If seeing is believing

[LoneMateria]

although i myself have never seen amputated limbs being healed, friends of mine have claimed they saw it, one in particular was on a crusade in russia and he tells me God was healing amputated limbs there. I trust his words because he has no reason to lie to me, but you dont know me personally so it may be hard for you to take my word for it.

I'm sorry if that were true then scientists would be flocking to Russia to figure out why it happened.  I wouldn't go so far to say your friend is lying to you, he could honestly be mistaken or have fallen for someones trick.  However I wouldn't accept this claim at face value just because you don't think he'd lie to you.

[Evolved]

Hi dionysiou,

I'll get my welcome to you and my reply in all at once.  Welcome!  

The evidence in your hypothetical scenario is no evidence at all.  Seeing is not evidence.  Many things that can be seen are deceiving.  Here are two simple examples:




They look like moving, animated .gifs, right?  This is just one situation where our eyes are seeing things one way, and are brains are telling us something else.  Our brains do an amazing job, most of the time, of giving us an accurate picture of what's in front of us (or what we hear, or feel, etc.).  But sometimes, when we are confronted with stuff that our brains can't properly interpret, it fills in the blanks.  

This is why we can see faces in the clouds.  Our brains take a bit that looks like eyes, and a bit that looks like a nose, and fills in the rest.  This is also why people see 'visions' of biblical figures on water-stained windows, on a burnt piece of toast, and in smoke rising from the World Trade Center disaster.

Similar phenomena also occur when we try to process auditory and tactile input.

Let's look at the possibilities for your friend's story:

1.  They misinterpreted what they saw (as above).
2.  They are lying.
3.  They are crazy.
4.  They witnessed a miracle.

Now, you're talking to a bunch of intelligent, skeptical people.  Which do you think would be their first choice of answers?  Which would be the last?

[Heathen's Guide]

I met Mother Teresa, a "living saint."  The woman was a bitch to me. (This was before I was anti-religion).  Her big miracle to qualify for sainthood was "the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor."

However...

"Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told the New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He insisted, "It was not a miracle…. She took medicines for nine months to one year." So, Mother Teresa wasn't even THERE when she "performed" her big miracle, and the attending physician said it was crap.

Truth is, this is what you "see" of miracles in the real world. Fanciful stories that require "faith" to believe.

[dionysiou]

alright so some people believe and some people dont. The continous message im hearing though is even if they do happen, they are rare and there are many frauds and fakes. But if you DID see a miracle which you knew yourself was true then you would rethink things. I think you guys make sense, your all skeptical but you dont want to completely rule it out. this is interesting stuff guys.

[Evolved]

The continous message im hearing though is even if they do happen, they are rare and there are many frauds and fakes.

I really do appreciate your interest.  The flaw in your thinking (at least I think) is that there have been no miracles that have ever been scientifically tested and verified.  None.  Nada.  Zero.  I suppose this is where 'faith' comes in, but faith to me is nothing more than lazy thinking.  It's healthy to be a skeptic.

[LoneMateria]

alright so some people believe and some people dont. The continous message im hearing though is even if they do happen, they are rare and there are many frauds and fakes. But if you DID see a miracle which you knew yourself was true then you would rethink things. I think you guys make sense, your all skeptical but you dont want to completely rule it out. this is interesting stuff guys.

If I saw a miracle how would I know the Christian god was responsible?

[plinkoblinko]

I think that if I witnessed/experienced something that I and others can't explain (logically or scientifically) then yes I would think that God was up to something. The definition of "miracle" is about a physical world event that surpasses human comprehension. What are we supposed to do?

I really do appreciate your interest. The flaw in your thinking (at least I think) is that there have been no miracles that have ever been scientifically tested and verified. None. Nada. Zero. I suppose this is where 'faith' comes in, but faith to me is nothing more than lazy thinking. It's healthy to be a skeptic.

Most miracles basically belong to the eye of the beholder. I can search online and literally read tons of "miracles", of course I'm going to be skeptical.
But that is just how humans operate. We constantly are searching for answers, proof of what the physical world throws at us. So when we come across something we can't explain (maybe even never will even understand) then what?

Basically yes, "faith" does come into picture here.
But don't you have in fact have "faith" in your disbelief in God? I don't think it is lazy thinking.

[Kylyssa]

But don't you have in fact have "faith" in your disbelief in God?

I have as much faith involved in not thinking God is real as you have in not thinking Zeus or unicorns are real.  It doesn't take faith to think something that has no evidence of existence (aside from personal accounts) probably isn't real.  Plenty of people claim to have seen the Loch Ness monster.  I think that they think they did I but I don't think they actually saw Nessie.  Why is not believing in one myth or legend any different from not believing in another?




[edited for grammar]

[Sophus]

But don't you have in fact have "faith" in your disbelief in God?

Faith is believing in a positive when there are no positives for it. Kylyssa's right, you can't have faith in what you do not believe in.

[Whitney]

The definition of "miracle" is about a physical world event that surpasses human comprehension.

Flight use to be beyond human comprehension; yet we eventually were able to master it and continue to improve on that science today.  

That is just one example of why we should be careful to jump to conclusions when faced with something we do not understand.

All religions have their 'miracles' so either all the religions are right and god has multiple personality disorder   or most religions are out to fool everyone with their miracle claims or they are all incorrect and simply didn't try hard enough to find the explanation for the miracle or are flat out lying because they like attention.

[LoneMateria]

I think that if I witnessed/experienced something that I and others can't explain (logically or scientifically) then yes I would think that God was up to something. The definition of "miracle" is about a physical world event that surpasses human comprehension. What are we supposed to do?

