For those who believe

[Pallas_Athene]

There was an oft-repeated problematic assertion in the thread about resurrection. I did not want to derail that thread, but the mistake is too frequent to be left unchallenged.

powerofk:

Here’s the thing - for those who already believe, even the smallest amount of evidence is enough. For those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence would be sufficient - they would refuse to believe even if they personally saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes.

While the first sentence is obviously correct, the second one is not. It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity - of course it would be simple for God. The solution is this: every night the stars would be rearranged into a script attesting the veracity of Christian claims, and the language would change every day. The last sentence would be a prediction of which language will be used next time. There is no way that such a stellar configuration could be explained away by even the most determined skeptic. Having all the humanity witness this inexplicable phenomenon, pictures taken of the text, no one could mistake it for mass hysteria - it would be a bona-fide miracle. Personal revelation could be explained away, attributed to hypnosis or having had a bad dream, or whatever… but the public display of - say - the ten commandments is not possible to deny. This would be a much better evidence (objective and physical) than having a personal visitation from Jesus.

Just think about it.

 

[davidv]

There was an oft-repeated problematic assertion in the thread about resurrection. I did not want to derail that thread, but the mistake is too frequent to be left unchallenged.

While the first sentence is obviously correct, the second one is not. It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity - of course it would be simple for God. The solution is this: every night the stars would be rearranged into a script attesting the veracity of Christian claims, and the language would change every day. The last sentence would be a prediction of which language will be used next time. There is no way that such a stellar configuration could be explained away by even the most determined skeptic. Having all the humanity witness this inexplicable phenomenon, pictures taken of the text, no one could mistake it for mass hysteria - it would be a bona-fide miracle. Personal revelation could be explained away, attributed to hypnosis or having had a bad dream, or whatever… but the public display of - say - the ten commandments is not possible to deny. This would be a much better evidence (objective and physical) than having a personal visitation from Jesus.

Just think about it.

I thought about it.

What evidence do you have that the above work as you advertised?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There was an oft-repeated problematic assertion in the thread about resurrection. I did not want to derail that thread, but the mistake is too frequent to be left unchallenged.

While the first sentence is obviously correct, the second one is not. It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity - of course it would be simple for God. The solution is this: every night the stars would be rearranged into a script attesting the veracity of Christian claims, and the language would change every day. The last sentence would be a prediction of which language will be used next time. There is no way that such a stellar configuration could be explained away by even the most determined skeptic. Having all the humanity witness this inexplicable phenomenon, pictures taken of the text, no one could mistake it for mass hysteria - it would be a bona-fide miracle. Personal revelation could be explained away, attributed to hypnosis or having had a bad dream, or whatever… but the public display of - say - the ten commandments is not possible to deny. This would be a much better evidence (objective and physical) than having a personal visitation from Jesus.

Just think about it.

Jesus had followers who -literally- watched him raise a man from the dead, only to turn away from him shortly thereafter because of what he asked of them. He made blind men see, lame men walk and cured the sick, all within full public view of the Pharisees and Jewish people, and despite all that they still denounced him. Judas, who was with Christ through all of his miracles and works, still chose Earthly things over the man he’d seen perform countless miracles.

The -shadows- of the Apostles healed people, it didn’t even take an action on their part, all they had to do was cooperate with the grace Christ gave them. Droves of people would clamor just to get close enough to touch the tassels of their robes. Everywhere they went they provided undeniable proof to the people who converted, and “no proof” to those who did not.

There have been countless miracles throughout the centuries, they still happen today. Lourdes, in France, has had over 100 confirmed miracles (ones for while there was no possible natural explanation available); and several thousand proposed miracles which, while still appearing miraculous, might possibly have a natural explanation and as such are not counted in the official tally.

No, that statement is quite correct. To those of us with faith these miracles are simply the natural outpouring of God’s love. For those without faith no quantity of miracles, no matter how astounding they may be, would be convincing enough. (Again, referring to Lourdes, there was one woman for whom we have photographic evidence of the miracle. Her face was eaten away by a bacteria. There was a significant portion of her face missing. She submerged herself in the waters of Lourdes and reemerged completely healed, her face regrown.) I understand why you would think like this, that a massive, showy display would convert people, but I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Think back to the Egyptians, and the ten plagues. I don’t think you can get more “showy” than that, but still the Egyptians did not convert, nor even rethink their position. Even the temporary change of heart that came after the deaths of the firstborn sons was quickly revoked, and Pharaoh once again set himself against God.

You say the stars aligning would be undeniable proof. For you, that may be true; for me, all I need to see is the ordered nature of creation to have undeniable proof. Despite the fact that I personally feel that the structure of existence -more- than proves a creator, there are countless who see the same order I do and attribute it to chaos and random chance. People who do not wish to believe will rationalize away any proof, no matter how flimsy their rationalizations may be.

