Do the sophisticated theologians believe in those miracles in the N.T

[JP_Borberg]

B&B (is that what you prefer to be called),

What do you mean by ‘debunked’?

Debunking means disproving. That is not the way you have used it here.

You said:

when a belief is ***debunked ***by either science or another belief, then, the previous belief should humbly be let go.

I’ll paraphrase other quotes for simplicity.

1. When I ask how science could ‘debunk’ the possibility of miracles (although the question could be extended to theism in general), you say that their possibility could simply be dismissed as inexplicable. Two points: i) it is not the possibility that is inexplicable, and ii) ‘simple dismissal’ is not the same thing as disproof.

As your other points weren’t directly about the possibility of miracles, I won’t go into them, but I must point out that it isn’t only atheists who “want to learn how things work”, and like facts and that. You can probably tell I’m not an atheist. And if there is a God, then it’s the theist who has the better explanation of what’s going on.

1. I actually meant ‘at what point in history since Gregor Mendel died (the most recienly deceased on the list at about 120 years) did ‘science’ ‘debunk’ the possibility of miracles’, as this is what you alluded to having happened in you post at 1:14. You’ll find that it has never actually happened. Both science and modern philosophy have also failed to conclusively disprove the existence of God.
2. You said you lose respect for teachers who are theists, but claimed to respect great theist scientists because they lived in the past. You justified this discrepancy wieth your comments about beliefs ‘debunking’ beliefs.

When I ask how a belief could disprove a belief, you say “When I stated beliefs debunking another, I was referring to religious conversions, such as an Atheist going Christian” (at 5:46).

Beyond the fact that changing a belief is not the same as disproof, I object that this is a non sequitur. A personal conversion has nothing to do with theism being respectable for people born at one time, and a cause to loose respect for someone born a few years later.

The fact I’m trying to demonstrate is that it is impossible to coherently argue that the possibility of miracles or the existence of God can be disproved by science or by some ‘other belief’, as both God and His works are outside of the field of enquiry of natural science, and believing something isn’t the same as proving it.

Respectfully

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You have to remember that there are people who don’t believe in God. Those are the people who want to learn how things work; who want the facts, the clues, the evidence, etc in order to draw up their own conclusion.

Ironically Yours.

Did you pay any attention to what bilop was trying to tell you before? Most of the ‘‘people who want to learn how things work; who want the facts, the clues, the evidence in order to draw up their own conclusion’’ (like Newton, Mendel, Copernicus, etc.) were religious people who did in fact believe in God.

The fact that you lose some respect for any teacher who reveals that he/she is religious is an irrational prejudice that you should immediately begin to expunge from yourself.

 

[Detales]

I have to wonder about the claim that

“,And if there is a God, then it’s the theist who has the better explanation of what’s going on.”

That would allow that a “creationist” has a better understanding ot some orders of things than an atheistic scientist. Also St Augustin warned about the pious spouting faith as an answer to observable phenomenon.

Yet another factor might be that as Catholics in particular, we militate against the vaguely Gnostic cosmologies. They are, of course theists, and yet their understanding of God is profaondly different that that of any christianist. Same goes for various pagan and pantheist beliefs.

Yet another factor is the inadaquacy of language to have coherency with observable reality. Remember, we are habituated in the use of languages that are of priimitive origine and have not been adjusted to even our current knowledge of the physical universe. How much so can they then be accurate in speaking of the Spiritual. Most folks have no clue of the hidden contradictions in our languages, though a speiaker of two dissimilar languages at least has the opportunity to know experientialy that “Idem non idem.” (The same thing–in one language–is not the same–as in another) That at least ought to be a clue, because neither language i s false, necesarily buyt has both overlaps, omissions, and non-shared inclusivities relative to another language.

Not only does this lack of linguistic coherency effect out perception of matter, it also is a serious deterent to describing even to ourselves what our experience is, or how to cntrol it. Thati si demonstrated by a simple knowlwdge of NLP. A practitioner of that can reduce a raging phobia, PTSD, or other mental trauma in a matter of minutes simply byt guiding the client through a linguistic pattern. I have experienced this. In fact, I postulate that much of the argumentation on here woud dissapear if we had a coherent language for discribing our interiour life. Certainly the admonition to Know Thyself is not a small matter to be easily dismmised in the quest for salvation or Truth.

That is why I continually advocate introspection, and sure, talk with the other person, but for Gods, or Truth’s sake, lay off! I have no greater admiration than for those on her who have a degree of forebearance in conversation about what certainly are emotioanlly leaded positions.

