@@ferdinandkraft857 people, of their own accord, look up in wonder and try to see more than what the eyes bring in when looking at this world,... They sense something and - choose - to seek it out and this is what God sees and thus bestows Faith to those who fear NOT being with God when this is ALL over is who will seek, and and thus receive Salvation because He stated "Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will open" and He keeps His Word,
Science has got the objective world covered, but is completely oblivious to subjective reality. The purpose of miracles is entirely subjective, not objective: it is the mind (the perceptual faculties) that needs to be transformed, not the world, consequently, there will never be any objective ‘proof’. Such notions, on both sides, come out of a misunderstanding about what miracles are. But that does not mean they do not happen - it’s just that most reported ‘miracles’ are fantasies not true miracles. A true miracle is any experience that makes you realise something you believed in (any conceptual assumption) is false: it does not matter what apparent external form it takes: the only important component is the internal transformation of ignorance. Seeing through the false is the only way to gnosis: direct perception of the truth behind oneself. The mistake of believers and non-believers alike is that miracles are supposed to provide evidence for belief; wrong, they are supposed to show you that what you previously believed (including many scientific concepts) is wrong. The realisation that follows is yours and it changes you (your internal subjectivity or ignorance) not the world (external objectivity).
Totally agree with you well said!! “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle”
That’s is kind of the problem. There are people who follow a holy book without any interpretation. Then there are people who try to make sense of those holly books by combining their environmental influences such as culture and scientific discoveries and come up with something totally different. Then then there are the people who have an acquaintance with the holly book and they just make up anything so it fits their world view. To argue a objective and subjective is pretty silly, since our individual reality is played out in our skull, We all have a brain, mind, thats creates a simulation of the outside world. Our perception of the world is based on our experience, environment and culture. A miracle can be what ever you want it to be, but within the confines of the laws of the natural world, it doesn’t exist.
Your entire life is one continuous stream of experience. Science is a rational conceptualisation of such experience. You have just dismissed everything!
personal experience is the only outcome of spirituality. its not for material benefit. Spiritual practice is for giving up ego/ and dependency on material things and survive on our deeper reality.
3:03 "If a bridge falls down, that only happens once, it's not a miracle." How many bridges have fallen down? That has to be one of the weakest analogies I have ever come across. Could not Robert Park think of a better example than this?
He clearly meant a specific bridge. So, "if the Brooklyn Bridge falls down, that only happens once". The analogy is not weak. Your ability to think, however, obviously seems to be.
@@DeusExAstra What an explanation! Of course... A particular bridge falling down and a miracle (of any kind) both only happen once. Both are considered to be supernatural events. I stand corrected! The analogy is strong :-/
Divertissement Monas Hilarious that made me laugh “the analogy is strong”!! The pilgrimage to the miracle of the collapsing “Particular bridge”!!. The religious will be flocking in droves. And I totally agree with you that analogy was actually worse than the bear in the bush analogy and that took some beating.
Calling messengers scoundrels, in some cases may be accurate. Peasants usually have nothing to lose, so revealing the Truth, being honest -- no hesitation, no second thought. The worldly beings of ego -- those who judge, have a societal status & reputation to protect, usually base their principles from their own ideologies making them "self righteous". Imagine a politician, celebrity or banker proclaiming to be a messanger of God -- the person may look good, of the same consensus as you, saying what you want to hear. The Truth is never what you want to hear... so the worldly beings of materialism, ego driven -- this is not the way of Spirituality, so long as you're not drawing near within Spirit, you're not drawing near to God. I think God looks at a man's heart; not his wallet, ego, reputation, societal position or influence over the populous see how popular they are. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Perhaps God looks within us... while "modern man" looks on the out side.
@@andrebrown8969 Heart is referring to Soul/Spirit -- if you knew anything about the Ancients you'd know this. God is of the Spirit. The problem with modern man is they're so literal and logical only of the 3rd dimension. Spirit is of the intuitive nature. It's why Ancients were so symbolic because symbology is the language of Spirit trancending the logical thinking of man's limit 3d mind. The modern man's intellect can't seem to grasp the notion I guess.
Shallow argument (not defining miracle before refuting it), barbed language (casual sarcasm), mundane and wrong examples (bear in the bush, “unique” collapse of bridges). Not a good representative for thoughtful naturalism.
Seems kind of silly to argue about religious experience without first defining what religious experience might be. I suggest reading William Jame's "Variety of Religious Experience" before approaching any argument on the matter. I think you'll find that miracles do happen every day.
Jeff Amos Religious people believe that one person rising from the dead explains all of reality. Material reductionists believe that all of the humans that ever existed “rising from the dead” material of a primordial soup explains all of reality. At least with religion you actually have documented eyewitness accounts including joy, comfort, meaning and purpose. Not to mention the realisation that the reality of (faith)l love, altruism, morals, ethics and eternal life isn’t just more probable than billions rising from the dead it is actually beyond any metric of probability, numerical value, calculus, science or philosophical analysis. A measure of anti theistic points and god points is as improbable as a scientific language or mathematical equation to determine, bravery, self sacrifice, love, morality and purpose. “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his (faith) in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” Nevertheless, you should be humble and compassionate and .... “When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall” (C.S. Lewis). No offence intended. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
Thing is... even if a miracle was to occur - an event that was unexplainable by science, it would never be seen as “proof” that miracles happen , it would just be put in the “not YET explained” bin and ignored. This is what has happened with PSI research which despite showing small but statistically significant results in meta-analyses of the most carefully controlled experiments is still assumed to be necessarily flawed and thus ignored by the mainstream establishment in science.
You are not a scientist tho lmao. You know nothing about that sort, you probably looked that off google on a shady website like all religious people do 😂
@@lifeuncovered6188 Actually, I am (or was until I retired). If you work in Science, you get to see it’s limitations, especially if you take an interest in the Philosophy of Science. Science relies on replicability, which miracles, by definition, are not. The same problem dogs PSI research, and the controversy over eg. Cold Fusion. I’m sceptical about miracles, and agnostic about PSI, (and Cold Fusion), but that’s because, being non-replicable, they are at the epistemological limitations of Science.
Only when the lamp of search, of earnest striving, of longing desire, of passionate devotion, of fervid love, of rapture, and ecstasy, is kindled within the seeker’s heart, and the breeze of His loving-kindness is wafted upon his soul, will the darkness of error be dispelled, the mists of doubts and misgivings be dissipated, and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop his being. Baha’u’llah
Life itself is a miracle. The idea that simple things evolved to complicated things from nothing is considered scientific. Yet if i told you this grain of sand will turn into a super advanced computer over time you would say its absurd but that is how life evolved.
