I Had A Thought About Miracles And I Want Some Comments

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I have been thinking about the supernatural and miracles lately since OC's post on the nature of evidence

 

And I had a thought

 

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

 

Thoughts??

 

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

[Snakefoot]

I assume you mean rising from the dead.

 

A truly dead person--decomposition in progress dead, not just clinically dead--rising from the dead would indeed be a miracle. It has never happened.

 

Any report of "rising from the dead" uncorroborated by credible scientific evidence is less likely to be true than alien abduction, in my opinion, simply because I know dead, but existence of aliens and that they might abduct humans for whatever reason is--if your really stretch it--more plausible in my realm of knowledge and experience.

[OrdinaryClay]

I have been thinking about the supernatural and miracles lately since OC's post on the nature of evidence

 

And I had a thought

 

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

 

Thoughts??

 

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

You will get many answers from materialists who will assume a prior no supernatural and therefore any explanation no matter how absurd is more plausible then a resurrection. The irony is many will do this rather then say, "Well, I just don't know". They are so vested in the non-existence of the supernatural they can not possibly allow for its existence. It would shatter their world view. So they buy into mass hysteria theories and such.

 

So to your question, I referred to a book refuting Hume's position. In a nutshell the idea is that there is probabilistic evidence that one can bring to bear as well as testimonial evidence. The resurrection does not rely just on pure testimony. Suppose you looked a the universe and concluded there must of been a creator, you're a deist. Or suppose who had experiences that led you to believe that the supernatural in some from exists. This is actually a form of evidence for the resurrection. How?

 

In probability theory there is something called a conditional probability. It means that the likelihood of something happening often depends on surrounding factors not just the event itself. For example, quoting some general probability for being struck by lightning is not very useful if you don't consider the circumstances. A person in Anchorage Alaska has a lot less of a chance then a golfer in Florida. That is because the true probability of being struck is what is called a conditional probability.

 

Likewise, any evidence that the supernatural exists increases the likelihood of the resurrection because it no longer is a question "can a body rise form the dead due to the natural physical laws of nature". Of course it can't. A decomposing body will not spontaneously reconstitute itself, but that is not the claim being made in Christ's resurrection. The claim is that it was a supernatural event. So if you already believe in the supernatural, such as through deism, then the likelihood of the resurrection becomes a conditional probability and increases significantly proportional to the likelihood of a supernatural existing.

[Snakefoot]

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

We can't say for sure what happened to the dinosaurs--is a miracle or alien abduction a good explanation?

[mwc]

You will get many answers from materialists who will assume a prior no supernatural and therefore any explanation no matter how absurd is more plausible then a resurrection. The irony is many will do this rather then say, "Well, I just don't know". They are so vested in the non-existence of the supernatural they can not possibly allow for its existence. It would shatter their world view. So they buy into mass hysteria theories and such.

You nailed me. How could I have spent those 30+ years BELIEVING IN THE SUPERNATURAL only to not sit here today and allow for it to still exist? What a closed minded fool I am. I didn't even give the supernatural a chance. I didn't go to my grave allowing for the possibility. Thirty years, give or take, was simply not enough time on my part to evaluate this whole supernatural thing. Maybe 40 years would have been the proper amount? Or 80? If only I would live to 100 then that could be the right number of years for an evaluation? Or if I could have died while believing in this supernatural thing then any number would have been acceptable. But to look at it and find it not plausible? That's the act of one that is closed-minded and unwilling to even consider the possibility.

 

mwc

[agnosticator]

You took the reply right out of my mouth, mwc!

[Ouroboros]

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

Yes, that's how rational people see it.

 

Irrational people, like those who believe based on assumptions and emotional reasons, can only come to the conclusions they want to be, instead of the ones that could be.

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

Just as plausible as God-raising-Jesus miracle.