Sorry for misspellings, etc., I fired this off before work without editing it.

 

[PJM]

I think that depends on the person, but when Dawkins says the word “sophisticated,” he basically means to refer to “people who know better than to take an inexplicable phenomenon and say an imaginary force did it.”

I kind of see his point. For me, personally, whenever a respected teacher tells me they are religious, I cannot help but lose a tiny bit of respect for them. :sad: I’m not sure why, but I really side with Dawkins on this one.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Reading these post reminds me, that it’s been too long since I THANKED My Creator, for NOT making me too smart

All to often, “intellect” gets in the way of truth.

Having stated this, one is not obligated to “believe” in all the NT miracles, except a few

God does exist!

God is TRIUNE (One nature three co-equal God’s)

Jesus is God

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and therefore the “Mother of God”

The Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist

These we MUST believe!

By why stop thereopcorn:

God is LOVE, God is and has to be “all Good”…

So where is the bad / evil miracle?

So why not believe:banghead:

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Did you pay any attention to what bilop was trying to tell you before? Most of the ‘‘people who want to learn how things work; who want the facts, the clues, the evidence in order to draw up their own conclusion’’ (like Newton, Mendel, Copernicus, etc.) were religious people who did in fact believe in God.

The fact that you lose some respect for any teacher who reveals that he/she is religious is an irrational prejudice that you should immediately begin to expunge from yourself.

Oh, trust me; I don’t like losing respect for others. I really don’t enjoy feeling uncomfortable in the presence of my teachers (or anybody for that matter), but I deal with it.

Besides, it’s not a prejudice; it’s more of a state of awe.

Ironically Yours.

P.S. People from those times were most likely put to death or imprisonment for heresy/atheism. I can’t assume anything until we every get the evidence, but it’s a safe statement.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

The fact I’m trying to demonstrate is that it is impossible to coherently argue that the possibility of miracles or the existence of God can be disproved by science or by some ‘other belief’, as both God and His works are outside of the field of enquiry of natural science, and believing something isn’t the same as proving it.

Respectfully

Oh, nobody can disprove or prove God. I never said I was going to “debunk” God, either; just miracles.

But, of course, not many scientists go crazy to disprove something they already don’t believe in.

 

[JP_Borberg]

Oh, nobody can disprove or prove God. I never said I was going to “debunk” God, either; just miracles.

I never said you were going to ‘debunk’ God. But, when referring to why historic theists merited respect, while contemporary ones don’t, you said:

… They were from an earlier time; they didn’t know any better.

There is always a time and place to believe in a certain something, no matter what it may be. But when a belief is debunked by either science or another belief, then, the previous belief should humbly be let go.

I never said you were going to ‘debunk’ God.

I did ask you when and how ‘science’ ‘debunked’ miracles or (by extension) God, thus warranting a loss of respect for those who insist on believing in Him.

As far as I can tell, you haven’t answered. Actually, you seem to be claiming to have said something different every time you post, such as equating dismissal with debunking and a loss of respect with a sense of awe.

This seems… confused.

Respectfully

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I never said you were going to ‘debunk’ God. But, when referring to why historic theists merited respect, while contemporary ones don’t, you said:

I never said you were going to ‘debunk’ God.

I did ask you when and how ‘science’ ‘debunked’ miracles or (by extension) God, thus warranting a loss of respect for those who insist on believing in Him.

As far as I can tell, you haven’t answered. Actually, you seem to be claiming to have said something different every time you post, such as equating dismissal with debunking and a loss of respect with a sense of awe.

This seems… confused.

Respectfully

I did answer. I mentioned the ten plagues of exodus… well, if you consider plagues by God and miracles by God two of the same.

But, a few days ago, I did find this blog on my boring school days:

evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-can-disprove-miracles.html

That’s all I can give you now because I don’t dedicate my life to disproving miracles, but it’s something.

 

[JP_Borberg]

One question was:

at what point in history since Gregor Mendel died (the most recently deceased on the list at about 120 years) did ‘science’ ‘debunk’ the possibility of miracles’

So your reply

I did answer. I mentioned the ten plagues of exodus…

is not actually a answer. The ten plagues are not the possibility of miracles.

Hence

You haven’t answered. Actually, you seem to be claiming to have said something different every time you post… This seems… confused.

BTW, a blogger who doesn’t believe anything they consider to be a miracle has happened is not the same thing proof.

Respectfully

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

One question was:

So your reply

is not actually a answer. The ten plagues are not the possibility of miracles.

