For those who believe

[MPat]

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.

It is pretty clear that in this case we are not interested in getting our opponent to become insane. We would like to get him to believe that God exists.

The saying states that we cannot achieve that if the opponent really-really-really doesn’t want to believe.

I don’t think the saying you are complaining about means what you want it to mean…

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.

God’s existence will not be seen directly in your scenario either.

And there are many ways to evade the evidence.

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”.

So, end or existence of the world is not sufficiently physical…?

Now, of course, given what I am arguing for, it would be silly for me to expect to persuade you if you do not want to be persuaded. As I have said, the evidence has been given. Now you have to decide if you are going to face it or to evade it.

Of course, if you are going to choose to evade the evidence, there isn’t much left to discuss.

 

[MrSnaith]

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.

An advanced race of aliens must be in orbit of earth and projecting a mass hologram around the earth. They are doing this in collusion with the Catholic Church, and will soon announce an alien saviour. Because this is a clearly undeniable miracle, everyone on earth will convert and become slaves to the universal world order.

You see, an explanation. And if you don’t think there are people who already think this way, well… dig around youtube for a bit, you’ll find them.

Oh, and it took me all of five minutes to rationalize your scenario away.

 

[schaeffer]

Maybe this is too simplistic given the kind of discourse in this discussion, but here goes.

I posit that the scenario suggested in the OP is actually what is taking place. The Universe, in the night sky, and in everything else, clearly 'announces" what it is, our place in it, how it operates, etc etc.

Yet for some reason many people refuse to “see” that and instead resort to all manner of bizarre explanations for pretty much everything. Instead of “reading” what is “written” in them, around them, etc. They seek evidence, not in that, but in the most bizarre anomalies.

To them, proof consists of not what is, but what they find inconsistent with what is. Instead of accepting, and celebrating what is, they reject it and claim it’s better to define the Universe by believing in things there is little to no proof in. Saying that is better than accepting the awesomeness of what is.

Their is also a persistent belief that the only things that “prove” a particular sort of Creator, are the weird things, the things that strangely pertain primarily to people and their particular interests. The “finding a watch on the beach” example gets trotted out. Well, yes, if I found a watch on the beach I would assume a human designed it because a watch is something humans have come up with to address their own particular concerns. What about the Universe points to a personal god other than the anomalies that we are supposed to give credence to above the idea that clearly something concerned with a much wider scope of things is at play, than a god who created all this as an elaborate stage for our human drama.

But…since it’s better to believe by faith alone (though it sure is cool when those anomalous miracles happen) then disregarding what seems so evident to me…is scoffed at and instead I am told to give greater credence to 100 oddities that we can’t find reasonable explanations for at a spring in France.

That’s like me basing the love my mother has for me not on the 10,000 obvious ways she has shown me she loves me, but on her snapping at me angrily on a day she is suffering from a migraine.

"Look! There is proof my mother is a callous unloving b*&$h!

Or assuming that the neighbor who molests me really loves me and has my best interest in mind because one day, after doing unspeakable things to me, I am offered a lollipop before I go home." Well, the truth must be that I am treasured, cherished and cared for, because once I got a lollipop!" or better yet…I NEVER get the lollipop, but since it’s better to believe without proof…I just believe I am treasured, cherished and cared for because it’s better for me to do so.

I look at the Universe every day and am astounded, just taking it at face value. Never fails to amaze me, even when it doesn’t behave the way I don’t expect it to! Meaning, it’s possible to love and believe without the thing behaving contrary to how it usually presents itself.

There is plenty of proof. Indeed, for me the proof is self evident. The idea that I need to look for something opposite of proof, as proof of some idea I’ve become attached to, because being attached to the idea that has no proof is proof that I have faith, which is somehow in and of itself a great thing…seems bizarre to me.

but then I am rather simple minded. . All those mental gymnastics confuse me. Being told to ignore everything I know, see, experience etc in favor of something that shows itself in occasional bursts of weirdness sounds fishy to me.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MPat:

It is pretty clear that in this case we are not interested in getting our opponent to become insane. We would like to get him to believe that God exists.