 

[SJacob7]

There was an oft-repeated problematic assertion in the thread about resurrection. I did not want to derail that thread, but the mistake is too frequent to be left unchallenged.

While the first sentence is obviously correct, the second one is not. It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity - of course it would be simple for God. The solution is this: every night the stars would be rearranged into a script attesting the veracity of Christian claims, and the language would change every day. The last sentence would be a prediction of which language will be used next time. There is no way that such a stellar configuration could be explained away by even the most determined skeptic. Having all the humanity witness this inexplicable phenomenon, pictures taken of the text, no one could mistake it for mass hysteria - it would be a bona-fide miracle. Personal revelation could be explained away, attributed to hypnosis or having had a bad dream, or whatever… but the public display of - say - the ten commandments is not possible to deny. This would be a much better evidence (objective and physical) than having a personal visitation from Jesus.

Just think about it.

Mark 8:12

He (Jesus) sighed from the depth of his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Amen, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”

 

[MPat]

While the first sentence is obviously correct, the second one is not. It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity - of course it would be simple for God. The solution is this: every night the stars would be rearranged into a script attesting the veracity of Christian claims, and the language would change every day. The last sentence would be a prediction of which language will be used next time. There is no way that such a stellar configuration could be explained away by even the most determined skeptic. Having all the humanity witness this inexplicable phenomenon, pictures taken of the text, no one could mistake it for mass hysteria - it would be a bona-fide miracle. Personal revelation could be explained away, attributed to hypnosis or having had a bad dream, or whatever… but the public display of - say - the ten commandments is not possible to deny. This would be a much better evidence (objective and physical) than having a personal visitation from Jesus.

Just think about it.

You are underestimating human creativity.

There is a very simple way to explain all that away. And you almost guessed it:

no one could mistake it for mass hysteria

But you do not need “mass hysteria”. Sceptic can simply claim that he himself is insane and hallucinating everything - including the whole world claiming they see a miracle.

 

[Ignatius]

While the first sentence is obviously correct, the second one is not. It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity - of course it would be simple for God. The solution is this: every night the stars would be rearranged into a script attesting the veracity of Christian claims, and the language would change every day. .

There is plenty of evidence for the vast majority of people who have ever lived. If I pick up a marble out in the desert I don’t think, oh a random combination of elements has constructed this marble, it is far too complex to have happened in that way. Anyone who does not want to deny it can see that.
Additionally, why do you think the Creator of everything that exists hasn’t come up with a way that everyone who desires to know can, and those who don’t want to acknowledge God, let them deny it. God did not to create us to be robots. If you want to know, you have to seek it, He’s not going force it on you to make it so you can’t deny it.

Think about it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

Sceptic can simply claim that he himself is insane and hallucinating everything - including the whole world claiming they see a miracle.

Actually, even a most hopelessly insane person believes his own insanity - in his own eyes he is perfectly sane. When something unexpected occurs, the first thing people do is compare their own perception with other peoples’ observation. Especially today, when everyone can make a picture of the event with their own smart phones and keep it for later reference. With modern communication at hand everyone could establish that everyone else experienced the same phenomenon.

davidv:

What evidence do you have that the above work as you advertised?

It should be obvious. Since time immemorial people have been observing the stars. The laws of celestial movements have been very firmly established since Newton. There is absolutely no discernible pattern in the arrangement of the stars - the zodiacial signs are just the result of imagination. Now to see personally the stars to move, and display a message in all the different human languages would be something against the very firmly established laws of the universe. That would be a true first-hand miracle - unlike those hearsay stories which are only convincing for those who already believe.
ProdiglArchitect:

You say the stars aligning would be undeniable proof.For you, that may be true; for me, all I need to see is the ordered nature of creation to have undeniable proof.

All you proved that different people have different standards. You keep bringing up anecdotal evidence from stories, and you find them sufficient. Even if there would be properly established instances of regeneration of a few lost limbs - and there are none! - that would not be a “miracle”. We are well aware that biological creatures have regenerative powers (you can cut a planaria in half, and both parts will regenerate fully.), so “biologically based” miracles are immediately disqualified. There are no known “laws” of biology, like there are in physics. The conservation laws are extremely well established, moving objects faster than the speed of light is impossible according to our knowledge, not just unlikely. Of course God is not supposed to be constrained by the laws of physics, so he could create real miracles, which go against the laws of physics. Just like the one I delineated in the OP.