Hence

BTW, a blogger who doesn’t believe anything they consider to be a miracle has happened is not the same thing proof.

Respectfully

Perhaps not in your eyes or the eyes of others, but it is the easiest thing I can give you.

I could easily tell you to read books from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and so on. It’s quite the burden, but will you do it? Probably not. And if you did, would believe it? Of course not.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[JP_Borberg]

Perhaps not in your eyes or the eyes of others, but it is the easiest thing I can give you.

I see. Easy vs true and easy won.

That’s sad.

I never realised giving a straight answer to a straight question was so hard.

Respectfully

 

[fhansen]

Perhaps not in your eyes or the eyes of others, but it is the easiest thing I can give you.

I could easily tell you to read books from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and so on. It’s quite the burden, but will you do it? Probably not. And if you did, would believe it? Of course not.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

I’ve read Dawkins and have no idea why anyone would believe him just because they read him-much of what he says is simply not credible.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

I see. Easy vs true and easy won.

That’s sad.

I never realised giving a straight answer to a straight question was so hard.

Respectfully

Honey, you wouldn’t have liked the straight answer… not that you’d believe it, anyways. It’s cool, though. Beliefs just don’t just come and go over night.

 

[JP_Borberg]

Honey, you wouldn’t have liked the straight answer… not that you’d believe it.

An unlikely reason seeing as your false answers have failed to either please or convince me.

Why don’t you give the real ones a try?

1. *How *can ‘science’ or ‘other beliefs’ ‘debunk’ the possibility of miracles?
2. When in history, since the death of Gregor Mendel, were miracles in general disproved.

Look. I know the real answer to those questions make your original statements look silly. But believing real things is a lot easier than tying your head on knots in order to maintain rubbish.

Your position is untenable, although I’d love to see you prove me wrong, if you can. You’re obviously only pretending to have not tried, and it would help you a lot if you just admitted it.

Respectfully

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

An unlikely reason seeing as your false answers have failed to either please or convince me.

Why don’t you give the real ones a try?

1. *How *can ‘science’ or ‘other beliefs’ ‘debunk’ the possibility of miracles?
2. When in history, since the death of Gregor Mendel, were miracles in general disproved.

Look. I know the real answer to those questions make your original statements look silly. But believing real things is a lot easier than tying your head on knots in order to maintain rubbish.

Your position is untenable, although I’d love to see you prove me wrong, if you can. You’re obviously only pretending to have not tried, and it would help you a lot if you just admitted it.

Respectfully

Yikes! Cut me some slack. I’m only seventeen. Here goes:

The next time a miracle happens (whatever a “miracle” is anyways), I’ll let you know. However, I must say that the only miracles that come to mind are the bloody hosts and the Hindu milk miracle. Only the bloody hosts were investigated scientifically; I don’t remember the details and many claim it was merely an urban legend, so that is up to you.

Debunking the possibility of a miracle is almost impossible; if miracles truly exist, then, I would imagine they are unpredictable and can happen at any time… depending on your definition of a “miracle.”

Last I checked, Mendel passed in the 1800s (is that right?). If that is correct, then I could not say because no miracles have ever happened… except for that Hindu milk miracle I mentioned earlier.

If you’re referring to biblical miracles, it all depends on the people gullible enough to believe in such stories:

youtube.com/watch?v=RqjB31xiE9k

But, don’t take my word for it, or Harris’ words, for that matter. Think for yourself.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[JP_Borberg]

Thank you B&B. We now (finally) have something to discuss.

Thank you for admitting that ‘science’ cannot disprove either the existence of God or the possibility of miracles. I hope you can see the contradiction between this admission and your justification to lose respect for your religious teaches merely because

when a belief is debunked by either science or another belief, then, the previous belief should humbly be let go.

Surely there is no reason to look down on someone for being a theist if (in your opinion) theism and atheism are equally unproven. Personally, I found the discovery that no one had actually managed to disprove the existence of God to be an immensely liberating experience that eventually (through a period or real agnosticism) allowed me to get to know Him. I hope something similar happens for you.

Just to clarify, I do maintain that there are some very stupid religions, and some very stupid religious people. But then, there are also both clever and stupid atheists, and some very clever theists who profess very noble religions. Experience (and history) shows that whether or not a person is a theist has nothing to do with how smart they are.

As for biblical miracles, if the real God is the one that the Bible is about, you’d be gullible if someone convinced you not to believe them, so I’d be very careful with that word if I were you.