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

The problem is that we can't say what really happened on that Easter Sunday, since one Gospel doesn't say much at all, and the other three have conflicting stories. Can we be sure they even went to the right tomb considering that we don't know exactly who went to it first?

 

But even so, even if we had a full account, based on our experience of exaggerated stories in general, or how urban legends spreads so quickly (and people fall for them even today), it's more likely that the explanation is natural rather than magical.

 

Christians easily dismiss any miracle in any other religion, but easily accept any miracle in their own.

 

Basically, if Mohammad was brought to God and talked to Abraham, it can't be true, but that Abraham talked to God, that is supposed to be true. They select what they believe.

[ghost_warlock]

I have been thinking about the supernatural and miracles lately since OC's post on the nature of evidence

 

And I had a thought

 

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

 

Thoughts??

Technically, alien abduction wouldn't really be an example of an absurd natural explanation; simply an extremely unlikely one.

 

Though, I'll assume you mean 'absurd' as a colloquialsim to mean 'extremely unlikely' (though it sort of bugs me when language gets muddied like this ).

 

In this case, yes, even alien abduction would be more credible than a violation of natural laws; assuming that there exists a plausible means for the aliens to travel the vast interstallar distances without violating natural laws.

 

As it currently stands, neither explanation is especially likely.

 

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

 

If we can't say for sure then the best explanation is to say that we aren't sure and try to gather more data. If we can't gather more data then the only honest explanation is that there isn't enough evidence to support the claims.

[Snakefoot]

I have been thinking about the supernatural and miracles lately since OC's post on the nature of evidence

 

And I had a thought

 

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

 

Thoughts??

Technically, alien abduction wouldn't really be an example of an absurd natural explanation; simply an extremely unlikely one.

 

Though, I'll assume you mean 'absurd' as a colloquialsim to mean 'extremely unlikely' (though it sort of bugs me when language gets muddied like this ).

 

In this case, yes, even alien abduction would be more credible than a violation of natural laws; assuming that there exists a plausible means for the aliens to travel the vast interstallar distances without violating natural laws.

 

As it currently stands, neither explanation is especially likely.

 

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

 

If we can't say for sure then the best explanation is to say that we aren't sure and try to gather more data. If we can't gather more data then the only honest explanation is that there isn't enough evidence to support the claims.

i.e.: gawd-of-the-gaps is not a plausible answer to anything.

[Ouroboros]

You will get many answers from materialists who will assume a prior no supernatural and therefore any explanation no matter how absurd is more plausible then a resurrection. The irony is many will do this rather then say, "Well, I just don't know". They are so vested in the non-existence of the supernatural they can not possibly allow for its existence. It would shatter their world view. So they buy into mass hysteria theories and such.

Because of experience.

 

I became Christian at the age of 7. I started to speak in tongues at 12. I prayed daily, and read through the Bible multiple times, and in different languages. I went to Bible school. I was a teacher at a Christian school. I knocked on doors to evangelized for at least a year. I went on mission trips. I helped and was an active usher. I was active in a prayer group who prayed for the meeting (for miracles) while the meeting was on (and the meetings at this church were long). We had Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, and many other of the "miracle" preacher coming to our church.

 

But during the 30 years of active Christian, this is how many magical/miracle things I saw: 0.

 

Zip. Zilth. Nil. Nada. None. Null.

 

It came a time when my son was in a dire need of a miracle. We estimated that about 20,000 people (Christians) around the world prayed for us.

 

How much of miracle did we see in his recover? 0.

 

How much of natural recovery based on medicine and support of family? All.

 

I needed God's help to overcome the despair and depression from what happened to my son (and family), and asked God for help. How much did it help? None.

 

One day I realized I didn't believe in God anymore. How much did it help, and how much of the emotional load did that event take of my chest? All of it. It was a relief. My life turned around drastically.

 

My experience is screaming in my face that miracles do not happen. We are making the miracles. We as human make it happen. I make my life, and you make yours. There is no external power or entity affecting your life. It's a delusion.