And what does it have to do with anything? Who is that “we” you are talking about?

MPat:

The saying states that we cannot achieve that if the opponent really-really-really doesn’t want to believe.

No, the saying does not say that. It is just a simple assertion without any qualification about the wish of the recipient.

MPat:

I don’t think the saying you are complaining about means what you want it to mean…

I don’t want it to mean anything special. I am not in the habit of imposing my views on other people’s words. (As I said before, I respect other people, and accept their words at face value, unless there is a “smiley” or a “wink” indicating that they are not serious.) But in this case the meaning is crystal clear. Obviously you are welcome to believe anything what floats your boat.

MrSnaith:

An advanced race of aliens must be in orbit of earth and projecting a mass hologram around the earth. They are doing this in collusion with the Catholic Church, and will soon announce an alien saviour. Because this is a clearly undeniable miracle, everyone on earth will convert and become slaves to the universal world order.

This was no refutation of my stance, on the other hand you just reinforced what I said. Everyone will be converted, as you say - and as I said. Whether there is a “true” miracle, or a perceived one is beside the point. As Arthur C. Clark said: “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. However, I like your critical attitude of trying to poke a hole into a suggested “miracle”. Are you similarly critical when someone recovers from a runny nose at Lourdes, and it is declared a “miracle”?

 

[MrSnaith]

This was no refutation of my stance, on the other hand you just reinforced what I said. Everyone will be converted, as you say - and as I said. Whether there is a “true” miracle, or a perceived one is beside the point. As Arthur C. Clark said: “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. However, I like your critical attitude of trying to poke a hole into a suggested “miracle”. Are you similarly critical when someone recovers from a runny nose at Lourdes, and it is declared a “miracle”?

I think you’re suffering from confirmation bias. The rationalization presented in my post was the hypothetical thought process of an observer of your “irrefutable miracle.” The idea that it is a “clearly undeniable miracle” is how this observer interprets the intent for the holographic projection, and his expectation that the masses will be duped. However, he conceives of himself as immune to such deception, and thus disbelieves in the perceived miracle.

But beyond that even, the likely response of the masses would be to… gasp… not reason it out themselves, but look to the news outlets and scientific communities to explain what they’re observing. Meanwhile, the news outlets and the scientific communities would initially take the position of “well, we’re not exactly sure what we’re seeing,” but would likely suggest they are working on developing hypotheses.

The rational response to observing what appears to be impossible is to look for a natural explanation. People are often hell-bent on proving the impossible possible, and will spend their entire lives dedicated to seeking a possible solution. The very last thing very many people will attribute an unexplained phenomenon to is it being miraculous. And this is usually due to a refusal to accept religious ideas as true.

 

[MPat]

And what does it have to do with anything?

No, the saying does not say that. It is just a simple assertion without any qualification about the wish of the recipient.

I don’t want it to mean anything special. I am not in the habit of imposing my views on other people’s words. (As I said before, I respect other people, and accept their words at face value, unless there is a “smiley” or a “wink” indicating that they are not serious.) But in this case the meaning is crystal clear. Obviously you are welcome to believe anything what floats your boat.

Yes, it is much easier to argue when you engage strawmen instead of actual opinions of opponents. And that is what you are doing. Although it might well be that you have found sufficient rationalisations to trick yourself into believing that is not the case.

Still, even in that case you didn’t say anything about my “amended” version (“we cannot achieve that [getting the opponent to believe that God exists] if the opponent really-really-really doesn’t want to believe.”). Can you find anything wrong with it? It is not as poetic, but I guess you can’t count that as a problem…

Who is that “we” you are talking about?

Why are you asking? You have said that it doesn’t matter what one means by the words, only the words themselves.

Although when the problem was with your own words, you have insisted that what you actually meant had to matter:

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, anything you’d like to say about this…?

Oh, and by “we” I meant everyone who sees the truth of the saying in question.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The point is that you are backpedaling now. I did not engage in a detailed criticism of your hologram-scenario, because you stipulated that everyone - all the skeptics - will change their mind. The original purpose of this thread was not to create the “perfect” miracle, but to show that even the most hard-nosed skeptics will change their mind if the evidence leaves no alternative. Since what you said was in agreemnet with my original post, there was no need to dig any further. Now that you changed the goalposts, we can examine the “hologram” scenario.