@@xspotbox4400 incompleteness in this context refers to a theorem by Gödel's that states that some proposition can be formulate such that neither them not their negation can be proven. An example is Euclid's fifth postulate in euclidean geometry. That being said, the OP clearly has no understanding of the theorem, as usual.
Yes. Religious experience is worth about it's weight in whatever your imagination is worth. If religious experience cannot be validated, most of the guests on this show have no argument whatsoever for God.
Playing an exciting computer game could produce religious experiences. Why do you think they are censored, in matter of fact, everything people do in public is.
@@DavidSmith-wp2zb There are only two ways i can explain that miracle, either you don't play video games or you didn't play latest incarnation of Doom yet.
Personal experience would be sufficient for me, but it would have to be unambiguous. I've had some amazingly profound experiences, probably as powerful as anybody's. I have referred to those experiences as "seeing God". But I never saw God in a literal sense, just felt like this is what heaven must feel like. If it's possible to feel any better than that, it doesn't matter. I suspect at least some folks would consider similar experiences enough to convince them. It's just a matter of interpreting my experiences correctly, right? God's screaming at me, but I don't know how to listen, right? Those experiences are within the psycho-bio-physiological capability of the brain. With the right type of experience, it wouldn't matter if I could prove it to anyone else or not. If there's a God, he knows exactly what it would take. But he hasn't crossed that line at any point in my life, and I'm pretty sure he never will -- because there's no God to cross it to begin with.
It sounds like you've already made up your mind, then. Even if you had an experience and things outside of yourself aligned in profound ways that you couldn't have controlled? Would that convince you? Just wondering.
@@collin501 [collin]: "It sounds like you've already made up your mind, then." Well, pending some suitable / unambiguous experience, anyway. [collin]: "Even if you had an experience and things outside of yourself aligned in profound ways that you couldn't have controlled? Would that convince you? Just wondering."" I notice some interesting synchronicities that some might interpret as "profound". But it's hard to call them "unambiguous" without also crossing into "insincere" territory, using very strict criteria. I've proven to myself more than once that I can fool myself into thinking what I want to believe -- humans in general seem to have a virtually infinite capacity for self-delusion, and I'm just as human as anyone else is. So I maintain a pretty high bar there, and I think that's entirely reasonable.
@dougsmith6793 I don't know if the capacity for self-delusion is higher than the capacity for undue skepticism, though. But I guess they go hand in hand. If you take a certain position and interpret everything in light of it without proof, then skepticism to the contrary is unreasonable. I don't know what the right calibration is. I get it. The God question is a big one, so people are skeptical to afar they're being sold. But if you believe the human mind is not designed to find the true meaning of life or see any intentional arrangement of the world, and rather that it functions to delude itself if it ever tries, then you will interpret everything in that light, will you not? Won't you automatically dismiss everything that appears as though it's trying to lead you to those conclusions? If there is a God, very likely, the path to God will be relational, not scientific. I don't know. I'd be more open to the possibility of that.
@@collin501 [collin]: "I don't know if the capacity for self-delusion is higher than the capacity for undue skepticism, though. But I guess they go hand in hand." Yeah ... it's because I know I can be so wrong that I need some kind of check-and-balance system. I'm not skeptical about the chair I'm sitting on. Or the keyboard I'm typing on. Consciousness appears "designed" to interact with its environment ... which would be entirely predicted if consciousness was a product of the environment to begin with. Evolution is "process" design, a kind of "intelligent" design in its own right. [collin]: "If you take a certain position and interpret everything in light of it without proof, then skepticism to the contrary is unreasonable." Worldview (confirmation) bias is definitely a thing. We all start with at least some commonality ... awareness of our own continuity, and an environment to navigate ourselves around in. That is "proof" to each of us ... i.e., we all start with the viewpoint that things that impact our senses are more "real" than things that don't. [collin]: "I don't know what the right calibration is. I get it." I can only use myself as a calibrator. Since I know I can delude myself, usually because of what I *want* to believe, then it has seemed wise to be hyper-skeptical of anything that I can't test in some satisfactory way, holding it to some objective standard, using criteria such as the chair that I'm sitting on to help define what "satisfactory" is. Absence of evidence may not be conclusive evidence of absence, but it is still nonetheless 100% correlated with absence. [collin]: "The God question is a big one, so people are skeptical to afar they're being sold." God is a standard unto itself. I see no reason to hold God to anything less than the highest standard ... since, by definition, God is the Most Existent Thing in the Universe. [collin]: "But if you believe the human mind is not designed to find the true meaning of life or see any intentional arrangement of the world, and rather that it functions to delude itself if it ever tries, then you will interpret everything in that light, will you not?" No. That's an all-or-nothing, black / white, either / or ... throw the baby out with the bathwater ... approach. If we're products of evolution, then we most certainly have a capacity to make "sense" out of the environment ... to collect information about the environment, categorize that information in degrees of "safe" or "not safe", and then develop an intention to approach or avoid objects based on that information. By definition, if we didn't get it "right" to some degree, we wouldn't survive. Getting it "right" is usually a matter of measuring it against the environment itself. We all seem to perceive that environment both differently and the same ... and it's those "same" measurements that provide at least some standard outside of ourselves. So, we can be both wrong and right, not just one or the other. [collin]: "Won't you automatically dismiss everything that appears as though it's trying to lead you to those conclusions?" All information is thrown into the same pot of considerations. Out of that we all draw conclusions that make the most sense to us. Each of us is a better judge of what makes sense to himself than anyone else is. Context is meaning. Education / experience is context. To me, a certain level of evidence is necessary. I define that level, at least generally, as roughly equivalent to the chair I'm sitting on. Anything less obvious deserves tighter scrutiny. If it gets untestable, it goes into the untestable pile. [collin]: "If there is a God, very likely, the path to God will be relational, not scientific. I don't know. I'd be more open to the possibility of that." If there is a God, then it seems illlogical to disconnect him from the universe -- since the universe (existence-as-we-know-it) is his "creation". So a connection to naturalism / science is already embedded / implied or at least inferred from that relationship. Consciousness itself must be the goal and common substrate of that relationship, because consciousness is the thing that makes God aware of anything, and the only thing that makes organisms aware of God / existence / creation to begin with. If consciousness is emergent ... which appears entirely plausible to me ... then a direct connection (i.e., God created consciousness) is now one more step removed from God himself. To me, that either pushes God more out of the picture entirely ... or helps narrow down exactly who God is and why he created the universe the way he did in the first place.
