“True, we can’t discount 100% that ‘miracles’
of a supernatural origin are real”
—Ex-Christian.Net commentator
My points about arbitrariness and impossibility in the previous segment also apply to the following comment,
By the way, if the so-called word of God were inerrant, you wouldn’t need apologetics to explain the inconsistencies — and yes, they are there no matter how many twisted excuses/arguments you make in your failed attempts to explain them away.
As long as there are people such as I encountered at ExChristian.Net there will be people who find inconsistencies in the Bible since 1) they appear to refuse any cogent elucidation of them 2) they will invent some if they must. Note also that this is another mere red herring.
This leads us to ask: what is “credible evidence” since we are told that there is none? Bottom line is that some atheists hold to such thought restricting worldviews and even if they personally witnessed a miracle their worldview would demand that they deny it and simply say, “It just happened that way, some day we will explain it materialistically.” Thus, God is a hidden as wind: you cannot see wind but you can discern its effects—you see the trees waving, you feel the dust and moisture particles being pushed against your skin, etc.
Another supposed ExChristian demonstrated a lack of knowledge of Judeo-Christian theology in stating:
…how do Christians like you deny miracles reported by people of opposing faiths, that is, unless you’ve examined “all reports”????? Here’s how: You presuppose that True Miracles™ only happen within the Christian faith, that’s how. [emphasis in original]
We Christians most certainly do not deny miracles reported by people of opposing faiths. Miracles claimed by others may include True Miracles™ performed by the one true God in order to get their attention, it could be demonic activity (an actual supernatural even), or yes, it could be a hoax, fake or mistake.
Another response read,
Talk about absurd fallacious arguments.Using your asinine logic: the only way to deny gremlins is to presuppose that all reports of gremlins wreaking havoc on planes are somehow false.Therefore gremlins exist.
Not so. On a certain level since as we saw in the previous segment, “Some assertions can never be disproven 100%…we can’t discount 100% that” gremlins “are real.” Thus, on this level you would not conclude that they exist nor that they do exist. Rather, au fond, you would have to be agnostic about gremlins (except for “Gizmo”—mogwai!).
Someone else referenced:
…a priest in Mexico City claims to have a chunk of Christ’s flesh. He has the “literal” Steak O’ Jesus in a G.E. freezer. Here’s how it happened: The padre was doin’ his “transubstantiation” routine during Mass and the Eucharist began to bleed. The Padre put the bleeding Eucharist in a glass. The bleeding Eucharist was taken to a “lab” that “confirmed” that the Holy Cracker possessed human and non-human (???) DNA.The “lab” even gave the Padre a certificate of authenticity which hangs in the church. Until you disprove this, it is true. I even took pics…I think it’s time for you to paint your butt white and run with the antelope.
Let us note that, for example, logic is more reliable than our sensory input. For example, even though you are in a room which you know to be empty of anyone but yourself yet you see someone in the corner in your peripheral vision. You look over at the person but see that it is a hat and coat only. The logic was constant and firm: no one else is there. But your senses first said no, then yes and then no.
All that goes to state that, of course the evidence should be considered and, as much as I love my Roman Catholic friends (I, a Jew, worked in a Roman Catholic church for four and one half years), having considered the doctrine of the Eucharist I have found it unbiblical and argue towards this point logically, historically and scripturally (as may be seen here).
Another commentator affirms the 100% view in stating:
We are not “denying” miracles, M.A. We simply do not believe that there is any credible evidence for such a thing.For instance, if you wanted Me to believe in this alleged Bleeding Eucharist with “human and non-human DNA”, the minimum evidence I will accept is an actual sample that I can send to My brother for a thorough genetic analysis. I am not interested in hearsay, and I insist on having a second opinion on the genetic tests. [emphasis in original]
I certainly support the second opinion option even though they are prepared to rely upon hearsay from their brother (only in a manner of speaking).
Someone made an attempt to elucidate the matter:
Of course, one must define what a miracle is in order to give it context before making judgment. If a miracle is something that exceeds one’s expectations, then it is a miracle that I can actually teach members of the ‘faith’, and get them to understand higher-order concepts beyond their irrational belief systems…Perhaps, a miracle is something that exceeds explanation; an experience wrapped in cognitive ignorance. If so, embrace the fact that your experience doesn’t commute, until it can be rationally explained to others.You may as well walk around saying; I feel, I feel, I feel, I feel something. Great, enjoy the feeling, just keep it to your self – to say you feel something, only means you are human – and most of us consider that self-evident.
If it is so that something that exceeds explanation is to be correlated with an experience wrapped in cognitive ignorance and it then merely amounts to I feel, I feel, I feel, I feel something then scientific inquiry is saturated with observations that exceeds explanation and then we must tell scientists to just keep it to themselves.
The comment continued thusly,
If a miracle is something that is said to spawn from ‘beyond’ natural limits, then it is a statement that rejects what we know of natural reality. Again, entirely meaningless, as natural reality is the evidence against the statement itself.
If a miracle is from “beyond” natural limits, then it is a statement that rejects what we know of natural reality and that is the very point: when a miracle occurs we are made aware that 1) we do not posses as complete a knowledge of natural reality as we thought (for instance that it can be “broken,” “bent,” or otherwise “manipulated”) 2) we are made aware that there is something, someone “beyond” natural limits. For example, is it philosophically sound to infer from what we know of natural reality that whatever caused the universe to come into being was, obviously, outside of, beyond, the universe; outside/beyond natural reality. Moreover, that thus, whatever caused time to come into being was, obviously, outside of, beyond, time; outside/beyond natural reality. Furthermore, that thus, whatever caused the matter to come into being was, obviously, outside of, beyond, matter; outside/beyond natural reality. Also, that thus, whatever caused space to come into being was, obviously, outside of, beyond, space; outside/beyond natural reality.
We may also infer some of the cause’s characteristics such as personhood due to the exhibiting of intelligence, volition, etc. I elucidate this in the parsed essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.