Doing Okay!

I don't understand why so many people on this forum feel compelled to show everyone that they can support the existence of the supernatural using the Bible. Duh.

The theists in this thread seem to be confusing the words "possible" and "likely".

A good example of this is shown in the claim where that non-English speaking boy spoke English. Regardless of the source's credibility, the chances that it actually happened the way it was described are so much smaller than any other remote explanation you could think of. Posters in the thread rightfully challenged the claim's likelihood and were met simply with an argument about how it's possible to have happened. That argument DOES NOT show how it's (more) likely to have happened (than other imagined explanations).

The other flaw in thinking that possible == likely is shown when the supernatural is stated to be "that which science hasn't an explanation for yet". This is a suspect definition because it's says the opposite of what it actually means. Things without a current explanation may have supernatural sources, but this does not imply that there is some magical realm outside of science where anything you want to conjure up exists and it can't ever be understood completely. That's called your imagination, not the supernatural.

When you theists run into people (most of the logical world btw) who come up with alternate explanations for events that claimed to have been supernatural, it's not because they reject supernaturalism and will rationalize it away at all costs. They do this because they understand the difference between what's possible and what's likely and would prefer to stick with what's likely until shown a compelling amount of evidence to the contrary.

Why is it that the scientific method can't be used to support the validity of the scientific method, but the word of God CAN be used to support the validity of the word of God? Does your logical consistency get thrown away when it comes to religion?

IIRC, somebody asked SMP what % number they would assign to words such as these. I think it was DS that brought it up. Quantifying "possible" is easy (>0%), but "likely" is difficult to quantify.

What is so hard to understand?

If you *DEFINE* knowledge by whether it can be tested by the scientific method, then you cannot actually *KNOW* the scientific method works. I never said that the scientific method was invalid because it cannot be tested. I'm challenging the narrow epistemological hypotheses given at the beginning of the thread.

This is the point of the "chase the assertion" game. You have not presented a single positive argument as to why Christianity was "popular." You simply asserted that you believe that it spread because it was popular. You haven't even made an argument that it was in fact a popular religion. The amount of persecution they suffered under Nero and the other Roman leaders would suggest that they were in fact rather unpopular and that adherents put themselves at great risk by choosing Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu..._by_the_Romans

My positive argument for the Bible being evidence of something supernatural is that the Bible has been preserved in a way that is unlike all of the other documents of antiquity despite the historical circumstances. I had a better link before, but now I can't find it. (Scroll down to the table towards the bottom.)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Something that is this much of an outlier suggests that there is something interesting going on with these writings. And I don't think "popularity" is a reasonable explanation.

I agree with all of this. The only thing I would like to point out is that what is "likely" depends on how you "measure" it. If you already believe that the supernatural world is not likely to exist, then any explanation involving the supernatural is already far more improbable than any other explanation. So you're not getting around the problem of a bias introduced by the worldview assumptions.

Boooo.

I was hoping to see some demonic possession videos and the hilarious discussion that ensued. =(

It's surprising to you that when asked a question, and asked to show why they believe it, those people then answer the question, and show why they believe it?

Really.

Not a Bible toting fundamentalist myself, but I'm baffled that you're surprised that when you ask someone with a Biblical worldview a spiritual question, they give you a Biblical answer.

Just because you don't believe it's true, doesn't mean they don't.

Two things: A. there should be a fantastic reason to believe that everything in the Bible is true. This reasoning should be concrete, and not the fluffy gibberish we usually hear. B. Our worldview is shaped around logic and reasoning as the devices through which we ascertain truth. So it is basically entirely foreign to us that someone would completely forgo both in deciding to believe something.

Again, because you're assuming everyone has a worldview based on concrete naturalistic reasoning. If someone does not, there is no reason for them to operate with that mindset.

It is? People behave illogically every day, on all issues great and small. People get married to the wrong people, they make mathematically bad calls in poker, they carry lucky charms, they buy 20oz bottles of soda and take them home when they could buy more for an equal amount of money. They buy lottery tickets even though it's hugely -EV.

I guess it's just puzzling to me that people act surprised that other people believe illogical stuff.

youre bad at reading. he said thats how you ascertain truth. obviously if you dont use logic or reasoning, you'll make bad decisions (and not arrive at truth.) all of your examples show this, and id like to add people that believe in the supernatural to your list.

Actually believers have additional information that they accord different weight to.

We operate off of 2 standards while the skeptics operate off of one.

See a few of the prominent biologists that believe in theistic evolution if you don't think 2 standards are possible. Asa Grey comes to mind or maybe Francis Collins. Collins accepts the premise that God is outside of nature. Or the physicist Polkinghorne.

Just like we have a spiritual code in addition to our moral code while skeptics have a shifting relativistic moral code.

There is no such thing as supernaturalistic reasoning, so I don't really know what you're talking about. I have said it once and I will say it again - there is a difference between admitting that we have only a limited knowledge of the natural universe and there may be plenty we don't know, and claiming that there is more to the natural universe than we can observe and ALSO that you know even the SLIGHTEST about it. There is an inherent contradiction in that position.

I am only surprised that people would intentionally forgo logic in situations that call for it.

I am a little confused as to why the phrase "supernatural" even exists. If something can occur, I would deem it natural. If God is and always was, he is the epitome of natural. The reason theists use the term "supernatural" is so that they can sidestep all of the rules that we usually apply when trying to figure out how the world works.

I somehow recall someone being berated for "God did it" as a naturalistic explanation for the universe. The atheist side can't have it both ways.

What is the second standard?

I think theists have their own intellectual recognition of the truth when they read the New Testament. Its like being on a jury you hear the testimony and decide whether you believe it or not. You can take it even further and look at the whole contextual frame as it continues from the OT to the NT and its pretty clear we have to use our judgment in deciding if we believe something or not.

I find this the more fundamentally persuasive evidence because people haven't had structured science for the past 1900 years. See the Doubting Thomas story. Jesus already anticipated the scientific evidence dilemma so God didn't base faith on it. He based it on testimony.

I'm not surprised that they believe it because of the Bible, I'm surprised when they post a long string of quotes from it and then go "See! The supernatural does exist!" We all know that if you believe the Bible is true you must believe in the supernatural, so it adds nothing to the discussion OP was trying to have IMO.

Out of curiosity, do you think eyewitness testimony should carry more weight in a legal trial than say, DNA evidence?

Doesn't DNA evidence have to be first witnessed with the eye? Then believed? Then reported buy a supposed credible expert in a certain field?

They didn't have DNA evidence in those times, the courts were set up the best they could be, eyewitness testamonial was considered very strong.

In the courts of the Judeans, the Israelites (Jews) they were made to take an oath to God, and in that Administration unlike ours today those oaths brought back on the person taking them great destruction if they lied.

This is actually carried over into our courts sytems with the Bible, where you swear to God to tell the truth. Only now days when people do it they lie all the time because we live in what is biblically known as the Grace Administration and the Old Testament laws and curses relating to Oaths and Swears to God are not applicable anymore, they were under the LAW Administration, which Jesus Christ fullfilled and got rid of bringing in a new Age.

You also had to have more than one and the more you had the stronger the case. If you had physical evidence that trumped the eyewitnesss if the witnesses were questionable or few from what I understand biblically.

More than 500 eyewitnesses reported seeing Jesus Christ in his ressurected body after he had died, been buried then raised from the dead. So should we trust those that were actually there verses unbelievers 200 years later who weren't? I'd say that the ones who were actually there should be considered far more credible than a bunch of unbelievers of today. Seems logical to me, how about you?

There was physical evidence also, the tomb where he had been laid was sealed and highly guarded by soldiers. He still got up even though they were there and they saw no one come in. Nor could anyone get in because the opening of the tomb was blocked by a large stone that was very hard to remove, especially unnoticed by the guards.

There is more if you need more. DNA testing is is not perfect either. So it really boils down to believing.

What source do you really believe, Gods Written Word's or Man's Words?

I suppose that next you'll argue that mathematics is all based on eye-witness testimony as well.

None of this has anything to do with the question I asked.

You and Splendour both do this, and it gets tiresome. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. There, I said it. Now will you stop asking me questions that assume I believe in God?

Um, on a jury I'd probably be using logic and reasoning. So what is this alternative method that you propose exists?

Logic and reasoning have obviously been around long before Christianity. What is your alternative? You still have not articulated this, as far as I can tell. You speak of "evidence" you find "persuasive" but are not applying logic and/or reasoning to your analysis of it, according to you. So in what way do you find it "persuasive" if it is not based upon either logic or reasoning?

You said there was a separate method, not "different evidence." So what is it?

This would be case circumstances dependent and also dependent on the chain of custody of all evidence (how the evidence was handled).

why cant theists ever answer a question?

how about this. all things being equal...which would you choose?

I wish people would get off their "logic high horse" appropriating a position of superiority over theists that they don't have.

Every day of your life you're called upon to judge the character and truthfulness of the things people tell you. That IS an act of reason or intellect. There was a one time final sacrifice attested to by certain men. You decide whether to believe the accounts or not and you personally weigh the matter in all particulars that you deem relevant but don't ever think your own judgment should prevail over anyone else's because if there's one thing religion and bible exegesis teaches you its that everyone weighs the evidence differently, assigns his own emphasis to certain things and decides whether or not to accept it.

If you think about famous tv movies showing juries each member of the jury has a different insight, a different question and a different conclusion. The same thing goes on in here every day with the exchange of opinions. Its just some people throw their weight around more and claim the high horse more often and insist on their opinion.

People love to say why didn't God do it differently. But the way he did it has stood the test of time. These are spiritual matters so why apply a naturalist cookie cutter to them?