@dougsmith6793 I agree that on your view you'd still be finding right things about the world, and meaning might emerge along with it in a relativistic sense. My point was about whether the world is arranged by a conscious entity, you'd interpret things differently than if God is just the force behind the universe or the highest standard or something similar. We see things concretely, and concrete things happen in our lives. But we can make out to be coincidence or not based on our worldview. That seems like an all or nothing evaluation to me.
What on earth this man is talking about?! He just presupposes metaphysical Naturalism. What parapsychology was debunked I would like to know? Randy's show? Is he serious? There are numerous parapsychological research peer-reviewed papers, if one wants to know, which establish the existence of such phenomena. What he considers as evidence? Feeling, seeing something, something to be replicated? What if something is not replicable? Is his content what was created by his mind replicable or is just a chemical reaction inside his brain?
@@ferdinandkraft857 this is not my point, what I say is that we don't have evidence that he is conscious, I don't have evidence that you are conscious, I know that I am conscious, that's all. Still the belief that you are conscious as I am is quite reasonable and rational even without testable evidence. Epistemology implies various routes to knowledge: testimony, senses, intuition
Hi Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn! In my humbled opinion, please consider doing an episode on miracles that have been witnessed by nonbelievers and medically verified! I would interview a medical doctor, who is a nonbeliever, and witnessed a medical miracle of a patient (who's family is religious). I hope you discover the Truth, someday!!! :)
"I would interview a medical doctor, who is a nonbeliever, and witnessed a medical miracle of a patient (who's family is religious)." You have no case for claiming a supernatural event because something happened in a human body which we at the moment can't explain. For you to be able to do so, you must provide support for the existence of anything supernatural to start with. Otherwise you can't point to a physical effect and claim that the origin of that effect is supernatural. There are tons and tons of mechanisms in the human body which we don't understand yet. How can you rule any of those out?
Hi@@petercarlson811! I believe miracles occur everyday, we just don't hear about them. Do a Google search on "medical miracles", you will find many examples! I'm not a perfect person, but I feel that the only way to know the Truth about a Creator is to become a Christian (by accepting Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross as payment for all our sins, turning away from sin with God's help through prayer in Jesus Christ name, and receiving the Holy Spirit, we become transformed, like Christ (2 Corinthians 3 :18) (Romans 12:2)). I know from my own Christian experience, that God does answer prayer, but sometimes God takes time to answer or answers in different way than was expected. I wouldn't be able to convince you, for the existence of God, based on my own Christian experience. You need to experience God on your own. Please don't give up on God!!! :)
@@robhappier "I believe miracles occur everyday, we just don't hear about them" So you believe without any reason to do so, "because you believe"? Why do you believe miracles occur everyday if you don't have any data to support that belief? "Do a Google search on "medical miracles", you will find many examples!" There is not a single event you can find with google that provide empirical support for anything supernatural. As I specifically explained in my previous post, how can you claim that a physical event in a human body has a supernatural origin without support for the existence of anything supernatural to start with? We KNOW there are plenty of mechanisms in the human body we don't undertand yet. "I wouldn't be able to convince you, for the existence of God, based on my own experience." "Experience"? Do you have any empirical data to support your interaction with a god? "You need to experience God on your own." Oh I'd love to. I have been waiting over a half century and I'm still waiting... Can you pass a message that he's free to drop by anytime? "Please don't give up on God!" Well it sure doesn't seem interested in interacting. So why would this interaction be of any importance? If you're truly interested in communicating with someone and have the ability to contact them, you make it happen. Easy peasy!
I once saw a snake in a tree in our garden. Nobody believed me. But they were wrong and I was right. I just had the eyes to see. The snake catcher came and removed the snake; not an easy job. It was only then that I was deemed not to be a few cards short of a deck. Now that was a miracle!
Hey Norma.... sounds cool. I wish you had been there in the garden of Eden. Nobody called the "snake catcher" and... well.... we all know how the story goes!
John Brzykcy I’ll pass on the garden of Eden; interesting though it might be, I don’t want to be any more ancient than I already am or risk setting off the grandma paradox.
I'm not a theist. I am someone who has had experiences like the ones spiritual people have. I want to have real conversations about it without getting drawn into this hyperbolic rhetoric. This was a very weak argument for atheism. I can do a lot better myself.
Jennifer Rossiter Totally agree with you!! that bear analogy was weak and it took some beating but he managed it with the “miracle of the collapsing bridge.
I also find it difficult to have faith and buy into miracles that happened 2000 years ago. But this conversation is aborted by the claim that all the miracles are "debunked", which usually signifies opinion not fact. It is a good topic but it didn't end in the right place. Better to put on display some real life and recent chronicles of religious experience and let people judge.
@@lifeuncovered6188 I respect how you feel but I disagree. Both historically and philosophically, there seem to be truths that point to the existence of God. Thanks for sharing. John
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Back in history, miracles were stuff that they haven’t learned and there was a scientific explanation for everything especially with the stuff in the Bible. Honestly for a higher power to exist would be miraculous but the chances are slim.
@@lifeuncovered6188 I agree with you that "for a higher power to exist would be miraculous." In fact, for mankind to exist seems to be a miracle too. I believe in the miraculous, even though it is difficult to comprehend with our limited, finite minds. Thanks for sharing. John in Florida
The 'divine' pressure emotional key-point in honesty than an atheist should apply to a Christian theist is this one: Yes, I am not a Saint and - fortunately, or unfortunately - don't feel or find any sort of inner motivation to become one ... but ... You, theist, had told me that God implored everyone to become Saints as He is ... Therefore, Can you show me your sainthood in all your behaviors ?? ... Your Verified Sainthood will not persuade me of believing in your God ... but at least, that can make me respect your beliefs ... and who knows, maybe share your behavioral habits with you by its intrinsic 'goodness' ... But ... Your unverified Sainthood just reinforces in me that your beliefs had not any sort of practical value, therefore, those beliefs don't deserve any sort of respect from my side ... Sorry me, I am just trying to be honest with my Self ... Now, I should observe in silence how you behave ...