 

My experience is that my de-conversion improved my life, and the life of my family, a million percent.

 

Psychologists who analyzed our case even said that we are one of the best examples they've seen of a family dealing with such a trauma. Yes, we dealt with it. We, as in the human entities that make up my family. Prayer didn't fix it. Church didn't work either. Bible didn't give any comfort. But approaching it as humans without God did.

 

The miracle we experienced was: it helped to leave God.

 

So to your question, I referred to a book refuting Hume's position. In a nutshell the idea is that there is probabilistic evidence that one can bring to bear as well as testimonial evidence. The resurrection does not rely just on pure testimony. Suppose you looked a the universe and concluded there must of been a creator, you're a deist. Or suppose who had experiences that led you to believe that the supernatural in some from exists. This is actually a form of evidence for the resurrection. How?

Probable, possible, potential, maybe, perhaps...

 

It's possible that aliens exist and are visiting us right now. It's also possible that they talked to Rael, and that he's on the right track making an alien embassy. It is possible that the aliens are coming back to create world peace.

 

Therefore, you should become a Raelian.

 

In probability theory there is something called a conditional probability. It means that the likelihood of something happening often depends on surrounding factors not just the event itself. For example, quoting some general probability for being struck by lightning is not very useful if you don't consider the circumstances. A person in Anchorage Alaska has a lot less of a chance then a golfer in Florida. That is because the true probability of being struck is what is called a conditional probability.

 

Likewise, any evidence that the supernatural exists increases the likelihood of the resurrection because it no longer is a question "can a body rise form the dead due to the natural physical laws of nature". Of course it can't. A decomposing body will not spontaneously reconstitute itself, but that is not the claim being made in Christ's resurrection. The claim is that it was a supernatural event. So if you already believe in the supernatural, such as through deism, then the likelihood of the resurrection becomes a conditional probability and increases significantly proportional to the likelihood of a supernatural existing.

Increases, likelihood, perhaps, maybe...

 

A the conditional probability for it to be a made up story is there too. Don't forget that the likelihood that the story is untrue and made-up is also quite great. I would consider that probability a lot stronger than the other way around.

 

So by weighing the two probabilities against each other, a natural explanation to the story is greater. For instance, they went to the wrong tomb. Or, the story got embellished, like the disciples was talking about Jesus as resurrected metaphorically or spiritually at first, but the story got embellished to become a bodily resurrection over time. Or ... and many other potential and conditional probabilities...

 

Don't throw out the other probabilities because you favor just one with magical thinking.

 

And I'm with MWC on this, you're the close-minded one since you refuse to allow natural explanation to be part of the formula. You're the one who does not give natural explanations a chance. I gave God a chance. 30 years in my case too. And by giving nature a chance, I've learned things about life I never could have understood before.

[oddbird1963]

I have been thinking about the supernatural and miracles lately since OC's post on the nature of evidence

 

And I had a thought

 

Would any natural explanation no matter how absurd be more likely then a guy rising(the resurrection of jesus)??

 

I am talking about alien abduction absurd.

 

Thoughts??

 

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explanation

 

For the resurrection of Jesus, you don't need "alien abduction absurd" alternative possibilities. He was moved to a different tomb the next morning, he was thrown in a common grave by apathetic Roman soldiers or gentile workers, he was put in the wrong tomb, the disciples stole the body to create a resurrection story, the jews stole the body to keep it in a safe place, he was put in the wrong tomb, unebeknownst to the disciples. These are all plausible explanations.

 

We cannot say for sure what happened. That's the point. The supposed history behind it is religious mythology. NOT reliable in the least.

 

People like OC want to take us down the road to gullibility. Because he believes the supernatural exists in some other area, then everything can possibly have a supernatural explanation. It is an epistemologically irresponsible position. Real inquiry and meaningful research will be derailed for the thrill of thinking that a demon or a Holy Ghost lies behind every not so easy to explain phenomenon. In fact, why do all that investigation and research when all you have to do is posit, "it's supernatural!" and be warmed and thrilled by the thought of a powerful god working in your world! Proof! Who needs proof?? What some primitive, pre-industrial anonymous author says about it 40 years after the fact is good enough!