The most important difference between the alleged “miracles” and the hypothetical event described in the OP is that we deal with a real public event, moreover, an ongoing event. Not some faraway land a long time ago, when something strange is supposed to have happened; where there were no means of mass-communication. No one can deny the testimony of their own senses, especially when it is constantly confirmed by millions of other people.

I have one question: on what grounds do you (all) think that you are qualified to make judgments about what is and what is not a sufficient evidence for other people (especially skeptics)? Have you ever been a skeptic? If you were then there was something that changed your mind… if you have never been a skeptic, then how can you speak for them? Don’t you think that it is presumptious and beyond your scope of competence to judge what others find a compelling evidence?

Maybe you have this misconception that skeptics have a “hardened heart” or a vested interest and are dead set against accepting evidence, no matter how observable, repeatable and undeniable it might be. Of course that is not the case. Skeptics simply find the offered evidence inadequate. That is why I constructed the scenario, which is everything a skeptic would want: objective, observable, repeated, physically impossible and totally astonishing.

 

[MPat]

Actually, even a most hopelessly insane person believes his own insanity - in his own eyes he is perfectly sane. When something unexpected occurs, the first thing people do is compare their own perception with other peoples’ observation. Especially today, when everyone can make a picture of the event with their own smart phones and keep it for later reference. With modern communication at hand everyone could establish that everyone else experienced the same phenomenon.

If you are trying to persuade me that such scepticism wouldn’t be reasonable, there is no need for that - I already think so. If you think that such reasoning would persuade the sceptic himself, then, um…

If you are in mood for a joke, there is explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/776:_Still_No_Sleep . If you are not in mood for a joke, look for threads about solipsism. For example, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=620002 , forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=944833 , forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=943646… As you can see, persuading solipsists that they are wrong is not so easy (to say the least). And the scepticism in question is almost indistinguishable from solipsism.

Even if there would be properly established instances of regeneration of a few lost limbs - and there are none! - that would not be a “miracle”. We are well aware that biological creatures have regenerative powers (you can cut a planaria in half, and both parts will regenerate fully.), so “biologically based” miracles are immediately disqualified.

OK, that seems to be completely unreasonable. But that is irrelevant, we are not discussing that.

There are no known “laws” of biology, like there are in physics.

Like the Laws of Mendel…?

The conservation laws are extremely well established,

They are. But they can be violated for a very short time (because of Heisenberg’s inequality). And, by the way, how exactly do you know that they are “well established”?

moving objects faster than the speed of light is impossible according to our knowledge, not just unlikely.

Actually, it is not impossible. Some strange things would happen (for example, the velocity would increase after the particle (tachyon) loses energy), and it probably means that such things won’t happen, but it is not as certain that it is impossible, as you claim.

Also, how certain are you of that “our knowledge”…?

Of course God is not supposed to be constrained by the laws of physics, so he could create real miracles, which go against the laws of physics. Just like the one I delineated in the OP.

Which laws do you have in mind?

The most important difference between the alleged “miracles” and the hypothetical event described in the OP is that we deal with a real public event, moreover, an ongoing event. Not some faraway land a long time ago, when something strange is supposed to have happened; where there were no means of mass-communication. No one can deny the testimony of their own senses, especially when it is constantly confirmed by millions of other people.

There is the Eucharistic miracle of Sienna (therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Siena.pdf). It is ongoing. You can check it.

I have one question: on what grounds do you (all) think that you are qualified to make judgments about what is and what is not a sufficient evidence for other people (especially skeptics)? Have you ever been a skeptic? If you were then there was something that changed your mind… if you have never been a skeptic, then how can you speak for them? Don’t you think that it is presumptious and beyond your scope of competence to judge what others find a compelling evidence?

Maybe you have this misconception that skeptics have a “hardened heart” or a vested interest and are dead set against accepting evidence, no matter how observable, repeatable and undeniable it might be. Of course that is not the case. Skeptics simply find the offered evidence inadequate. That is why I constructed the scenario, which is everything a skeptic would want: objective, observable, repeated, physically impossible and totally astonishing.

Oh. I see how a misunderstanding could have happened. The claim you cited does not mean that every single non-Catholic is completely immune to all evidence. It means that if someone really doesn’t want to be persuaded, no evidence will help us to persuade him against his will.

So, when I referred to a “sceptic”, that was the kind of unbeliever that I had in mind.

And there are some people who openly claim that they really do not want to believe. For example, Thomas Nagel has said that he wants atheism to be true (you can have a look at a post by Edward Feser about it - edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/who-wants-to-be-atheist.html).

 

[wcknight]

Folks who believe see God’s work and miracles all around them. Folks who do not, want to make up something that they think God won’t or can’t do. Yes God could do some of the craziest things that you might dream up but He chooses not to.