The role of Sainthood is to have Justification through Believing in Christ Jesus, and can boldly approach the Throne of God with our Prayers, and Hopes, through The Covenant of Faith, which was given to Abraham, and is the Way in which we are to approach Him, if we DID have a knowledge of God we would be overwhelmed by His Glory which would take away our free will,... The Bible states on The Day ALL will know and all shall go to their knees and ALL will proclaim His Glory, which is why we must use Faith, which is Bestowed by God to those He acknowledges is honestly Seeking Him,... So our Sainthood is recognized by God so we can have a relationship with Him,.... what you might see in someone is a practice, and like any in professional sports can attest, those who practice most, do best, we're to practice two Commandments, to love God with all your heart, and to Love your neighbor as yourself,... Do we do well in this? no, but when we are faced with a choice hopefully we'll choose His Way, Hoping daily for His guidance and Blessing ,
@@firstnamesurname6550 Who cares if people are honest or not, no way to tell that and everybody must come to his own conclusions anyway, sincere or not, it's always selfish gene that counts in the end.
@@randykuhns4515 That would be the day when our minds will get blown by divine insight, imagine how much power would brain release if so much information would pop in suddenly.
"There is no such thing as magic/miracles" -- says the being undergoing the magical/miraculous experience called CONCIOUSNESS! ...Oh wait, is this being even freakin conscious??? :)
@@ScyllaxOh it's not??...how would you define it then? :) .... Can you come even remotely close to explaining it?.. Can scientific laws come remotely close to explaining it??... Is it very rare and extraordinary in the universe???... Let me guess...you're of the mindset that conciousness is just a completely random event that magically/miraculously popped into existance out of a universe that came from absolutely nothing, right????....And you're also 100% sure about it all too, right???... Honest question --- are YOU concious??! :)
Israel Flores Consciousness is an emergent property of the neural and other biological activity of living organisms as they interact with their environments. It’s not magic, and asserting that it is doesn’t make it so, and your consciousness sucks at reading other organism’s.
@@Scyllax Lol that's about as sophisticated of an explanation as saying that the earth goes around the sun simply because "it's an emergent property of rock-stuff interacting with sun-stuff in space"...or that the tides occur due to water molecules interacting with non water molecules in the environment :) ... You could have saved yourself some time/words by simply saying "it just happens because it just does" (with a Southern accent) :) ... Now go collect your Nobel prize for discovering how consciousness works, genius ;) (I just updated the probability of you being a conscious being to around 50/50) :P :) ;)
Israel Flores I’m glad you are terrible at refuting anything with a Gish Gallop of many misstatements, lies, and fallacies that you want to argue for a month. Miracles, going back to the original topic, are alleged violations of the laws of nature by alleged supernatural agencies. A miracle has never been proved to have ever occurred. Another Gish Gallop and I’m done with you, asshole.
@Stefano Portoghesi When times are hard and human soul get dark, God will send another Christ, to show us how to transcend evil and despair, by not being even more evil and more desperate. I prefer legend about Golem, creature made from mud, called into life by high priests. They actually did that, when government became to tyrannic or people descended into perversions and did abominable things, they threw some poor guy into mud, gave him nothing but beating and suffering, to make him totally dumb, obedient and evil as Hell. Then they released him to roam around in country side or near some rich person mansions, where he just crashed everything and tare everybody alive into pieces. After people repented, they eliminated poor soul and told everybody demon returned into mud where it came from.
@Stefano Portoghesi you have mentioned 3 of the 44 that were all fulfilled. Let's try to address the 3. Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15) Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) Messiah would be heir to King David's throne (Isaiah 9:7 2 Samuel 7:12-13) The genealogy of Jesus Christ can be found in the first chapter of Matthew starting with the first verse. Jesus Christ did not have a biological father. The virgin birth was needed because this bloodline (DNA) was not contaminated with the nephilim.(Genesis 6) According to God's own criteria His prophets had to be 100% accurate every time (Absolute). He fulfilled all 44 hence the probability of One.
@Stefano Portoghesi Simple, people can get crazy, but can't survive for long in that state and can't form efficient society, best way to straighten their minds is by real life example of extremes. I get many of those, people think i'm some sort of secret service agent or something like that, but it's really just science, philosophy and logic basically, with some talent for intuition and imagination i'm born with and come naturally for me.
@Stefano Portoghesi you are simply missing the whole point of why He was born and why He had to die and why He will return. Most people will believe shown the mathematical probability. You should just read it for yourself if you really want to get closer to the Truth.
This goes about as well as you’d expect asking a physicist about religious epistemology.
"Religious epistemology" = "trust my story or go to hell".
Ferdinand Kraft
Nope.
I agree.
@@ferdinandkraft857 people, of their own accord, look up in wonder and try to see more than what the eyes bring in when looking at this world,... They sense something and - choose - to seek it out and this is what God sees and thus bestows Faith to those who fear NOT being with God when this is ALL over is who will seek, and and thus receive Salvation because He stated "Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will open" and He keeps His Word,
@@randykuhns4515 I pretty much agree with your viewpoints.
Science has got the objective world covered, but is completely oblivious to subjective reality. The purpose of miracles is entirely subjective, not objective: it is the mind (the perceptual faculties) that needs to be transformed, not the world, consequently, there will never be any objective ‘proof’. Such notions, on both sides, come out of a misunderstanding about what miracles are. But that does not mean they do not happen - it’s just that most reported ‘miracles’ are fantasies not true miracles. A true miracle is any experience that makes you realise something you believed in (any conceptual assumption) is false: it does not matter what apparent external form it takes: the only important component is the internal transformation of ignorance. Seeing through the false is the only way to gnosis: direct perception of the truth behind oneself. The mistake of believers and non-believers alike is that miracles are supposed to provide evidence for belief; wrong, they are supposed to show you that what you previously believed (including many scientific concepts) is wrong. The realisation that follows is yours and it changes you (your internal subjectivity or ignorance) not the world (external objectivity).
Totally agree with you well said!!
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle”
That’s is kind of the problem. There are people who follow a holy book without any interpretation. Then there are people who try to make sense of those holly books by combining their environmental influences such as culture and scientific discoveries and come up with something totally different. Then then there are the people who have an acquaintance with the holly book and they just make up anything so it fits their world view.
To argue a objective and subjective is pretty silly, since our individual reality is played out in our skull, We all have a brain, mind, thats creates a simulation of the outside world. Our perception of the world is based on our experience, environment and culture. A miracle can be what ever you want it to be, but within the confines of the laws of the natural world, it doesn’t exist.
Any experience was, is, and forever will be anecdotal
Your entire life is one continuous stream of experience. Science is a rational conceptualisation of such experience. You have just dismissed everything!
@@keirwatson3570 Now that's not really true is it. Science isn't really rationalization of experience of one individual.
personal experience is the only outcome of spirituality. its not for material benefit. Spiritual practice is for giving up ego/ and dependency on material things and survive on our deeper reality.