 

My question for you, Valkyrie0010, is what do you find to be at fault with the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"

[Shyone]

Another thing

 

What if we can't say for sure what happened on that easter sunday. Would a miracle then be a good explaination

 

If we can't say for sure then the best explanation is to say that we aren't sure and try to gather more data. If we can't gather more data then the only honest explanation is that there isn't enough evidence to support the claims.

It is still possible to rule out the impossible.

 

When a light bulb explodes, is it more likely a physical natural phenomenon, or a miracle? I always go with the explanation that doesn't involve credulousness.

 

Examining the claims of religion that violate natural laws is really not so difficult, and while I acknowledge that if there isn't enough evidence to decide exactly what happened when, some explanations can be excluded without a second thought.

[OrdinaryClay]

You will get many answers from materialists who will assume a prior no supernatural and therefore any explanation no matter how absurd is more plausible then a resurrection. The irony is many will do this rather then say, "Well, I just don't know". They are so vested in the non-existence of the supernatural they can not possibly allow for its existence. It would shatter their world view. So they buy into mass hysteria theories and such.

You nailed me. How could I have spent those 30+ years BELIEVING IN THE SUPERNATURAL only to not sit here today and allow for it to still exist? What a closed minded fool I am. I didn't even give the supernatural a chance. I didn't go to my grave allowing for the possibility. Thirty years, give or take, was simply not enough time on my part to evaluate this whole supernatural thing. Maybe 40 years would have been the proper amount? Or 80? If only I would live to 100 then that could be the right number of years for an evaluation? Or if I could have died while believing in this supernatural thing then any number would have been acceptable.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that individuals do not believe they have good reasons to not believe.

 

You raise a good point? Why 30? Why not 5? Did you wake up one morning and say Okay, it's been 30 years. I'm outta here.

 

But to look at it and find it not plausible? That's the act of one that is closed-minded and unwilling to even consider the possibility.

 

mwc

Allowing for more possibilities(natural, supernatural) is less closed minded then one who believes in fewer possibilities(natural).

[OrdinaryClay]

You will get many answers from materialists who will assume a prior no supernatural and therefore any explanation no matter how absurd is more plausible then a resurrection. The irony is many will do this rather then say, "Well, I just don't know". They are so vested in the non-existence of the supernatural they can not possibly allow for its existence. It would shatter their world view. So they buy into mass hysteria theories and such.

Because of experience.

There are many who have had different experiences. Sure, maybe they are all liars. Possible, perhaps, maybe, I suppose.

 

I became Christian at the age of 7. I started to speak in tongues at 12. I prayed daily, and read through the Bible multiple times, and in different languages. I went to Bible school. I was a teacher at a Christian school. I knocked on doors to evangelized for at least a year. I went on mission trips. I helped and was an active usher. I was active in a prayer group who prayed for the meeting (for miracles) while the meeting was on (and the meetings at this church were long). We had Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Oral Roberts, and many other of the "miracle" preacher coming to our church.

 

But during the 30 years of active Christian, this is how many magical/miracle things I saw: 0.

 

Zip. Zilth. Nil. Nada. None. Null.

 

It came a time when my son was in a dire need of a miracle. We estimated that about 20,000 people (Christians) around the world prayed for us.

 

How much of miracle did we see in his recover? 0.

 

How much of natural recovery based on medicine and support of family? All.

 

I needed God's help to overcome the despair and depression from what happened to my son (and family), and asked God for help. How much did it help? None.

I'm very sorry to hear of your pain and trials. You are not alone.