Why??? That’s not how He operates, He expects us to have faith. Faith is believing something that has uncertainty. It does not take any faith to believe something that we already know is a fact. Faith takes courage to open yourself to the possibility that you may be wrong. Jesus says blessed are those who have NOT seen but still believe.

IF you have first hand knowledge of an event, you know it to be true because you have experienced it by being there, but if you just hear about it, you have to rely on your trusting the veracity of the messenger.

So your scenario of the cosmos acting in some predetermined way may satisfy you and the folks who happen to see it but what about future generations, they would have to see something similar again or something equally unbelievable. The miracles you want to see, may not satisfy other skeptics. Everyone has their own criteria as to what is enough. But when you die, do you think it will be enough to say, I just did not experience the wonderful miracles that I wanted to see.

Hearing about Jesus’ miracles or any of the many past miracle workers, was not enough. Do you think God will say okay, maybe you did not get enough proof or will he likely say, you had the prophets, you had the stories about my Son and my saints, but you simply chose to ignore them. You had plenty of proof, but you choose to believe a lie instead… too bad, so sad…

 

[StrawberryJam]

I thought about it.

What evidence do you have that the above work as you advertised?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

The claim you cited does not mean that every single non-Catholic is completely immune to all evidence.

Let’s try to establish a common ground for the purposes of the conversation. I am not concerned about the reaction of insane people. Universal skeptics and solipsists would be insane - if such people woud actually exist.

There is no precisely “set” wording for the claim. It usually goes like this: “For those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who do not believe, no evidence is sufficient”. It is as definitive and general as it can be. It talks about ALL the believers and ALL the unbelievers. Is it sloppy? I think so. But I take it as it is presented. My claim in the OP was that no sane person can maintain his skepticism in the face of the presented thought experiment.

MPat:

It means that if someone really doesn’t want to be persuaded, no evidence will help us to persuade him against his will.

I disagree. To be persuaded by some claim is not the result of a volitional process. Let’s go back to those who are alleged solipsists. As soon as someone claims to be a solipsist, his very words will refute his own claim. After all, to whom does he talk? To himself? Then he is insane. To someone else? Then he is not a solipsist. There are no “real” solipsists. All you have to do to convince a pseudo-solipsist about his mistake is to deliver a firm kick in her butt (or his groin as the case may be). Of course I talk only about sane people. A real solipsist or a universal skeptic are simply insane.

The laws of physics do not allow macro objects to move faster than the speed of light (we are not talking about hypothetinal tachyons). In fiction we can talk about “wormholes in the space” so if such a phenomenon would be possible then the stars could be collected from afar to create a special pattern. But for that pattern to depict passages of the Bible, in different languages changing every day is simply an impossibility - without some godly miraculous intervention.

All the different “miracles” quoted by the believers are simply unconvincing. Not because someone is dead-set against them, but there is always a simpler possible explanation. Just recall the claims of Uri Geller, who asserts that his sleight-of-hand magic is really due to some paranormal powers. Of course it is not impossible that such powers exist, but since these “tricks” can be performed by “normal” magicians, it is a simpler explanation that he is a just a charlatan. The concept of Occam’s razor cannot decide if a claim is correct or not, it just suggests that the simpler explanation (the one with fewer assumptions) should be taken as a null-hypothesis.

I am sure that such a demonstration would be an extremely traumatic experience for many people. It is quite possible that some might go insane. But no one can maintain his sanity and deny the evidence presented by his senses; especially when their experience coincides with the observation of everyone else.

---

There are a few off-topic remarks about WHY God does not perform a miracle like this. Please do not try to derail the thread. The topic is simply a hypothetical scenario, which would be convincing for all the skeptics - at least I think so, and so far I was not presented with an alternate outcome.

 

[MPat]

Let’s try to establish a common ground for the purposes of the conversation. I am not concerned about the reaction of insane people. Universal skeptics and solipsists would be insane - if such people woud actually exist.

We can certainly agree that solipsism and related views are not rational. But I don’t think I am capable of diagnosing mental disease from that “symptom”…

There is no precisely “set” wording for the claim. It usually goes like this: “For those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who do not believe, no evidence is sufficient”. It is as definitive and general as it can be. It talks about ALL the believers and ALL the unbelievers. Is it sloppy? I think so. But I take it as it is presented.

In the original post you have cited “for those who already believe, even the smallest amount of evidence is enough. For those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence would be sufficient”. Things you say here do not apply to it.

Also, I’d say it is pretty clear that the version you have cited now uses hyperbole and is not to be understood that literally.

I disagree. To be persuaded by some claim is not the result of a volitional process.

Why not? You cite no evidence in support of this claim (and it is a pretty important claim). But if being persuaded has nothing to do with will, how do you explain, let’s say, “wishful thinking”?