People crawl under some bush, get sick and die.
Amen....
How can you tell the difference between a "deeper reality" and an illusion?
3:03 "If a bridge falls down, that only happens once, it's not a miracle." How many bridges have fallen down? That has to be one of the weakest analogies I have ever come across. Could not Robert Park think of a better example than this?
He clearly meant a specific bridge. So, "if the Brooklyn Bridge falls down, that only happens once". The analogy is not weak. Your ability to think, however, obviously seems to be.
@@DeusExAstra What an explanation! Of course... A particular bridge falling down and a miracle (of any kind) both only happen once. Both are considered to be supernatural events. I stand corrected! The analogy is strong :-/
Divertissement Monas
Hilarious that made me laugh “the analogy is strong”!! The pilgrimage to the miracle of the collapsing “Particular bridge”!!. The religious will be flocking in droves. And I totally agree with you that analogy was actually worse than the bear in the bush analogy and that took some beating.
Calling messengers scoundrels, in some cases may be accurate. Peasants usually have nothing to lose, so revealing the Truth, being honest -- no hesitation, no second thought. The worldly beings of ego -- those who judge, have a societal status & reputation to protect, usually base their principles from their own ideologies making them "self righteous". Imagine a politician, celebrity or banker proclaiming to be a messanger of God -- the person may look good, of the same consensus as you, saying what you want to hear.
The Truth is never what you want to hear... so the worldly beings of materialism, ego driven -- this is not the way of Spirituality, so long as you're not drawing near within Spirit, you're not drawing near to God. I think God looks at a man's heart; not his wallet, ego, reputation, societal position or influence over the populous see how popular they are.
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Perhaps God looks within us... while "modern man" looks on the out side.
So your god is a cardiologist?
@@andrebrown8969 Heart is referring to Soul/Spirit -- if you knew anything about the Ancients you'd know this.
God is of the Spirit.
The problem with modern man is they're so literal and logical only of the 3rd dimension. Spirit is of the intuitive nature. It's why Ancients were so symbolic because symbology is the language of Spirit trancending the logical thinking of man's limit 3d mind. The modern man's intellect can't seem to grasp the notion I guess.
@@S3RAVA3LM So you are privy to some special kind of wisdom?
@@andrebrown8969 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you".
@@S3RAVA3LM That does not sound very practical. That sounds like I can make anything up.
Shallow argument (not defining miracle before refuting it), barbed language (casual sarcasm), mundane and wrong examples (bear in the bush, “unique” collapse of bridges). Not a good representative for thoughtful naturalism.
So what is a miracle? Give us your examples.
These are arguments a smart 13 year old can make. Many things he sais are resonable, but this interview is kind of shalow.
Seems kind of silly to argue about religious experience without first defining what religious experience might be. I suggest reading William Jame's "Variety of Religious Experience" before approaching any argument on the matter. I think you'll find that miracles do happen every day.
Give up your delusional ideas and stop trying to argue for miracles
I think I wont.
DeusExAstra Go ahead. Live with your fantasy fairy tales. Who cares
@@jeffamos9854 I was replying to Rick S, not you.
Jeff Amos
Religious people believe that one person rising from the dead explains all of reality. Material reductionists believe that all of the humans that ever existed “rising from the dead” material of a primordial soup explains all of reality. At least with religion you actually have documented eyewitness accounts including joy, comfort, meaning and purpose. Not to mention the realisation that the reality of (faith)l love, altruism, morals, ethics and eternal life isn’t just more probable than billions rising from the dead it is actually beyond any metric of probability, numerical value, calculus, science or philosophical analysis.
A measure of anti theistic points and god points is as improbable as a scientific language or mathematical equation to determine, bravery, self sacrifice, love, morality and purpose. “At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his (faith) in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”
Nevertheless, you should be humble and compassionate and ....
“When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall” (C.S. Lewis).
No offence intended. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
Thing is... even if a miracle was to occur - an event that was unexplainable by science, it would never be seen as “proof” that miracles happen , it would just be put in the “not YET explained” bin and ignored. This is what has happened with PSI research which despite showing small but statistically significant results in meta-analyses of the most carefully controlled experiments is still assumed to be necessarily flawed and thus ignored by the mainstream establishment in science.
You are not a scientist tho lmao. You know nothing about that sort, you probably looked that off google on a shady website like all religious people do 😂
@@lifeuncovered6188 Actually, I am (or was until I retired). If you work in Science, you get to see it’s limitations, especially if you take an interest in the Philosophy of Science. Science relies on replicability, which miracles, by definition, are not. The same problem dogs PSI research, and the controversy over eg. Cold Fusion. I’m sceptical about miracles, and agnostic about PSI, (and Cold Fusion), but that’s because, being non-replicable, they are at the epistemological limitations of Science.
Only when the lamp of search, of earnest striving, of longing desire, of passionate devotion, of fervid love, of rapture, and ecstasy, is kindled within the seeker’s heart, and the breeze of His loving-kindness is wafted upon his soul, will the darkness of error be dispelled, the mists of doubts and misgivings be dissipated, and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop his being.
Baha’u’llah
Life itself is a miracle. The idea that simple things evolved to complicated things from nothing is considered scientific. Yet if i told you this grain of sand will turn into a super advanced computer over time you would say its absurd but that is how life evolved.
I don't believe theistic religion has an answer to the truth or claims to do so but in fact gives a *clue* to the truth if what it claims is correct.
The fact that " if we can not prove something so it is not exist" itself not scientific, that what Godel in his incompleteness theory was saying.
Mathematics is adding and subtracting. If 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 - 1 = 1, than mathematics can not be incomplete.
@@xspotbox4400 incompleteness in this context refers to a theorem by Gödel's that states that some proposition can be formulate such that neither them not their negation can be proven. An example is Euclid's fifth postulate in euclidean geometry.
That being said, the OP clearly has no understanding of the theorem, as usual.
@Stefano PortoghesiThanks, I like your answer.
Yes. Religious experience is worth about it's weight in whatever your imagination is worth. If religious experience cannot be validated, most of the guests on this show have no argument whatsoever for God.
Playing an exciting computer game could produce religious experiences. Why do you think they are censored, in matter of fact, everything people do in public is.
@@xspotbox4400 I'm not sure what you are saying makes any sense
@@DavidSmith-wp2zb There are only two ways i can explain that miracle, either you don't play video games or you didn't play latest incarnation of Doom yet.
