (I do other things, too, but they don't really apply to this conversation.)

They're the same god.

You do realize that some of them have mutually exclusive descriptions, right? And that the creation stories vary widely, right?

[Nyoibo]

I know we've been concentrating on the Christian God in this thread, but my objections apply to all other creator gods, as well. I am an atheist towards Yahweh

They're the same god.

[Hyena Dandy]

See, we can't find any evidence God does exist or doesn't exist. If a Creator deity exists, then there already is evidence of it. Namely, that creation exists. The 'mounds and mounds' of evidence you're looking for is already here. That is, the evidence is that there is a here to look for evidence in. God doesn't NEED to work with magic to be God. If He created the world, He created scientific phenomena, and therefore they're as much a result of His will as a magical incarnation would be.

And why not some other creator than the Christian God? There isn't any proof one way or another, which is why its up to us to decide for ourselves what we believe and don't believe. I don't object to you not believing in the Christian God. Or any other God. I object to you claiming that there is irrefutable proof He doesn't exist, which is just as foolish to me as the people who claim that there is irrefutable proof that He does.

Calling all believers fools or deluded is just as bad as saying the same of all atheists.

Which is why I don't have any problem with you refusing to believe in something you haven't seen scientifically proved. My problem is more than you seem to take an issue with people who disagree.

I have absolutely no proof one way or another, and therefore make the choice that I feel the most rewarding as to what I do or do not believe. If I'm right, I get into heaven, which is spiffy. If I'm wrong, I don't go anywhere. If I don't go anywhere, then leading the life that was most rewarding was the best idea. If I go to heaven, then yay, heaven. Of course, if I go to hell, then at least I had a good time getting there.

And before you point it out, there is a key difference between this and Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager posits that its best to believe in God to be on the safe side, because nothing happens if atheists are right, whereas you go to hell if Christians are right. What I'm saying isn't that in lack of any conclusive evidence, be a Christian. What I'm saying is that with lack of any conclusive evidence, make the belief you find most rewarding.

If you truly find believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be spiritually fulfilly, I wholeheartedly suggest following whatever his noodly teachings may be, and however they manifest to you. If the belief in invisible intangible unicorns makes your life fuller and happier, then believe away.

I don't claim I can prove God, I claim you can't DISPROVE God, and therefore, do whatever makes your life feel the most rewarding.

[Hobbs]

Setting aside, for the moment, my objections to this statement, even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean what supporters claim it means. A miracle is not necessarily evidence of a god. And even if a miracle suggested the existence of a god, how do we know which god? If the sun danced in the sky and changed colors, how do we know that it was Yahweh who did it? Why not Unkulunkulu? Why not Lucifer?

Actually, the miracle was predicted by the Virgin Mary. Since She was the one who predicted the miracle, and the miracle happened, what evidence do you have that She wasn't the one who produced the miracle?

[Ghel]

So, you want Jesus to resurrect himself just to placate your scientific curiosity? I think He has slightly more-pressing matters.

I know we've been concentrating on the Christian God in this thread, but my objections apply to all other creator gods, as well. I am an atheist towards Yahweh, Allah, Ptah, Viracocha, Unkulunkulu, Coatlique, and every other creator god that's ever been described to me.

Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.

Setting aside, for the moment, my objections to this statement, even if it was a miracle, it wouldn't necessarily mean what supporters claim it means. A miracle is not necessarily evidence of a god. And even if a miracle suggested the existence of a god, how do we know which god? If the sun danced in the sky and changed colors, how do we know that it was Yahweh who did it? Why not Unkulunkulu? Why not Lucifer?

[Hobbs]

Well, in the case of water to wine, that should be something that could be repeatable under laboratory conditions. That would be evidence enough of that particular miracle.

However, that would not, in any way, be evidence for a god. That would merely be evidence of something that can happen that we didn't know of before.

So, you want Jesus to resurrect himself just to placate your scientific curiosity? I think He has slightly more-pressing matters.

Also, if you read further Boozy, you'd have read this, "Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, Benedictine priest and author of a number of books reconciling science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle." (1)

It might be a natural phenomena, but there is no way (unless Ghel provides one) to accurately prophecize such a rare meteorological phenomena, especially in the early years of the 20th Century. Even meteorological predictions now are unreliable.

(1). Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima.