Impossibilities (version 2)

[Mad_Gerbil]

Mythra asked a question in another post. The question was along the lines of "Why don't we see the miracles today that people saw in the Bible?". Mythra then went on to assert that we don't see them because they are impossible and as we all know the impossible is quite simply impossible. I then attempted to hijack the thread and reform it into a question I personally found interesting but thankfully White_Raven intervened and corrected me for doing that.

 

Therefore, I'm starting this thread to ask the question that I find interesting. I'd like to turn the question on its head and explore from both the Christian and the ExChristian perspective if miracles would really make a difference.

 

Roll with me on a hypothetical here:

 

Lets say some guy comes walking into town one day and he claims to be the Son of Zeus. Naturally, we are all quite skeptical and we demand proof. The Son of Zeus meets our challenge and informs us that he's going to ressurect a follower of his who died just yesterday. We all follow the Son of Zeus to the local morge where he barges past the morticians and right into the place where the bodies are kept. The Son of Zeus walks up to a refrigeration unit, pops the door open, declares outloud for everyone to hear "Arise my son". Suddenly this guy who was lieing flat out on the table sits up and immediately falls down and begins worshipping his lord.

 

You've just witnessed a miracle first hand.

Your response would be?

 

[edit: corrected the title]

[Mad_Gerbil]

To respond to my own question:

 

I'd either claim it is some sort of trickery worked out in advance.

OR

I would claim that Satanic forces were at work.

 

Oddly enough, it wouldn't result in my conversion to Zeusianity.

In short, if it were a bon fide actual real life miracle from Zeus I'd be in the camp of "infidel".

[Dhampir]

I'm not sure even Zeus had the power of resurrection, though I could be wrong about that. At any rate, none of the sons of Zeus really performed resurrection level miracles that I'm aware of, so who cares if this guy resurrects someone? Who is it btw? Hercules? Theseus? Dionysus? Oh, my mistake, Dionysus DID come back from death. Twice.

 

All that would show is that apparently brain death can be reversed. Or that the reanimated hadn't actually reached brain death, or it's a trick, or the "reanimated" perhaps had yogic training and knew how to momentarily stop his own heart. Or any number of natural explanations. It would take something other than a miracle, or perhaps a miracle less easily circumvented by simpler possibilities, like spontaneous limb regeneration, or some such.

 

Your hypothetical furthermore assumes that this guy would be the only mythological figure that might come along to try to prove his divinity or his master's. What if Dionysus, Mythra, Osiris, and Jesus all got together, blew their brains out with 45's and had a contest to see which one could resurrect the quickest? What if they just started blowing people away left and right, to have a game of 'who can bring back the largest number in the shortest time'? All of a sudden, resurrection would stop being a measure of who is the One True Lord.

[Ouroboros]

So why did the disciples believe the same kind of trickery? And how come do you believe in the bishops who voted the books into the Bible? And why do you believe in the authors the wrote down the stories? And how is it possible that you even believe the stories of the disciples? It's a chain of tremendeous beliefs you have to apply to get to the core of belief in the Gospel miracles.

 

And you're absolutely right. Miracles of that kind wouldn't convince me. But a miracle like say... my son would walk again, right now, and his intestines and scarred body restored? That would impress me beyond words, because I have seen his intestines and lived with his handicap for more than 10 years. And I can poke my finger in the hole that goes to his stomach, so I know it is there. I know what kind of miracle would make me a believer in a microsecond. No one can or could remake my son into having a normal body by scientifically or medically means today. So would that kind of miracle make me a believer? You can fucking bet on it. If he was healed, it would be a miracle, or Satan did it. Which one would most likely get the praise do you think?

 

But if someone just make a coin disappear and make it appear again behind my ear, or pick out the right card in a deck? Nah, that's silly and non-impressive.

 

So again, tell me how come - if miracles are so easily debunked - did the disciples believe them? And if those miracles were of the second kind - the kind you can't deny and would turn your head - then why do we not see them today? And lastely, how come there are other stories with the same miracles from the same time era that you refuse to believe? So why do you apply no critical mind and no skepticism to one story, but all skepticism to all other stories? Isn't that very selective? Either believe all of them, or none of them.

 

Miracles of the believable kind are impossible like Mythra said, because they never happened but were just fiction stories to impress the followers.

 

...edit...

 

You do know that there are people that are burried alive for several days and brought back again? They are seemingly dead and have no pulse, because their heart beats at a very slow pace. I think the record is three days. So why was Jesus only burried for so few days? Probably because it was the same old trick. Just get some pufferfish.

[Dhampir]

Additionally, why would you assume something like that is a miracle in the first place? You'd need to be able to verify first off that the guy was dead, and that it was simply the SOZ's action of speaking him back to life that caused it. If you didn't, you're a fool for thinking the most spectacular thing without any evidence at all.

[william]

nice double standard!

[Ouroboros]

I find it so funny that someone can use arguments against miracles, and bring up the possibility that someone can do a trick for resurrecting a person. And then go to the length of saying that it wouldn't convince me or anyone else, while at the same time this person believes a hearsay by some unknown author about the same kind of event!

 

Gerbil is completely right. No one should believe a miracle like that, and you proved it, and now, explain why do you believe someone else's story about it??? You're sooooo gullible!!!

[Mad_Gerbil]

All that would show is that apparently brain death can be reversed. Or that the reanimated hadn't actually reached brain death, or it's a trick, or the "reanimated" perhaps had yogic training and knew how to momentarily stop his own heart. Or any number of natural explanations. It would take something other than a miracle, or perhaps a miracle less easily circumvented by simpler possibilities, like spontaneous limb regeneration, or some such.

 

I don't want to mis-represent your position.

What I hear you saying is that a resurrection from the dead performed in front of you wouldn't suffice.

That a miracle wouldn't produce belief in you.

 

Your hypothetical furthermore assumes that this guy would be the only mythological figure that might come along to try to prove his divinity or his master's. What if Dionysus, Mythra, Osiris, and Jesus all got together, blew their brains out with 45's and had a contest to see which one could resurrect the quickest? What if they just started blowing people away left and right, to have a game of 'who can bring back the largest number in the shortest time'? All of a sudden, resurrection would stop being a measure of who is the One True Lord.

 

Exactly.

A miracle of that sort would raise a whole bunch of additional questions.

A miracle really wouldn't answer any real questions.

[Mad_Gerbil]

And you're absolutely right. Miracles of that kind wouldn't convince me. But a miracle like say... my son would walk again, right now, and his intestines and scarred body restored? That would impress me beyond words, because I have seen his intestines and lived with his handicap for more than 10 years. And I can poke my finger in the hole that goes to his stomach, so I know it is there. I know what kind of miracle would make me a believer in a microsecond. No one can or could remake my son into having a normal body by scientifically or medically means today. So would that kind of miracle make me a believer? You can fucking bet on it. If he was healed, it would be a miracle, or Satan did it. Which one would most likely get the praise do you think?

 

I appreciate you sharing this special pain in your life - and I want to be careful not to step on your toes.

With great respect; however, I want to ask you if you'd actually believe the person who healed your son was in fact God.

I think you'd believe a "miracle" had occured but that wouldn't be the same as believing that the miracle worker was divine.

 

Possibilities:

1: It could be a false god with extreme power (dhampir postulated this)

2: It could be a fellow with a unique understanding of the power that runs the universe.

3: It could be an alien of some sort.

4: You could be insane - and come to the point where you doubt your own senses.

5: It could be some form of trickery.

 

So I think you could easily come to the conclusion that something happened - that would be quite rational. However, I think that is something different than making the leap to the idea that the miracle worker is God.

 

Is that accurate?

[Mad_Gerbil]

Additionally, why would you assume something like that is a miracle in the first place? You'd need to be able to verify first off that the guy was dead, and that it was simply the SOZ's action of speaking him back to life that caused it. If you didn't, you're a fool for thinking the most spectacular thing without any evidence at all.

 

Again, this rings completely true.

A person would immediately want to set up some sort of experiment.

[Ouroboros]

Listen,

 

My son very bad shape. Impossible with current medicine to fix.

 

If a miracle happened and he got restored, it would be either a supernatural being that cared for him... or a supernatural being that cared for him... or a supernatural being that cared for him... or ...

 

We can call that being Bob, or Satan, or Devil, or Jesus, or Buddha, or Grace, or Waterbottle or Mad Gerbil, but in the end, that supernatural benevolent being - with many names - would signify what you call God.

 

Or do you claim that the supernatural miracle worker being that is called Jahveh or Jehovah or Gud or Gott isn't the same one as your God? Isn't YHWH the real name of God?

 

So if that supernatural being existed that cared for my son and could do it, then I call him Mary or Lucy if he so wants. But at least I would know there is a supernatural world. But does that happen? Not at all.

 

If the Devil wanted me to believe in him, then he would do this kinds of miracles to fool me to believe in the Devil. But NOT EVEN THE DEVIL DOES IT!!! Why can't even the second greatest and powerful supernatural being in the universe even go to the length of doing a miracle to fool us? Is he also incompetent?

 

MG, the truth is... read my lips here... there... are... no... miracles... happening... at... all. The only ones describes as such are silly, stupid small things that falls in to probability.

 

If God existed, he could do miracles that would blow our minds.

 

He could literally move the Moon, or paint it in a huge cross. He could have Jesus come back and hover over the ground and heal the sick where ever he went.

 

Lets say you're right. Some wouldn't believe these miracles. But lets say just one, only one person, did convert because of those miracles, wouldn't that be worth it? Or does God not care for even one?

 

So again, the Bible Gospel stories are examples of trickery, why do you believe in them? How do you know they happened? And how can you be so damn sure God made those miracles? It's hearsay, rumours and urban legends and you're soo gullible!

 

 

---edit---

 

Besides, it was a decision I made, that if I did see my son healed, I would convert back because it would be an evidence that God actually did care just alittle bit for my family. But so far, I don't even see miracles in the small stuff. ... well maybe when we play Halo 2, if I shout Jesus Christ I usually play a bit better and get a few more headshots... does that count?

[Mad_Gerbil]

Lets say you're right. Some wouldn't believe these miracles. But lets say just one, only one person, did convert because of those miracles, wouldn't that be worth it? Or does God not care for even one?

 

I'm less interested in those kinds of hypotheticals and more interested in what the people here believe their responses would be given the scenario described above. I think based on the responses there seems to be at least an equal chance that a skeptic, upon seeing a miracle, would continue in skepticism. Others would set very specific criteria they'd have to see met in order to believe, but again, that doesn't mean the miracle worker is actually anything more than someone with 'powers'.

 

In short, I'm pretty much convinced that the power to disbelieve can trump just about any proof.

I am NOT saying how you would respond, I leave that to you.

Thank you for your contributions.

[Ouroboros]

There are no skeptics to that extent as you describe. You mix up a person with complete denial of reality with a person who's just skeptic.

 

How come can skeptics believe there is coffee in their coffee cup? It could be, for the superskeptic, a possibility there is toxins in there instead. No one works that way Gerbil.

 

There are miracles that could convince anyone, but God doesn't do them. One simple miracle would be just to take someone to Heaven and talk face to face... it sure did convert Mohammed! Or God could come in a flash of light, that helped Saul. So with the wisdom and skills God has, don't you think he could do this for everyone? Why did he pick Saul to convert him using cheesy trickery and build his church on, while 2000 years later he won't even write with fire on walls anymore? God is no more... God never was... the stories of God's miracles are fiction, but you haven't grown out of them yet.

 

And I still don't have an answer to why you don't apply these ideas you have to your own religion?

[Mad_Gerbil]

There are no skeptics to that extent as you describe. You mix up a person with complete denial of reality with a person who's just skeptic.

 

No, I do not.

You see, in previous posts I point out the difference between acknowledging something happened and recognition that the miracle worker is God (or worthy of adoration). Even the Biblical narrative has the Pharisees not denying the miracles of Christ; instead they attribute the miracles to Satan and declare Christ a deceiver. They don't deny that something happened, they deny the accompanying claim. While that story may only be a story it rings true in that it recognizes the difference between an event and the attribution of that event.

 

There are miracles that could convince anyone, but God doesn't do them.

 

That might be true, although I'm not sure.

Again, the gap isn't the pulling off of a trick because there are magicians and scientists that could come into a room and do something I couldn't explain. I'd acknowledge that something happened but that isn't the same as believing the fellow when he tells me he is a god.

 

If a god healed your son how would you know that it was the true god and not some deceiver trying to win you over so that he could take your soul to an eternal hell? Maybe you and I are in a forgotten corner of the universe populated only by devils that want to deceive us?

 

It seems to me that there are plenty of outs left for a skeptic even in the presence of a flat out resurrection.

You seem to maintain that is not the case and you've provided us with a very specific example.

I respectfully acknowledge your dissent.

[Mad_Gerbil]

And I still don't have an answer to why you don't apply these ideas you have to your own religion?

 

I've never had a miracle in my life in any commonly understood definition of the word.

Anything I'd point to as a miracle is so highly subjective as to be of little value for discussion.

 

I'm not one to worked up about the miracle question because I've thought for sometime that it really doesn't have the sort of impact that people claim. As I think this thread demonstrates, there is lots of wiggle room even in the presence of a resurrection. I'd maintain that the miracle question is really of secondary importance.

[Ouroboros]

Okay, so my understanding now MG is that you don't believe in miracles, am I correct?

 

And you're right, if a "miracle" happened, it could be a super powerful alien race that did it and not God, and that applies to the Gospels too. So yes, miracles can be explained away to 100% all the time. That's usually my argument to "miracle believers" that come here.

 

But think of this problem: do you know who God is? If God came and talked to you, would you know it was God? Or if someone who claimed to be God came to you and talked to you the same way, would you know it was or wasn't God? If someone who called himself Jesus, Son of God came, would you believe he was? Will you be able to tell the difference the day when supposedly Jesus comes back? If that's the case, how? By his hairdo or blue eyes, or maybe the sheep in his arms are the giveaway?

 

So do you right now believe in the "right" God, or in the "false" hoaxter God, or do you believe in the super alien race? After all, you admit that it is the possible explanation for the Gospel miracles - so how do you discern the difference?

[Grandpa Harley]

"What I hear you saying is that a resurrection from the dead performed in front of you wouldn't suffice."

 

I love it when people tell you what you mean and then procede to dismantle the point they've clearly rehearsed...

[Mad_Gerbil]

Okay, so my understanding now MG is that you don't believe in miracles, am I correct?

 

And you're right, if a "miracle" happened, it could be a super powerful alien race that did it and not God, and that applies to the Gospels too. So yes, miracles can be explained away to 100% all the time. That's usually my argument to "miracle believers" that come here.

 

But think of this problem: do you know who God is? If God came and talked to you, would you know it was God? Or if someone who claimed to be God came to you and talked to you the same way, would you know it was or wasn't God? If someone who called himself Jesus, Son of God came, would you believe he was? Will you be able to tell the difference the day when supposedly Jesus comes back? If that's the case, how? By his hairdo or blue eyes, or maybe the sheep in his arms are the giveaway?

 

So do you right now believe in the "right" God, or in the "false" hoaxter God, or do you believe in the super alien race? After all, you admit that it is the possible explanation for the Gospel miracles - so how do you discern the difference?

 

I love these discussions.

You spawned some off topic thoughts that I won't follow up on at this time; instead I'll get to the meat of your post.

 

The topic of this thread was about the negative responses to a miracle. That is, there is plenty of room to either disregard the miracle as a trick OR misattribute it. It doesn't follow that a miracle establishes the authority of a person in such a way that denial is impossible.

 

I think that has been shown to be the case logically.

I think that is also the case as related by the Biblical narrative, that is to say, even if the Biblical narrative is just a fictious story it manages to accurately describe typical human behavior.

 

However, it is possible to have a positive response to a miracle.

The person decides to believe that the miracle happened and they also decide to believe the claim to divinity.

 

The salient point is this: The miracle doesn't seem to be the deciding factor when it comes to belief.

[Mad_Gerbil]

"What I hear you saying is that a resurrection from the dead performed in front of you wouldn't suffice."

 

I love it when people tell you what you mean and then procede to dismantle the point they've clearly rehearsed...

 

One thing you're going to have to get used to is that I'm not here to sell you anything.

I don't expect you to believe that; however, I do offer it as a way to help you understand my posts better.

 

For example, if you understood that you would have realized I'm not asking you to believe that a Jew was raised from the dead 2,000 years ago. It is a preposterous claim and I respect you enough to not ask you to accept it.

[Ouroboros]

The salient point is this: The miracle doesn't seem to be the deciding factor when it comes to belief.

Okay. I'll buy that. And after all it wasn't the reason to why I lost my faith either. A miracle for my son wasn't the key issue.

 

But if you do believe or are on the verge of believing in a God or you're slowly losing your belief, and you ask your particular God to talk to you or strenghten your faith, and if that happened, would that "miracle" be sufficient to give someone the faith they need?

 

If they do ask but don't get it, would it be the same as saying that God wants you to believe regardless of that? Or would it more likely be that this particular God doesn't care if you have faith or not, or he doesn't answer because he doesn't exist?

[Grandpa Harley]

"What I hear you saying is that a resurrection from the dead performed in front of you wouldn't suffice."

 

I love it when people tell you what you mean and then procede to dismantle the point they've clearly rehearsed...

 

One thing you're going to have to get used to is that I'm not here to sell you anything.

I don't expect you to believe that; however, I do offer it as a way to help you understand my posts better.

 

For example, if you understood that you would have realized I'm not asking you to believe that a Jew was raised from the dead 2,000 years ago. It is a preposterous claim and I respect you enough to not ask you to accept it.

 

Then why are you here? IT can't be for the warm and friendly welcome, since generally, your input appears to be as welcome as genital warts...

[Dhampir]

I don't want to mis-represent your position.

What I hear you saying is that a resurrection from the dead performed in front of you wouldn't suffice.

That a miracle wouldn't produce belief in you.

I'm saying your hypothetical fails before it's subjected to any real scrutiny.

[Mythra]

You've just witnessed a miracle first hand. Your response would be?

 

OMG - how simple. My response would be to know that there was a trick. Because it's impossible to raise the dead.

 

I'd consult Penn Gillette to see how it was done.

[ShackledNoMore]

It was an interesting hypothetical you chose.

 

Just from what was presented in the OP, I'd immediately expect a hoax.

 

But the interesting part, is that not Zeus' son, but his grandson, Asclepius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asclepius), could raise people from the dead. Zeus wasn't so keen on this, and he killed Asclepius for it, so if Apollo suddenly appeared in 2007 to recreate his son's tricks, I think you could expect more subsequent fireworks from his father Zeus than from Jesus' father Yahweh.

 

Now as for myths of gods raising the dead two or three thousand years ago, Asclepius vs. Jesus, I assign them equal credibility and an equal probability: infinitesimal.

[Bluescreen]

MadGerbil - It seems that your point is actually two different things that need to be broken out -- belief vs. worship. A miracle that meets a person's standards to induce belief in a supernatural being isn't necessarily sufficient to motivate that person to decide to worship that deity.

 

For the sake of discussion, even if it's true that no miracle could be truly impossible to deny -- i.e. 100% certain to produce belief in 100% of the population -- it's unimportant, unless the deity involved is willing only to perform a single miracle and only then if that miracle will convert every single person. If we're talking about Yahweh/Jesus, we can see from the New Testament that said deity isn't using that extreme of a criteria in deciding to perform a miracle. If we're talking about some other powerful supernatural being (doesn't have to be omnimax - the word "god" hasn't been limited to omnimax deities historically), it still doesn't matter. If they won't do a miracle if it can't be made to be impossible to deny, then we'll never get tangible confirmation of that deity's existence and the whole issue's moot. And if the deity is willing to do some miracles that someone out there could conceivably deny, then your argument still doesn't matter. What matters is the threshold of acceptance of the specific people witnessing the miracle -- the good old-fashioned principle of tailoring your writing to your audience.

 

Speaking for myself, I can think of a resurrection that would convince me of the existence of a being that I would be willing to view as a god. (Your hypo doesn't work for me because it's the exact kind of situation where fraud is likely.) If your "Son of Zeus" walked up to me, said "I will resurrect your grandmother who died over 10 years ago" and then she suddenly appeared before me, I'd be pretty much set. If I could hold my grandmother in my arms, feel her heart beat, talk to her about details of my childhood that only the two of us would know while having dinner with the rest of my living family, I would be certain that I was witnessing a miracle. People who have been dead for over a decade and who were cremated do not come back to life without some kind of supernatural intervention as far as I know.

 

Your various possible ways to escape belief don't matter to me. Some "false god"? That very phrase is meaningless to me, since I don't a priori require a supernatural being to be omnimax before I am willing to call it a god. For example, if Zeus were real, I'd sure think of him as a god despite his lack of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. Hyperintelligent aliens? I'm willing to take a chance and consider the being who just raised my grandmother from the ashes to be a god until it does something to indicate that it isn't a god after all. Insanity? Again, I'm willing to take a chance and believe instead of assuming that myself and my family (who's sitting at the dinner table with my grandma in this hypo) are batshit crazy, until something happens to indicate that we've suddenly gone mad.

 

So, as you can see, for me a miracle *would* be central to me in causing me to accept a being's claim of divinity. Would that mean that I automatically *worshipped* said deity? Not necessarily. While I would be willing to acknowledge the existence of an immoral or amoral deity and would have a healthy respect for such a powerful entity (in the same way that I respect that 400 lb. lion who could eat me), I wouldn't be inclined to worship it, at least not in the Judaeo-Christian sense that also implies that I would love and trust that deity. I'd probably be willing to worship it in a more, say, Hellenistic sense -- I'd have no problem with doing rituals/making offerings/etc. to placate the deity and keep it from smiting me. I would only be interested in worshipping (in the J-C sense of the term) a good deity, i.e. loving, trusting, honoring, and obeying it. It would take more than a miracle to convince me that the god was a good god, I'd have to talk to it, observe it, etc. But I'd sure be willing to do the research.