@@xspotbox4400 youre crazy
@@DavidSmith-wp2zb It's OK to play Doom Eternal and enjoy.
I’ve never mistaken a bush for a bear
Exactly, I thought it was Bigfoot.
Oh, so your senses has never been mistaken.
Personal experience would be sufficient for me, but it would have to be unambiguous. I've had some amazingly profound experiences, probably as powerful as anybody's. I have referred to those experiences as "seeing God". But I never saw God in a literal sense, just felt like this is what heaven must feel like. If it's possible to feel any better than that, it doesn't matter.
I suspect at least some folks would consider similar experiences enough to convince them. It's just a matter of interpreting my experiences correctly, right? God's screaming at me, but I don't know how to listen, right?
Those experiences are within the psycho-bio-physiological capability of the brain.
With the right type of experience, it wouldn't matter if I could prove it to anyone else or not. If there's a God, he knows exactly what it would take. But he hasn't crossed that line at any point in my life, and I'm pretty sure he never will -- because there's no God to cross it to begin with.
It sounds like you've already made up your mind, then. Even if you had an experience and things outside of yourself aligned in profound ways that you couldn't have controlled? Would that convince you? Just wondering.
@@collin501
[collin]: "It sounds like you've already made up your mind, then."
Well, pending some suitable / unambiguous experience, anyway.
[collin]: "Even if you had an experience and things outside of yourself aligned in profound ways that you couldn't have controlled? Would that convince you? Just wondering.""
I notice some interesting synchronicities that some might interpret as "profound". But it's hard to call them "unambiguous" without also crossing into "insincere" territory, using very strict criteria. I've proven to myself more than once that I can fool myself into thinking what I want to believe -- humans in general seem to have a virtually infinite capacity for self-delusion, and I'm just as human as anyone else is. So I maintain a pretty high bar there, and I think that's entirely reasonable.
@dougsmith6793 I don't know if the capacity for self-delusion is higher than the capacity for undue skepticism, though. But I guess they go hand in hand. If you take a certain position and interpret everything in light of it without proof, then skepticism to the contrary is unreasonable. I don't know what the right calibration is. I get it. The God question is a big one, so people are skeptical to afar they're being sold. But if you believe the human mind is not designed to find the true meaning of life or see any intentional arrangement of the world, and rather that it functions to delude itself if it ever tries, then you will interpret everything in that light, will you not? Won't you automatically dismiss everything that appears as though it's trying to lead you to those conclusions? If there is a God, very likely, the path to God will be relational, not scientific. I don't know. I'd be more open to the possibility of that.
@@collin501
[collin]: "I don't know if the capacity for self-delusion is higher than the capacity for undue skepticism, though. But I guess they go hand in hand."
Yeah ... it's because I know I can be so wrong that I need some kind of check-and-balance system.
I'm not skeptical about the chair I'm sitting on. Or the keyboard I'm typing on. Consciousness appears "designed" to interact with its environment ... which would be entirely predicted if consciousness was a product of the environment to begin with. Evolution is "process" design, a kind of "intelligent" design in its own right.
[collin]: "If you take a certain position and interpret everything in light of it without proof, then skepticism to the contrary is unreasonable."
Worldview (confirmation) bias is definitely a thing. We all start with at least some commonality ... awareness of our own continuity, and an environment to navigate ourselves around in. That is "proof" to each of us ... i.e., we all start with the viewpoint that things that impact our senses are more "real" than things that don't.
[collin]: "I don't know what the right calibration is. I get it."
I can only use myself as a calibrator. Since I know I can delude myself, usually because of what I *want* to believe, then it has seemed wise to be hyper-skeptical of anything that I can't test in some satisfactory way, holding it to some objective standard, using criteria such as the chair that I'm sitting on to help define what "satisfactory" is. Absence of evidence may not be conclusive evidence of absence, but it is still nonetheless 100% correlated with absence.
[collin]: "The God question is a big one, so people are skeptical to afar they're being sold."
God is a standard unto itself. I see no reason to hold God to anything less than the highest standard ... since, by definition, God is the Most Existent Thing in the Universe.
[collin]: "But if you believe the human mind is not designed to find the true meaning of life or see any intentional arrangement of the world, and rather that it functions to delude itself if it ever tries, then you will interpret everything in that light, will you not?"
No. That's an all-or-nothing, black / white, either / or ... throw the baby out with the bathwater ... approach. If we're products of evolution, then we most certainly have a capacity to make "sense" out of the environment ... to collect information about the environment, categorize that information in degrees of "safe" or "not safe", and then develop an intention to approach or avoid objects based on that information. By definition, if we didn't get it "right" to some degree, we wouldn't survive. Getting it "right" is usually a matter of measuring it against the environment itself. We all seem to perceive that environment both differently and the same ... and it's those "same" measurements that provide at least some standard outside of ourselves.
So, we can be both wrong and right, not just one or the other.
[collin]: "Won't you automatically dismiss everything that appears as though it's trying to lead you to those conclusions?"
All information is thrown into the same pot of considerations. Out of that we all draw conclusions that make the most sense to us. Each of us is a better judge of what makes sense to himself than anyone else is. Context is meaning. Education / experience is context. To me, a certain level of evidence is necessary. I define that level, at least generally, as roughly equivalent to the chair I'm sitting on. Anything less obvious deserves tighter scrutiny. If it gets untestable, it goes into the untestable pile.
[collin]: "If there is a God, very likely, the path to God will be relational, not scientific. I don't know. I'd be more open to the possibility of that."
If there is a God, then it seems illlogical to disconnect him from the universe -- since the universe (existence-as-we-know-it) is his "creation". So a connection to naturalism / science is already embedded / implied or at least inferred from that relationship. Consciousness itself must be the goal and common substrate of that relationship, because consciousness is the thing that makes God aware of anything, and the only thing that makes organisms aware of God / existence / creation to begin with.
If consciousness is emergent ... which appears entirely plausible to me ... then a direct connection (i.e., God created consciousness) is now one more step removed from God himself. To me, that either pushes God more out of the picture entirely ... or helps narrow down exactly who God is and why he created the universe the way he did in the first place.
@dougsmith6793 I agree that on your view you'd still be finding right things about the world, and meaning might emerge along with it in a relativistic sense. My point was about whether the world is arranged by a conscious entity, you'd interpret things differently than if God is just the force behind the universe or the highest standard or something similar. We see things concretely, and concrete things happen in our lives. But we can make out to be coincidence or not based on our worldview. That seems like an all or nothing evaluation to me.
consciousness is a spiritual experience. you have a continuous proof of it.