Let’s go back to those who are alleged solipsists. As soon as someone claims to be a solipsist, his very words will refute his own claim. After all, to whom does he talk? To himself? Then he is insane. To someone else? Then he is not a solipsist. There are no “real” solipsists.

I’d say you should try an experiment. Start a thread about solipsism in this subforum, get in a discussion with some solipsist, and report back the findings.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

We can certainly agree that solipsism and related views are not rational. But I don’t think I am capable of diagnosing mental disease from that “symptom”…

What is your diagnosis, then? Hopelessly delusional? It is perfectly simple that if someone declares: “I am a solipsist”, then he is either a liar, or completely delusional, since he attempts talk to someone who only exists in his imagination. And that would be a clinically insane person. And I think that to talk to or about liars and/or insane people would be a waste of time.

MPat:

In the original post you have cited “for those who already believe, even the smallest amount of evidence is enough. For those who refuse to believe, no amount of evidence would be sufficient”. Things you say here do not apply to it.

Also, I’d say it is pretty clear that the version you have cited now uses hyperbole and is not to be understood that literally.

Sorry, I am not interested in hyperboles. I take what people say as they say it. Obviously if someone would say that committed atheists are very hard to convince about the errors of their ways, that would be a completely different proposition. Of course I would offer the same solution, or something similar to show that anyone can be convinced with the proper tools.

MPat:

Why not? You cite no evidence in support of this claim (and it is a pretty important claim).

Indeed it is a very important claim. But there is no need for any special proof or evidence. We all know (or should know) that most of our mental processes happen in the “white cells” and only a small amount resides in the famous “little grey cells” so fondly mentioned by Hercule Poirot. However, the necessary proof is at your fingertips. Try to convince yourself about some outrageous claim, which you know is a ridiculous one, and see if you can succeed. You cannot “will” yourself to accept a claim that you know is untrue. I have to confess that I was itching to point out that the phrase “refuse to believe” in the quoted text is incorrect. One cannot volitionally believe or disbelieve. I decided to let it pass, just to save space. Maybe it was a mistake to make that omission. Or just observe yourself how quickly you respond to sudden danger (perceived or real). You would react without consciously contemplating: “is it an oncoming car there, or maybe I am mistaken”?

MPat:

But if being persuaded has nothing to do with will, how do you explain, let’s say, “wishful thinking”?

Wishful thinking is nothing, but a hope for things one wishes if they were true. (Look up Hebrews 11:1) It is a sign of delusion. Maybe you thought about optical illusions, like a mirage? We all trust our senses, there is no other way. When you see an ice-storm, you do not go out to the beach to take a refreshing dip in the peaceful waters. When you smell rotting meat, you don’t think: “how yummy that steak smells”. We are all hard-wired to accept the testimony of our senses, it is a simple biological method of survival.

MPat:

I’d say you should try an experiment. Start a thread about solipsism in this subforum, get in a discussion with some solipsist, and report back the findings.

What could come out of such an attempt? There can be no discussion with a solipsist, only with one who either pretends to be a solipsist (which would be a liar) or firmly believes that I am merely a figment of his imagination, in which case he would be insane.

But I think this solipsism has nothing to do with the topic. I am interested in your point of view, how could a sane person disregard the testimony of his own senses and the testimony of everyone else in the presented hypothetical scenario.

 

[MPat]

What is your diagnosis, then? Hopelessly delusional? It is perfectly simple that if someone declares: “I am a solipsist”, then he is either a liar, or completely delusional, since he attempts talk to someone who only exists in his imagination. And that would be a clinically insane person. And I think that to talk to or about liars and/or insane people would be a waste of time.

I am not a psychiatrist and I am not going to diagnose mental diseases of people whom I haven’t met for no good reason. I can simply say that they are wrong.

Sorry, I am not interested in hyperboles.

As you wish. Your interests are the matter of taste, there is no point to argue about that.

I take what people say as they say it.

Then you are going to end up miscommunicating often. People are not going to stop using hyperbole, sarcasm, grotesque and other rhetorical or poetical devices just because you do not like them. Especially if they are not speaking with you specifically.

Obviously if someone would say that committed atheists are very hard to convince about the errors of their ways, that would be a completely different proposition. Of course I would offer the same solution, or something similar to show that anyone can be convinced with the proper tools.

Wouldn’t it be easier to demonstrate that “anyone can be convinced with the proper tools” by persuading your opponent…?

Indeed it is a very important claim. But there is no need for any special proof or evidence.

I cannot agree with that. But anyway, you are presenting an argument, thus that is moot.