 

 

And I'm with MWC on this, you're the close-minded one since you refuse to allow natural explanation to be part of the formula. You're the one who does not give natural explanations a chance. I gave God a chance. 30 years in my case too. And by giving nature a chance, I've learned things about life I never could have understood before.

No, this is incorrect. I have listened and evaluated the natural explanations. I'm always willing to listen to all the explanations. I don't rule out either the natural or the supernatural.

[OrdinaryClay]

People like OC want to take us down the road to gullibility. Because he believes the supernatural exists in some other area, then everything can possibly have a supernatural explanation. It is an epistemologically irresponsible position. Real inquiry and meaningful research will be derailed for the thrill of thinking that a demon or a Holy Ghost lies behind every not so easy to explain phenomenon. In fact, why do all that investigation and research when all you have to do is posit, "it's supernatural!" and be warmed and thrilled by the thought of a powerful god working in your world! Proof! Who needs proof?? What some primitive, pre-industrial anonymous author says about it 40 years after the fact is good enough!

This is a false dilemma. We are not forced to choose exclusively between all natural vs all supernatural explanations. Scientific investigation can proceed to exhaustion while still allowing for the miraculous.

 

 

My question for you, Valkyrie0010, is what do you find to be at fault with the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"

It's baseless. It's a glib cliche. Nothing more. Elegance in science are simple explanations for extraordinary results.

[Shyone]

This is a false dilemma. We are not forced to choose exclusively between all natural vs all supernatural explanations. Scientific investigation can proceed to exhaustion while still allowing for the miraculous.

Jumping to the end of the series is perhaps not the best way to explain what it's all about, but I thought the video is a good summary of Evid3nc3's series, and it might entice you to explore the rest of the series.

 

[Snakefoot]

Allowing for more possibilities(natural, supernatural) is less closed minded then one who believes in fewer possibilities(natural).

You confuse a "closed mind" to a "rational mind" or even a "protected mind." Rejecting myths such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy hardly evidences a "closed mind." Refusing to entertain rational evidence for why such notions are false does evidence a closed, made-up mind--or chronic cephalopachy.

[Ouroboros]

There are many who have had different experiences. Sure, maybe they are all liars. Possible, perhaps, maybe, I suppose.

Of course. I'm sure they did.

 

But are you calling me a liar and dishonest by following my own experience?

 

Should I believe only because someone else had an experience?

 

Am I out there trying to de-convert people, or are people like you trying to convert me?

 

Who is allowing whom to exist and have their view of life?

 

I'm not active on any other forum. I'm not going to any Christian forum trying to convince them I'm right and they're wrong.

 

But you, like many other Christians, come here, trying to convert me and convince me that my experience is a lie. And that I should convert because YOU had some experiences.

 

How is that justified?

 

In other words, you want me to believe only because you believe. But I can't. I have nothing in my life that resonates with your belief. Nothing works.

 

I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I suspect people experiencing miracles are delusional. There's a whole field of science behind real observations how people can believe things that are not true. So is it conditionally probable that people have delusional belief? Yes.

 

I'm very sorry to hear of your pain and trials. You are not alone.

Thanks.

 

 

No, this is incorrect. I have listened and evaluated the natural explanations. I'm always willing to listen to all the explanations. I don't rule out either the natural or the supernatural.

But you rule in more of the supernatural rather than the natural. If there is a choice between natural and supernatural explanation, you rather pick supernatural. I rather pick natural, because it seems to be a lot more reliable.

 

The supernatural didn't show itself. For 30 years. But the natural was always there, and it's still here. I'm experiencing the natural every moment of my life. The supernatural, I don't.

[Snakefoot]

My question for you, Valkyrie0010, is what do you find to be at fault with the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"

It's baseless. It's a glib cliche. Nothing more. Elegance in science are simple explanations for extraordinary results.

1. You are full of something one usually tries to avoid stepping in.

 

2. You now harp on "miracles." I suppose it is out of the question that you would provide an explicit example of a miracle?

 

Yeah, though so.