What on earth this man is talking about?! He just presupposes metaphysical Naturalism. What parapsychology was debunked I would like to know? Randy's show? Is he serious? There are numerous parapsychological research peer-reviewed papers, if one wants to know, which establish the existence of such phenomena. What he considers as evidence? Feeling, seeing something, something to be replicated? What if something is not replicable? Is his content what was created by his mind replicable or is just a chemical reaction inside his brain?
He is not assuming anything, he is just asking for better evidence.
@@ferdinandkraft857 what evidence do I have that he is conscious?
@@ЗаурГучетль-г3ч even if he was a robot, he'd still have a valid point - we need more evidence.
Заур Гучетль Sorry, no miracles. Must be sad
@@ferdinandkraft857 this is not my point, what I say is that we don't have evidence that he is conscious, I don't have evidence that you are conscious, I know that I am conscious, that's all. Still the belief that you are conscious as I am is quite reasonable and rational even without testable evidence. Epistemology implies various routes to knowledge: testimony, senses, intuition
In our daily like, my experience is money money, need money for food, clothes, transportation..simply cannot depends on God!!!
Ya. Religion is for brainwashed fools, who haven’t seen through the lies.
Hi Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn! In my humbled opinion, please consider doing an episode on miracles that have been witnessed by nonbelievers and medically verified!
I would interview a medical doctor, who is a nonbeliever, and witnessed a medical miracle of a patient (who's family is religious). I hope you discover the Truth, someday!!! :)
What was the miracle? He was driving at dusk and saw a bear turn into a bush?
"I would interview a medical doctor, who is a nonbeliever, and witnessed a medical miracle of a patient (who's family is religious)."
You have no case for claiming a supernatural event because something happened in a human body which we at the moment can't explain. For you to be able to do so, you must provide support for the existence of anything supernatural to start with. Otherwise you can't point to a physical effect and claim that the origin of that effect is supernatural. There are tons and tons of mechanisms in the human body which we don't understand yet. How can you rule any of those out?
Hi@@petercarlson811! I believe miracles occur everyday, we just don't hear about them. Do a Google search on "medical miracles", you will find many examples! I'm not a perfect person, but I feel that the only way to know the Truth about a Creator is to become a Christian (by accepting Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross as payment for all our sins, turning away from sin with God's help through prayer in Jesus Christ name, and receiving the Holy Spirit, we become transformed, like Christ (2 Corinthians 3 :18) (Romans 12:2)). I know from my own Christian experience, that God does answer prayer, but sometimes God takes time to answer or answers in different way than was expected. I wouldn't be able to convince you, for the existence of God, based on my own Christian experience. You need to experience God on your own. Please don't give up on God!!! :)
@@robhappier "I believe miracles occur everyday, we just don't hear about them"
So you believe without any reason to do so, "because you believe"? Why do you believe miracles occur everyday if you don't have any data to support that belief?
"Do a Google search on "medical miracles", you will find many examples!"
There is not a single event you can find with google that provide empirical support for anything supernatural. As I specifically explained in my previous post, how can you claim that a physical event in a human body has a supernatural origin without support for the existence of anything supernatural to start with? We KNOW there are plenty of mechanisms in the human body we don't undertand yet.
"I wouldn't be able to convince you, for the existence of God, based on my own experience."
"Experience"?
Do you have any empirical data to support your interaction with a god?
"You need to experience God on your own."
Oh I'd love to. I have been waiting over a half century and I'm still waiting... Can you pass a message that he's free to drop by anytime?
"Please don't give up on God!"
Well it sure doesn't seem interested in interacting. So why would this interaction be of any importance? If you're truly interested in communicating with someone and have the ability to contact them, you make it happen. Easy peasy!
I once saw a snake in a tree in our garden. Nobody believed me. But they were wrong and I was right. I just had the eyes to see. The snake catcher came and removed the snake; not an easy job. It was only then that I was deemed not to be a few cards short of a deck. Now that was a miracle!
Hey Norma.... sounds cool. I wish you had been there in the garden of Eden. Nobody called the "snake catcher" and... well.... we all know how the story goes!
John Brzykcy
I’ll pass on the garden of Eden; interesting though it might be, I don’t want to be any more ancient than I already am or risk setting off the grandma paradox.
All these theists in the comment section, always trying to argue into existence, a god that cannot speak for itself.
I'm not a theist. I am someone who has had experiences like the ones spiritual people have. I want to have real conversations about it without getting drawn into this hyperbolic rhetoric. This was a very weak argument for atheism. I can do a lot better myself.
@@jenniferrossiter6894 You are not a theist, yet you seem to suggest that there is something that is beyond the natural world?
Jennifer Rossiter
Totally agree with you!! that bear analogy was weak and it took some beating but he managed it with the “miracle of the collapsing bridge.
@@jenniferrossiter6894 I do not think atheism needs to argue. The proof is not there.
I also find it difficult to have faith and buy into miracles that happened 2000 years ago. But this conversation is aborted by the claim that all the miracles are "debunked", which usually signifies opinion not fact. It is a good topic but it didn't end in the right place. Better to put on display some real life and recent chronicles of religious experience and let people judge.
Doesn't the Catholic Church require verification of 3 miricals as criterion for sainthood.
They are like publishers, they just need a great story to create a book that will sell.
Good interview but it didn't address the title - people claiming their experience = god.
Big example, someone tell me there was giant dinosaurs before. Then we dig out the bones to prove it.
I have no idea what that means without context
@@anthonycraig274 or better example. The "god" face on a piece of toast vs the bones of a dinosaur. Bone head
Who said miracles dont happen anymore?
This video seems really old?
I still have some VHS videos. Those are really old, like me!
yeah, i would say around 1956 😂
"Religion has an answer for everything." Then why do I still have so many unanswered questions?
Yes, there is no reasonable answer for god. He doesn’t exist.
@@lifeuncovered6188 I respect how you feel but I disagree. Both historically and philosophically, there seem to be truths that point to the existence of God. Thanks for sharing. John
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Back in history, miracles were stuff that they haven’t learned and there was a scientific explanation for everything especially with the stuff in the Bible. Honestly for a higher power to exist would be miraculous but the chances are slim.
@@lifeuncovered6188 I agree with you that "for a higher power to exist would be miraculous." In fact, for mankind to exist seems to be a miracle too. I believe in the miraculous, even though it is difficult to comprehend with our limited, finite minds.