However, the necessary proof is at your fingertips. Try to convince yourself about some outrageous claim, which you know is a ridiculous one, and see if you can succeed. You cannot “will” yourself to accept a claim that you know is untrue.

But your claim is not “It is not just will that participates in being persuaded.”, it is “Will never participates in being persuaded.”. Anything less than that is not sufficient to support your position.

And an inversion of “Will never participates in being persuaded.” is “Will can participate in being persuaded.”. But it cannot be disproved by showing that will doesn’t always override everything else in the most extreme cases.

To take an analogy, will does participate in lifting things. But while I can lift a Teddy bear or fail to lift it whenever I want, I cannot lift a car whenever I want. Will participates, but will alone is not enough. Similarly, I cannot persuade myself that 2 and 2 is 5, but I can persuade myself of truth or falsehood of P=NP whenever I want. It is not hard: if I want to persuade myself that P!=NP, I can concentrate on the fact that no one has ever found an algorithm that solves NP-complete problems in polynomial time. And if I want to persuade myself that P=NP, I can concentrate on the fact that no one has ever found a proof that such an algorithm is impossible.

Therefore, will does participate in being persuaded.

I have to confess that I was itching to point out that the phrase “refuse to believe” in the quoted text is incorrect. One cannot volitionally believe or disbelieve. I decided to let it pass, just to save space. Maybe it was a mistake to make that omission. Or just observe yourself how quickly you respond to sudden danger (perceived or real). You would react without consciously contemplating: “is it an oncoming car there, or maybe I am mistaken”?

Reflexes have little to do with persuasion.

Wishful thinking is nothing, but a hope for things one wishes if they were true. (Look up Hebrews 11:1) It is a sign of delusion.

No, wishful thinking is not the same thing as hope. Have a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking and the sources cited there.

Also, it looks like you are going to classify a vast majority of humanity as “deluded”, “insane” and unworthy of discussion with you. Which makes me wonder - did you come to this forum in hope of finding someone who wouldn’t be like that…?

What could come out of such an attempt? There can be no discussion with a solipsist, only with one who either pretends to be a solipsist (which would be a liar) or firmly believes that I am merely a figment of his imagination, in which case he would be insane.

I see. Yes, if you start with such a view, there is little to be gained by such discussion.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is very simple to create a perfect evidence for Christianity . . .

You may have missed the point of Christianity.

:twocents::

God is Love.
There is nothing in the type of the universe you would like to see, that would prove this reality.
We grow in love as we grow in Christ, thereby hoping to enter into eternal communion with the Trinity.

Christ’s death and resurrection are of supreme importance in different ways:

• as an expression of God’s infinite love for us, His children (and enemies)
• He takes on our sins and pays the price that we might share in His love
• through His having become one of us, we are redeemed
• He conquered death
• as a demonstration that God, who is Love, is all powerful.

Simply the reality of His resurrection is sufficient to allow us all the opportunity to enter into paradise, whether or not we are aware of it, on the basis of the graces granted us by the Holy Spirit.
This is bit more complicated than stated since, as we become more loving persons, we come to know Him (and vice versa).
Bottom line: in those situations that you face in life, choose to love.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

But your claim is not “It is not just will that participates in being persuaded.”, it is “Will never participates in being persuaded.”. Anything less than that is not sufficient to support your position.

That was NOT my claim. I said that no matter how hard you try to “will” to accept something that you firmly believe is not true, you will fail to convince yourself.

MPat:

I see. Yes, if you start with such a view, there is little to be gained by such discussion.

If you are interested in conversing with someone who denies your very existence, that is your business.

It is interesting that you disregarded the last paragraph of my previous post, where I explicitly asked to discuss the topic of the thread. As you wish, of course. You are under no obligation to participate in discussing the topic. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and have a very nice day.

 

[MPat]

It is interesting that you disregarded the last paragraph of my previous post, where I explicitly asked to discuss the topic of the thread. As you wish, of course. You are under no obligation to participate in discussing the topic. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and have a very nice day.

You mean this one?

I am interested in your point of view, how could a sane person disregard the testimony of his own senses and the testimony of everyone else in the presented hypothetical scenario.

I am not entirely sure how that is different from the question that I have already answered, but I’ll try to guess…

One guess is that you have your own definition of “sane” in mind. In that case the answer is trivial: you have effectively defined “insane” as someone who would refuse to be persuaded, therefore, everyone you would classify as “sane” will believe.

Another guess is that by this “how” you are asking about the process that would let one disbelieve, other than becoming a solipsist. Yes, I can think of other ways. For example, constantly looking down or staying inside, claiming that everyone else is a liar, claiming that it would be a “God of the gaps” argument and that “Science!!!” will eventually explain everything…

And yes, it is not unlikely that it would not be good for their mental health under any definition…

That was NOT my claim. I said that no matter how hard you try to “will” to accept something that you firmly believe is not true, you will fail to convince yourself.