[OrdinaryClay]

There are many who have had different experiences. Sure, maybe they are all liars. Possible, perhaps, maybe, I suppose.

Of course. I'm sure they did.

 

But are you calling me a liar and dishonest by following my own experience?

 

Should I believe only because someone else had an experience?

 

Am I out there trying to de-convert people, or are people like you trying to convert me?

 

Who is allowing whom to exist and have their view of life?

 

But you, like many other Christians, come here, trying to convert me and convince me that my experience is a lie. And that I should convert because YOU had some experiences.

 

How is that justified?

 

In other words, you want me to believe only because you believe. But I can't. I have nothing in my life that resonates with your belief. Nothing works.

 

I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I suspect people experiencing miracles are delusional. There's a whole field of science behind real observations how people can believe things that are not true. So is it conditionally probable that people have delusional belief? Yes.

Of course I'm not calling you a liar. You made a major life change. This is clear evidence you believe what you say. My only point is that others believe what they say also. We are both convinced of what we say. One of us is wrong.

 

I can not convert anyone. They are free to make any choice they want. Why do I come to this board, because I'm compelled by my God to speak openly and boldly. I have no choice. If it makes you feel better I've spent much more time on "hardcore" atheist (ironically it was an atheist that said I should come here) boards then any other type. Either way, I speak up because there are always more readers then there are writers on any forum. Anyone can chose to ignore my words.

 

I'm not active on any other forum. I'm not going to any Christian forum trying to convince them I'm right and they're wrong.

Just curious, why do you participate in this forum? You seem very aggressive(I don't mean angry or mean) in your posting

 

But you rule in more of the supernatural rather than the natural. If there is a choice between natural and supernatural explanation, you rather pick supernatural. I rather pick natural, because it seems to be a lot more reliable.

I pick the natural every time if it fits the evidence.

 

The supernatural didn't show itself. For 30 years. But the natural was always there, and it's still here. I'm experiencing the natural every moment of my life. The supernatural, I don't.

Okay. I believe you.

[Ouroboros]

Of course I'm not calling you a liar. You made a major life change. This is clear evidence you believe what you say. My only point is that others believe what they say also. We are both convinced of what we say. One of us is wrong.

Or we both are wrong.

 

Or perhaps we're both right, but it's a matter of how we define and signify certain attributes of reality, and perhaps it's a matter of how we represent reality in allegorical language.

 

Perhaps I believe in some ultimate good, but that good is part of nature and reality, hence Nature as such is my God, but I just do not call it God.

 

I can not convert anyone. They are free to make any choice they want. Why do I come to this board, because I'm compelled by my God to speak openly and boldly. I have no choice. If it makes you feel better I've spent much more time on "hardcore" atheist (ironically it was an atheist that said I should come here) boards then any other type. Either way, I speak up because there are always more readers then there are writers on any forum. Anyone can chose to ignore my words.

Fair enough.

 

However, I don't feel my de-conversion was a result of a choice, but a result of experiences contradicting my belief, and it led to a realization that I held thoughts of cognitive dissonance. To resolve them, I only came to one conclusion.

 

 

Just curious, why do you participate in this forum? You seem very aggressive(I don't mean angry or mean) in your posting

I came here a short while after I lost my faith, and stayed because I liked the interaction with fellow ex-Christians.

 

Over the years I realized that most Christians are arrogant and assume too many things about us unbelievers. My aggressive attitude towards you is a reflection of that experience.

 

 

I pick the natural every time if it fits the evidence.

Okay.

[agnosticator]

I can not convert anyone. They are free to make any choice they want. Why do I come to this board, because I'm compelled by my God to speak openly and boldly. I have no choice. If it makes you feel better I've spent much more time on "hardcore" atheist (ironically it was an atheist that said I should come here) boards then any other type. Either way, I speak up because there are always more readers then there are writers on any forum. Anyone can chose to ignore my words.

