Proof Doesn't Matter

[BluePriest]

To put it simple, I believe (and could be wrong, so please correct me if I am) that if for example, someones leg that was cut off miraculously grew back i a matter of moments, or that someone came into a party claiming to be Jesus and turned water into wine, that the reaction would not be "Oh wow, God really does exist". Instead, the person that had his leg grow back would be put through a large variety of medical tests, the wine would be tested and the person questioned, and even if no answers were discovered, the reaction would be "Science will discover how this is possible eventually".

[Scaredgirl]

You seem to suggest that if we encounter something that science cannot instantly explain, we should just say: "God did it" until we have solid scientific proof to show otherwise. I think it's silly to use God, magic or aliens as default explanation for all things that seem strange to us. Most phenomenon have a perfectly logical explanation, and the fact that we do not instantly know what that explanation is, doesn't mean we should go for the supernatural explanations.

[Pineapple]

Why are there so many threads hinged on "science" or the concept of "proof" in the religion board?

I think "That's a cool magic trick" is a much better reaction than "Wow, there's this one event that correlates with this one doctrine, I should put all my faith in every single part of this doctrine even though I didn't have faith in it before."

[BluePriest]

You seem to suggest that if we encounter something that science cannot instantly explain, we should just say: "God did it" until we have solid scientific proof to show otherwise.

Thats not what Im saying at all.

"Wow, there's this one event that correlates with this one doctrine, I should put all my faith in every single part of this doctrine even though I didn't have faith in it before."

Once again, not what im saying.

 Im saying no matter how miraculous, and impossible an event may be, it will not matter to many people because they refuse to accept the possibility of a God. Sure magicians are good at appearing to do the impossible, however, if, once again, for example a persons limb grew back to full shape almost immediately after being cut off, or someone rose from the dead after being dead for a week or any other impossible event occured, God would get no credit because people would just say "there has to be a scientific explanation for it". And even after being tested ect, it will just be chalked up to something that can not be explained by science.... yet.

[Pineapple]

So the target in question are the skeptics. Assuming that, in the status quo, they have no faith in God, why should they attribute miracles to God? The occurrence of something that cannot be explained by science does not warrant belief in divine power. Sure, something extraordinarily weird occurring may cause me to question my perspective of reality, but I see no reason to go from there to "Oh wow, God really does exist."

My question to you is this: When we're talking about an "impossible event", why choose a divine cause over a--for example--magical cause?

[darkrobe]

And Jesus said to them -- 'A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his kindred, and in his own house;'

Mark 6:4

Its been a common theme that people wont believe in miraculous things especially if they come from familiar people or occur during familiar events. it is more likely to believe something is miraculous if you are unfamiliar with it.

*note: im not siding with one side or the other on this. just commenting that its a common and very old idea.

[Scaredgirl]

You seem to suggest that if we encounter something that science cannot instantly explain, we should just say: "God did it" until we have solid scientific proof to show otherwise.

Thats not what Im saying at all.

Yes, it is.

You are saying that instead of people accepting a miracle and saying "Oh wow, God really does exist" (direct quote), they rely on science and say "Science will discover how this is possible eventually". The point you are trying to make is that people should not automatically assume that science will ultimately find the answers, and should instead look for supernatural explanations.

The problem is that those examples you gave, they either didn't happen or were just some party tricks. If you can give proof that a persons leg grew back, you would be able to instantly convert millions of atheist. But you cannot give proof of that. Why? Because it didn't happen. There has not been a single miracle ever proven to be true, and most of them have proven to be tricks and lies.

There's a meme that fits pretty well to this topic:



Aliens, God, magic.. I personally put all those things in that same category, because they all have the same basic idea, which is to turn to supernatural when something is beyond your understanding. 2000 years ago lots of things were "acts of God" because science was so underdeveloped. Since then we've learned great many things, and most of the things that were seen as supernatural before, can now be explained with science.

[BluePriest]

If you can give proof that a persons leg grew back, you would be able to instantly convert millions of atheist.

This is what my topic is about. I am saying, if you saw a persons leg grow back right in front of you, would it make you at least give it more thought, and make you reconsider the possibility of a god (not any specific one, just some god or superior being) existing? Or would you just say "Wow, that guy has some crazy mutation that allows him to heal back entire limbs that are lost"?

[russianspy1234]

If you can give proof that a persons leg grew back, you would be able to instantly convert millions of atheist.

This is what my topic is about. I am saying, if you saw a persons leg grow back right in front of you, would it make you at least give it more thought, and make you reconsider the possibility of a god (not any specific one, just some god or superior being) existing? Or would you just say "Wow, that guy has some crazy mutation that allows him to heal back entire limbs that are lost"?

thousands of years ago, people thought fire was a miracle.  hundreds of years ago, people thought lightning was a miracle.  everything that has ever been thought to be a miracle HAS been explained by science, and a persons leg mysteriously growing back is no more proof of GOD than a persons leg NOT growing back is proof that there isnt one.

[Scaredgirl]

If you can give proof that a persons leg grew back, you would be able to instantly convert millions of atheist.

This is what my topic is about. I am saying, if you saw a persons leg grow back right in front of you, would it make you at least give it more thought, and make you reconsider the possibility of a god (not any specific one, just some god or superior being) existing? Or would you just say "Wow, that guy has some crazy mutation that allows him to heal back entire limbs that are lost"?

I go from the most likely explanation to the least likely one. If I start seeing something that shouldn't happen, like legs growing back, my first reaction is of course that there is something wrong with my brain, and I would go to the doctor. If everything else is ruled out, then I would probably be willing to look for supernatural explanations. However this is a very unlikely scenario because most things that happen can be easily explained.

I only seek the truth. If that truth is God existing, then I'm happy to accept that, because I like the idea of a higher power. Unfortunately it is very likely that that is no such higher power.

[Jenkar]

The problem with the idea of god, debate on atheism ect is that belief is an act of faith. Werether the personn starts to believe in god after seeing that is entirely *her* matter. Society, as of current, is based on a quest of truth. Maybe  the answer to thing x is that god exists. Howether, that can't be proved.

To be perfectly honest, rather than : ''Science will discover how this is possible eventually'', the reaction would be : we do not understand yet. Which is different in that it admits : we may never understand.

[OldTrees]

If you can give proof that a persons leg grew back, you would be able to instantly convert millions of atheist.

This is what my topic is about. I am saying, if you saw a persons leg grow back right in front of you, would it make you at least give it more thought, and make you reconsider the possibility of a god (not any specific one, just some god or superior being) existing? Or would you just say "Wow, that guy has some crazy mutation that allows him to heal back entire limbs that are lost"?

Neither. I would conclude that my assumptions about the world might be flawed in this area. I would then seek to confirm that I was indeed mistaken. After that I would wonder how it happened. This question does not exclude God but neither does it include God. God is not a verb. If this happened by God's action then I hope to discover and learn about the action. If a non divine force of nature caused the action then I still hope to discover and learn about the action. The method of the leg being regrown in this example only speaks to what actions are possible in this reality it does not give evidence for if the original source of the action was a god or a non divine force.

For any miracle to be evidence of a God the miracles must only be able to be caused by a force that happens to be a God. Purpose and design would not be sufficient because non divine sapient beings (humans) exist. Things we don't understand would not be sufficient because humans can do incomprehensible things as well. Is there any sufficient trait of an action only being able to be caused by a force that happens to be a God? Not as far as I know. The lack of knowledge of a trait that qualifies makes miracles fail to be evidence of a God.