Say we don't know instead of making up an answer...

So when we come across something we can't explain (maybe even never will even understand) then what?

Say that we currently can't explain it instead of making up an answer....

[Evolved]

But don't you have in fact have "faith" in your disbelief in God?

No.  My lack of belief in God is simply a lack of belief.  It is not a belief itself (see the responses from Kylyssa and Sophus - they put it quite well).  To put it another way, what are your feelings about a purple gremlin hiding under your bed that can only be seen when you're not looking at him?  Do you believe that he's not there?  Or do you know that he's not there?  Would you feel ridiculous if you said, 'well, I believe that he's not there, but I can't prove it'?

Most miracles basically belong to the eye of the beholder. I can search online and literally read tons of "miracles", of course I'm going to be skeptical.
But that is just how humans operate. We constantly are searching for answers, proof of what the physical world throws at us. So when we come across something we can't explain (maybe even never will even understand) then what?

So then whenever you come across something you can't explain, it must be God?  Why?  My response would be to investigate, if whatever it was that I experienced was important enough to me for me to investigate.  With scientific reasoning.  Not mystical explanations.

I don't think it is lazy thinking.

To the ancient Egyptians, who controlled the sky?  Ra.  To the Mayans, who controlled lightening, thunder, and rain?  Chac.  To the Cherokee, who created dry land?  Dayunsi.

Now we think that these guys were silly - rather now we know that they were trying their best to understand the natural world.  Now we also know that the movement of the planets and the stars is governed by the Law of General Relativity.  We know how lightening is generated, and why it rains.  We know that dry land formed when the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago from the solar nebula.

I don't think that the ancient Egyptians, the Mayans, and the Cherokee were particularly lazy.  However, do you think that it might be possible that their beliefs might be different if they knew what we know?  I would venture to say yes.

So now we have an abundance of scientific evidence for the evolution of the solar system, the evolution of man, and many physical laws.  Granted, they take some discipline to learn, but we do have them.  Why would you think that God is responsible for any of these things if we have other ways to explain them, especially if what you believe in has no evidence?  I call that lazy.  Lazy because attributing the unknown to a god requires no discipline.  Just faith.

[plinkoblinko]

Ha, this is interesting I like this.

Here lies the problem.
We all know that In order to have a belief in something we have to acknowledge its existence.
There is no proof that God exists/doesn't exist.

So basically we cannot "believe in God" because we cannot prove he exists/doesn't exist.
Faith is a belief is something that is not based on proof though... so...

Faith is believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

I have faith in the belief that God exists.
And you have faith in the belief that God doesn't exist.
Is this logic right? I'm a slow thinker...

Flight use to be beyond human comprehension; yet we eventually were able to master it and continue to improve on that science today.

Flight was never beyond human comprehension because we saw it in flying creatures.
I'm talking about miracles. Divine intervention! (i.e. Samuel L. Jackson Pulp Fiction scene) I'm going off of the main topic here so what if... Something that happens, like a bus going going 60miles/hour, the brakes are cut and it can't stop, suddenly just stops as it's about to hit a pedestrian. What would you think?

Say we don't know instead of making up an answer...

So you are just content with just saying...Well that bus should've killed them and it just stopped out of the blue. Oh well, who gives a ****?
It's more of a question about logic. If it can't be rationally explained then we just don't know, we shouldn't pin this on God.

BTW * bus thing is an example

So then whenever you come across something you can't explain, it must be God? Why? My response would be to investigate, if whatever it was that I experienced was important enough to me for me to investigate. With scientific reasoning. Not mystical explanations.

Because there are things that we can't explain! I like to think of it like coincidence or fate.
Do atheists think that the only reason we are on this earth is to just live....that's it?
Explain to me then why just randomly (I know everyone as thought this) you think to yourself...What the heck am I, Who am I??
Why on earth are we the only ones with rational thought? I know, I know yeaarrss of evolution at work. Evolution is great, I believe it. But the fact that we can think rationally just blows my mind.
It simply doesn't make sense to me, someone explain this...

EDIT * I'm sorry though, I digress. I should probably just start another topic about this stuff...

I still don't know about the faith = lazy thinking though..I'm getting what you are saying, it just isn't sinking in right now for me.

[Heretical Rants]

Faith is believing in a positive when there are no positives for it.

I have faith in the belief that God exists.
And you have faith in the belief that God doesn't exist.
Is this logic right? I'm a slow thinker...

While it takes faith to believe a positive when there is no positive evidence for it, there is no faith involved in believing the negative when there is no positive evidence for it.

You cannot prove a negative, and you cannot know a negative, but the default position is still... a negative.

Let's take a step back.  Exactly how much faith do you have in your belief that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist?  If someone came in with its carcass tomorrow would your faith be shaken, or would you just be like, "HOLY CRAP!!!  THAT THING WAS REAL????  THAT . IS.  AWESOME," like I would?

I mean, there's no evidence that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, right?

the fact that we can think rationally just blows my mind.

I don't think humans are all that smart.  I mean, just yesterday I saw someone lick their way across the road for some lunch money... never mind that they were unable to eat the lunch by the time they had abraded their tongue that much.  And yet, they are still able to pass on their genes, so natural selection does not work on them.  This time

[Squid]

so from what im reading it would have to be something that YOU know was supernatural and that YOU couldnt deny. Even then it wouldnt be enough for some of you, maybe youd need another miracle on top of it. a lot of skeptics

If a pink puppy walked up to me and then said "Jesus died for your sins" then winked at me on a daily basis, I would start believing.

Would this "vision" be preceded by taking a sugar cube