 

 

Ha! God is forcing you to come here, and you haven't the will to resist? We could choose to ignore you, yet you cannot help but choose to come here and argue? I don't believe this for one second!

 

What I find to be dishonest and repulsive, is when Christians proselytize (in real life especially) and won't admit it makes them feel special to be a mouthpiece for God. They love the attention and the feeling of importance that comes from believing they are on a "mission" from God, to tell everyone they have the TRUTH. Smugness loves an audience.

[oddbird1963]

People like OC want to take us down the road to gullibility. Because he believes the supernatural exists in some other area, then everything can possibly have a supernatural explanation. It is an epistemologically irresponsible position. Real inquiry and meaningful research will be derailed for the thrill of thinking that a demon or a Holy Ghost lies behind every not so easy to explain phenomenon. In fact, why do all that investigation and research when all you have to do is posit, "it's supernatural!" and be warmed and thrilled by the thought of a powerful god working in your world! Proof! Who needs proof?? What some primitive, pre-industrial anonymous author says about it 40 years after the fact is good enough!

This is a false dilemma. We are not forced to choose exclusively between all natural vs all supernatural explanations. Scientific investigation can proceed to exhaustion while still allowing for the miraculous.

 

So what miracles have been studied and proven by science? What is a case where science has said, "We've exhausted all lines of inquiry! We must now consider . . . THE SUPERNATURAL!!"

 

It is because of the damage done to human progress and human life by belief in the supernatural that the scientific method was developed and honed over the years. The view of the world you have where science will investigate, "allowing for the miraculous" is a wishful fantasy. You cannot hold out for the possibility of miracles and resolutely engage in science. One may engage in science and have faith , unrelated to the physical world, that the miraculous is possible, but if the supernatural somehow becomes a part of your scientific inputs, parameters and considerations, you are no longer conducting science.

 

My question for you, Valkyrie0010, is what do you find to be at fault with the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?"

It's baseless. It's a glib cliche. Nothing more. Elegance in science are simple explanations for extraordinary results.

 

Baseless? A glib cliche? Hardly. The following article seems to take it seriously enough:

 

Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations, in Cosmos, was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."[39] This was based on a nearly identical statement by fellow founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal founder Marcello Truzzi, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."[40] This idea originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[41]

 

There is a rich history behind that phrase which takes a complicated subject and distills it to a simple statement of principle. Didn't you call that elegant?

 

You are equivocating in your use of the word extraordinary in your assertion. What you mean is simple explanations for complicated results. Exceptions to the laws of science such as, oh, dead people coming back to life after three days are not the same kind of extraordinary. And even though an elegant explanation can be established to explain occurrences in the world, we are talking about the nature of the evidence used to prove a theory. Not the elegance of the theory itself.

 

If you are going to posit statements like, "Jesus died, was buried in a tomb and came back to life after three days," or "Jesus walked on water" then you are going to have to provide an incredible amount of proof because what you are claiming is considered impossible. If you cannot provide an overwhelming amount of proof, then there is no reason to believe you are anyone else is telling the truth about an alleged supernatural occurance.

 

Asking your tribal council to judge it's truth based on the alleged testimony of anonymous authors 40 years after the fact does not come anywhere near a reasonable level of proof for such a truly extraordinary claim.

[Snakefoot]

I invented a perpetual motion machine that produced more energy than was put into it. It really worked. I put it into an old car and drove it all around town. Lots of people saw me and can testify it is true. Unfortunately, the government took away the car, the machine, and all my notes and drawings at the behest of the oil lobby. But I really did it! Just ask the witnesses!

[Shyone]

I invented a perpetual motion machine that produced more energy than was put into it. It really worked. I put it into an old car and drove it all around town. Lots of people saw me and can testify it is true. Unfortunately, the government took away the car, the machine, and all my notes and drawings at the behest of the oil lobby. But I really did it! Just ask the witnesses!

All 500 of them?