Thanks for sharing. John in Florida
Nobody still beleive the reality of miracles . It's very well documented that miracles were means to emplify, reenforce the legetamacy of Jésus.
This guy's great. Christians, you've been completely, totally, duped. :D
😊
The 'divine' pressure emotional key-point in honesty than an atheist should apply to a Christian theist is this one:
Yes, I am not a Saint and - fortunately, or unfortunately - don't feel or find any sort of inner motivation to become one ... but ... You, theist, had told me that God implored everyone to become Saints as He is ... Therefore, Can you show me your sainthood in all your behaviors ?? ...
Your Verified Sainthood will not persuade me of believing in your God ... but at least, that can make me respect your beliefs ... and who knows, maybe share your behavioral habits with you by its intrinsic 'goodness' ...
But ...
Your unverified Sainthood just reinforces in me that your beliefs had not any sort of practical value, therefore, those beliefs don't deserve any sort of respect from my side ...
Sorry me, I am just trying to be honest with my Self ...
Now, I should observe in silence how you behave ...
Who cares if you're saint or not, nobody knows you, important is if you got away with that.
@@xspotbox4400 yes, atheists don't have to test theists hypocrisy ... but at least, they can be honest about not believing in hypocrites ...
The role of Sainthood is to have Justification through Believing in Christ Jesus, and can boldly approach the Throne of God with our Prayers, and Hopes, through The Covenant of Faith, which was given to Abraham, and is the Way in which we are to approach Him, if we DID have a knowledge of God we would be overwhelmed by His Glory which would take away our free will,... The Bible states on The Day ALL will know and all shall go to their knees and ALL will proclaim His Glory, which is why we must use Faith, which is Bestowed by God to those He acknowledges is honestly Seeking Him,... So our Sainthood is recognized by God so we can have a relationship with Him,.... what you might see in someone is a practice, and like any in professional sports can attest, those who practice most, do best, we're to practice two Commandments, to love God with all your heart, and to Love your neighbor as yourself,... Do we do well in this? no, but when we are faced with a choice hopefully we'll choose His Way, Hoping daily for His guidance and Blessing ,
@@firstnamesurname6550 Who cares if people are honest or not, no way to tell that and everybody must come to his own conclusions anyway, sincere or not, it's always selfish gene that counts in the end.
@@randykuhns4515 That would be the day when our minds will get blown by divine insight, imagine how much power would brain release if so much information would pop in suddenly.
I like him. He makes perfect sense.
Regarding my last comment, abandon all preconceptions!!
Wow. This is by far the worst episode I've seen. I'll leave you to philosophy as to why...
As if philosophy could give us any evidence of miracles.
As I say don't tell me the "dog flies" let me see it fly. Sorry no offense given.
"There is no such thing as magic/miracles" -- says the being undergoing the magical/miraculous experience called CONCIOUSNESS!
...Oh wait, is this being even freakin conscious??? :)
It’s not a miracle.
@@ScyllaxOh it's not??...how would you define it then? :) ....
Can you come even remotely close to explaining it?..
Can scientific laws come remotely close to explaining it??...
Is it very rare and extraordinary in the universe???...
Let me guess...you're of the mindset that conciousness is just a completely random event that magically/miraculously popped into existance out of a universe that came from absolutely nothing, right????....And you're also 100% sure about it all too, right???...
Honest question --- are YOU concious??! :)
Israel Flores Consciousness is an emergent property of the neural and other biological activity of living organisms as they interact with their environments. It’s not magic, and asserting that it is doesn’t make it so, and your consciousness sucks at reading other organism’s.
@@Scyllax Lol that's about as sophisticated of an explanation as saying that the earth goes around the sun simply because "it's an emergent property of rock-stuff interacting with sun-stuff in space"...or that the tides occur due to water molecules interacting with non water molecules in the environment :) ...
You could have saved yourself some time/words by simply saying "it just happens because it just does" (with a Southern accent) :) ... Now go collect your Nobel prize for discovering how consciousness works, genius ;)
(I just updated the probability of you being a conscious being to around 50/50) :P :) ;)
Israel Flores I’m glad you are terrible at refuting anything with a Gish Gallop of many misstatements, lies, and fallacies that you want to argue for a month. Miracles, going back to the original topic, are alleged violations of the laws of nature by alleged supernatural agencies. A miracle has never been proved to have ever occurred. Another Gish Gallop and I’m done with you, asshole.
The day may come at some point in the future when humans outgrow being scoundrels then what will we do for entertainment.
church,..god forbid!
I'll probably watch the WIZARD OF OZ. ( Ooops... were there any "scoundrels" in that movie? )
2020 vision
Christianity is the only faith based on the absolute and the probability of one. Prophesies (foretold) years in advance and fulfilled to the letter.
@Stefano Portoghesi When times are hard and human soul get dark, God will send another Christ, to show us how to transcend evil and despair, by not being even more evil and more desperate.
I prefer legend about Golem, creature made from mud, called into life by high priests. They actually did that, when government became to tyrannic or people descended into perversions and did abominable things, they threw some poor guy into mud, gave him nothing but beating and suffering, to make him totally dumb, obedient and evil as Hell. Then they released him to roam around in country side or near some rich person mansions, where he just crashed everything and tare everybody alive into pieces. After people repented, they eliminated poor soul and told everybody demon returned into mud where it came from.
@Stefano Portoghesi you have mentioned 3 of the 44 that were all fulfilled. Let's try to address the 3. Messiah would be born of a woman (Genesis 3:15) Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) Messiah would be heir to King David's throne (Isaiah 9:7 2 Samuel 7:12-13) The genealogy of Jesus Christ can be found in the first chapter of Matthew starting with the first verse. Jesus Christ did not have a biological father. The virgin birth was needed because this bloodline (DNA) was not contaminated with the nephilim.(Genesis 6) According to God's own criteria His prophets had to be 100% accurate every time (Absolute). He fulfilled all 44 hence the probability of One.
@Stefano Portoghesi Simple, people can get crazy, but can't survive for long in that state and can't form efficient society, best way to straighten their minds is by real life example of extremes.
I get many of those, people think i'm some sort of secret service agent or something like that, but it's really just science, philosophy and logic basically, with some talent for intuition and imagination i'm born with and come naturally for me.
@Stefano Portoghesi you are simply missing the whole point of why He was born and why He had to die and why He will return. Most people will believe shown the mathematical probability. You should just read it for yourself if you really want to get closer to the Truth.
@@jamessmith989 wow Jesus was born from a woman! You're right, he must be the messiah!