So, you do agree that will can have some influence on being persuaded? OK.

And I guess that the claim as you have stated now might be close to truth. In general, people do not want to accept that they firmly believe to be false. They want to keep their beliefs. Sometimes even when evidence doesn’t support them.

And it is so in your example - people wouldn’t be trying to deny something they believe, but to keep their beliefs against the evidence.

Thus, while your claim as stated here might be true, it does not support the rest of your view.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

One guess is that you have your own definition of “sane” in mind. In that case the answer is trivial: you have effectively defined “insane” as someone who would refuse to be persuaded, therefore, everyone you would classify as “sane” will believe.

Very bad guess, and it assumes a whole lot of dishonesty on my part.

MPat:

Another guess is that by this “how” you are asking about the process that would let one disbelieve, other than becoming a solipsist. Yes, I can think of other ways. For example, constantly looking down or staying inside, claiming that everyone else is a liar, claiming that it would be a “God of the gaps” argument and that “Science!!!” will eventually explain everything…

Another bad guess. It is pretty much impossible to avoid all interaction with the outside world. Solitary confinement for extended periods of time will lead to insanity.

But I will help you, and list quite a few more people who are not included in my sloppily presented “ALL”. Those who are blind; those who have a very low IQ (say about 40); newborns and infants; those who are permanently kept in a dungeon chained to the wall; the ones who are in persistent vegetative state… and probably quite a few more would not be persuaded by the stipulated thought experiment. It is obviously my fault that I presumed that people will understand what I intended to say without going into all the painstaking detail necessary for a disclaimer of a dangerous product, so the company will not be sued. I did not think that there is a need to produce legalistic precision.

So, let me be clear. I am talking about those people, who do not believe in God, who are even scared that such a being could exist, and have infinite power over them. But they are willing to investigate all the evidence, pro and con, and let the chips fall where they may. Who examined all the available evidence presented so far and find them wanting. Who want objective, physical evidence. In my experience when one “demands” (figuratively speaking, of course) physical evidence for the supernatural, it is waved aside by stipulating that there cannot be a prisical evidence for the non-physical.

MPat:

And I guess that the claim as you have stated now might be close to truth. In general, people do not want to accept that they firmly believe to be false. They want to keep their beliefs. Sometimes even when evidence doesn’t support them.

If the evidence is weak, that may be possible. But no one can deny the evidence of their senses. It is possible that for some people the experience would be so traumatic that they would commit suicide, or “escape” (figuratively, of course) into insanity or into some catatonic state. Very strange things can happen when someone’s whole worldview collapses due to undeniable evidence. Fortunately for believers this is not possible, because one cannot provide physical evidence for nonexistence. And the logical evidence (for example the silence of God, or the apparent lack of caring of God can be explained away rather easily).

That is why I chose a miracle on a cosmic scale. Simple parlor tricks like resurrection can be faked by competent magicians. Manipulating celestial objects is not possible.

 

[MPat]

Very bad guess, and it assumes a whole lot of dishonesty on my part.

Well, that’s what I could think of… But where do you see any dishonesty here? What exactly is wrong in using the definition you actually prefer?

Another bad guess. It is pretty much impossible to avoid all interaction with the outside world. Solitary confinement for extended periods of time will lead to insanity.

OK, so you are asking the same question - “Can someone ‘normal’ deny the obvious and overwhelming evidence?” - that I have already answered (“Yes, for conventional definition of ‘normal’.”)? Yes, you do not like that answer, but it has been given, hasn’t it?

Yet you still insist I must give an answer. That’s why I tried to discover what else you could have meant. But now it looks like you just want me to give the answer you like - or am I misunderstanding something again?

If the evidence is weak, that may be possible. But no one can deny the evidence of their senses. It is possible that for some people the experience would be so traumatic that they would commit suicide, or “escape” (figuratively, of course) into insanity or into some catatonic state. Very strange things can happen when someone’s whole worldview collapses due to undeniable evidence. Fortunately for believers this is not possible, because one cannot provide physical evidence for nonexistence. And the logical evidence (for example the silence of God, or the apparent lack of caring of God can be explained away rather easily).

So, are our answers even that different? You say that strong evidence disproving someone’s beliefs might lead to insanity, thus someone who was not insane might end up insane. I say that, well, in some cases such evidence would not lead to change of beliefs, but in that case insanity might follow. Isn’t that a different way to say the same thing?