Sam Harris got it wrong in the clip you linked to. Catholicism was never based on a book written decades after the events, so his arguments don’t even touch our real position. But I’m glad you referred to him, because if you accept his ‘conversational intolerance’ then you won’t mind my insistence on honest answers.

Religion needs to be discussed freely, but also honestly, grounded on reality and seeking truth. Everything else is a waste of time. I hope Sam would agree.

Lastly, I don’t really get into apparitions and miracles so I don’t know much about specific instances, but the most widely witnessed, most-difinate-that-something-happened-but-‘science’-can’t-say-exactly-what miracle from (very) modern times that I know of is the miracle of the sun at Fatima in 1917.

Even if they do eventually come up with a plausible explanation, how did the kids know it was going to happen exactly on that day…?

Remember: most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion. That goes for you as well as me.

Yours respectfully

 

[RobbyS]

I think that depends on the person, but when Dawkins says the word “sophisticated,” he basically means to refer to “people who know better than to take an inexplicable phenomenon and say an imaginary force did it.”

I kind of see his point. For me, personally, whenever a respected teacher tells me they are religious, I cannot help but lose a tiny bit of respect for them. :sad: I’m not sure why, but I really side with Dawkins on this one.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

No, he means people who think that every event has a natural cause, even though it cannot be explained in such terms. To a degree that is a necessary assumption for a scientist. It is only when an event that cannot be explained by any scientific theory
is positively ponounced to be natural tht the scientist steps beyond bounds. The real scientist ought to be prepared to be agnostic when it is obvious that we are totally ignorant of most of what happens in the natural world. Emile Zola, the French skeptic and writer, was shown controvertible evidence of an instanteous reconstruction of a man’s shinbone at Lourdes but refused to accept it as fact. A scientists should be respectful of facts and not be handicapped by a stubborn adherennce to a philosophical view. Philosophic materialism hardly makes sense if we accept that there is so much beyond our senses and that what lies beneath a material surface is something that is not “matter” but events that we can only know indirectly through contemplation of mathematical models.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Remember: most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion. That goes for you as well as me.

Yours respectfully

Haha! I see you like my signature.

But, don’t think I favor one over the other… oh, and I’m not an Atheist-- I need to make that very clear. :yup:

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[MGLechner]

So, by “sophisticated theologians” I imagine Dawkins is refering to people like, John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan. All of these so called “sophisticated theologians” have done great damage to the cause of Christ by attempting to rewrite the faith so that it squares with their own biases and prejudices. I for one have no reason to reject the realm of the miraculous (Although, I have questioned certain claims from time to time). I believe we live in a open system that makes room for Divine intervention. I suppose the greater miracle is that so many people have latched onto the thoughts of Richard Dawkins, and seem to read him as an infallible source when it comes to the study and promotion of Atheism.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Blade and Blood, you write, re Dawkins, that you think re sophisticated theologians, he : -

"basically means to refer to “people who know better than to take an inexplicable phenomenon and say an imaginary force did it.”

First of all the force cannot be “imaginary”. Whatever or Who-ever, the force is, or Wherever it comes from, the Big Bang, (Who was behind that?) The First Cause, (Who was behind that?)or God Almighty (Doesn’t need anyone behind him, as he simply “IS”) It certainly comes or else there would be nothing. In fact there wouldn’t even be that!

You also say, “I kind of see his point. For me, personally, whenever a respected teacher tells me they are religious, I cannot help but lose a tiny bit of respect for them. :sad: I’m not sure why, but I really side with Dawkins on this one”

So, you lose respect for the Spirit led Apostles, Fathers of the Early Church, the finest, most sophisticated theologians, thinkers, philosophers of their own, and the present time, because they say they are religious and you agree with Dawkin, hardly a sophisticated theolgian, and certainly not ranked as anything like the genius that was Augustine, Aquinas or the like.

Your quotes at the bottom of your post

Firstly :- “Most men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion”.

That, in a nutshell is what the Jewish Religious Leaders did to Christ. They crucified the Son of God who was and is “The Truth”. It is also true of Dawkin, as to believe in God would blow away his entirely human and finite reasoning and explanations about infinite, incomprehensible things

Secondly: - "Everyday people are straying away from the church and going back to God.

An admittedly amusing quote by another Jewish Person, Lenny Bruce, who rather than straying from the Church was instead thrown out of every venue he ever played for his blasphemous act, and then “strayed” into toilets to inject himself with drugs and die.

Yep, he knew what he was talking about.

God bless

Jimmy Two Guns

, The Essential Lennie Bruce, 1972