So, let me be clear. I am talking about those people, who do not believe in God, who are even scared that such a being could exist, and have infinite power over them. But they are willing to investigate all the evidence, pro and con, and let the chips fall where they may. Who examined all the available evidence presented so far and find them wanting. Who want objective, physical evidence. In my experience when one “demands” (figuratively speaking, of course) physical evidence for the supernatural, it is waved aside by stipulating that there cannot be a prisical evidence for the non-physical.

OK, so, let’s put it this way: shouldn’t things like that be decided by experiments?

Yet I know that there are many experiments about Confirmation bias (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), Self-serving bias (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias), Self-deception (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception), Selective perception (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception), Cognitive dissonance ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ) etc. Such things do exist. Can they overcome evidence that is that overwhelming? I wouldn’t be surprised if they could.

At the very least, it is not something unimaginable - even the last “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” episode (“Tanks for the Memories”) included a short instance of something like that (denial of hibernation of tortoises - against expert opinion, observation of yawning etc.) as a plot device.

Finally, there are some examples that are pretty close, if not even stronger: predictions of the end of the world. One might be able to avoid evidence in your scenario, but how does one escape existence of himself and the world around him? And yet look at “When Prophecy Fails” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails), Great Disappointment (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment). Or the Catholic Answers tract catholic.com/tracts/stumpers-for-the-jehovahs-witnesses. As you can see, evidence can often be evaded and disproved theories can be patched up and believed anyway.

I’d say the evidence is pretty clear. Now it is your turn to decide what to do with it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

So, are our answers even that different? You say that strong evidence disproving someone’s beliefs might lead to insanity, thus someone who was not insane might end up insane. I say that, well, in some cases such evidence would not lead to change of beliefs, but in that case insanity might follow. Isn’t that a different way to say the same thing?

You see, that just underscores what I was saying. The evidence in such cases is not weak, it is overwhelming. Let’s not forget the original assertion, which said: “for those who do not believe, no evidence is sufficient”. Implicitly it asserts: “no evidence is sufficient to change the person’s mind”. I would say that the evidence is SO sufficient that - in some cases - the person is unable to handle it, and he became insane. So they changed their mind. There are three possibilities (at least theoretically):

1. the evidence convinces the person, and he changes his mind.
2. the evidence is so traumatic and convincing, that the person cannot disregard it, but cannot cope with it, and goes insane.
3. the person simply acts as if nothing happened, and disregards the evidence.

It is my contention that this third possibility is inapplicable in the case of a properly designed and executed miracle. One cannot pluck one’s fingers in the ear and sing: “La, la, I can’t hear you” when the evidence “literally” hits one on the head.

I want to emphasize something. When I present such a hypothetical scenario, it is not “set in stone”. I attempt to make it as correct as possible, but (not being omniscient) I cannot make it perfect. In this case I did not foresee the possibility of a blind person, who is unable to see the sign in the sky. In such a case the miracle also could include to cure the blindness. In other words, if a person is unable to experience the physical experience (due to some deficiency) that could be remedied.

MPat:

Finally, there are some examples that are pretty close, if not even stronger: predictions of the end of the world. One might be able to avoid evidence in your scenario, but how does one escape existence of himself and the world around him? And yet look at “When Prophecy Fails” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails), Great Disappointment (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment). Or the Catholic Answers tract catholic.com/tracts/stump…vahs-witnesses. As you can see, evidence can often be evaded and disproved theories can be patched up and believed anyway.

Well, the ones who believed that the world WOULD end, obviously cannot maintain their belief that the world actually DID end. So the physical evidence proved for them that the prediction was erroneous. The fact that they will set a new deadline is an admission that the original prediction WAS wrong. They did not maintain the original hypothesis, they created a new one - which will again be proven wrong. What this process shows is a significant level of delusion, which could be called a form of insanity.

Certainly, some people do maintain that the Holocaust did not happen, or the Moon landing was just a fabrication. They are given the historical or second hand evidence, but that is not the same as actual, touchable, physical evidence. Those who were present in Dachau, or in Houston never denied that the events transpired. Sure, for sane people people it is sufficient evidence, but the deluded ones will keep on believing that it was manufactured. That is why the historical or hearsay or second-hand evidence is excluded in capital cases. There is a qualitative difference between directly experienced evidence and second-hand evidence.

MPat:

OK, so you are asking the same question - “Can someone ‘normal’ deny the obvious and overwhelming evidence?” - that I have already answered (“Yes, for conventional definition of ‘normal’.”)?

Sorry, but I must have missed it (and still cannot see it). Besides, what is a conventional definition of “normal”? And I did not simply talk about “obvious and overwhelming evidence”, rather about “obvious and overwhelming physical evidence, which does not need interpretation, which does not go away, which is there any time anyone wishes to ascertain its existence”.