MrSnaith:

I think you’re suffering from confirmation bias. The rationalization presented in my post was the hypothetical thought process of an observer of your “irrefutable miracle.” The idea that it is a “clearly undeniable miracle” is how this observer interprets the intent for the holographic projection, and his expectation that the masses will be duped. However, he conceives of himself as immune to such deception, and thus disbelieves in the perceived miracle.

But beyond that even, the likely response of the masses would be to… gasp… not reason it out themselves, but look to the news outlets and scientific communities to explain what they’re observing. Meanwhile, the news outlets and the scientific communities would initially take the position of “well, we’re not exactly sure what we’re seeing,” but would likely suggest they are working on developing hypotheses.

Fortunately the scientific community already has the tools to find out if we face the objective reality or just a picture of it. There is even a technology to find out if a picture is “original” or just a copy. So there can be no confusion if the stars really moved - visibly! at a speed faster than the speed of light - or we are merely “duped” by the hologram. Since the hologram hypothesis can be ruled out in a heartbeat, you need to create another explanation for the stars actually moving around and displaying biblical texts. Good luck.
But I suggest that you answer the actual proposition, not what you would like it to be.

MrSnaith:

The rational response to observing what appears to be impossible is to look for a natural explanation. People are often hell-bent on proving the impossible possible, and will spend their entire lives dedicated to seeking a possible solution. The very last thing very many people will attribute an unexplained phenomenon to is it being miraculous. And this is usually due to a refusal to accept religious ideas as true.

Or to refuse that the religious “explanations” are unsatisfactory. Observe the attempts to reconcile God’s alleged benevolence with the problem of evil. Be careful not to throw bricks around if you live in a glass house.

Of course, you are right that skeptics will try to find a natural explanation. However, faster than light traveling, rearranging the stars is not possible. Not just impossible according to the known laws of the universe, but physically impossible, since it would necessitate an infinite force. And also the reversal of time. Of course God is supposed to be able to create “miracles”, which are not possible in nature, so that would be the only possible explanation.

Now it would “only” prove the existence of something supernatural. The text would be a strong indication for the christian God. If the contents of the Koran would appear, that would point to the veracity of Islam.

MPat:

Yes, it is much easier to argue when you engage strawmen instead of actual opinions of opponents.

Wow… live and learn! So if one responds to what actually has been said, that is a “strawman”… while shamelessly distorting what has been stipulated is the “true” version. Is this an official catholic teaching?

 

[MrSnaith]

The point is that you are backpedaling now. I did not engage in a detailed criticism of your hologram-scenario, because you stipulated that everyone - all the skeptics - will change their mind. The original purpose of this thread was not to create the “perfect” miracle, but to show that even the most hard-nosed skeptics will change their mind if the evidence leaves no alternative. Since what you said was in agreemnet with my original post, there was no need to dig any further. Now that you changed the goalposts, we can examine the “hologram” scenario.

Not backpedaling. Just explaining what I thought was obvious. I freely admit I should have been more clear. My mistake.

Fortunately the scientific community already has the tools to find out if we face the objective reality or just a picture of it. There is even a technology to find out if a picture is “original” or just a copy. So there can be no confusion if the stars really moved - visibly! at a speed faster than the speed of light - or we are merely “duped” by the hologram. Since the hologram hypothesis can be ruled out in a heartbeat, you need to create another explanation for the stars actually moving around and displaying biblical texts. Good luck.

This assumes an advanced alien race doesn’t have the ability to foil our methods. I’d say that’s a pretty big assumption.

But I suggest that you answer the actual proposition, not what you would like it to be.

What is it you think I would like the proposition to be? Maybe I’m just slow, and if I am, I will happily agree to that, but I thought I was answering the actual proposition. Perhaps you could clarify for me.

Or to refuse that the religious “explanations” are unsatisfactory. Observe the attempts to reconcile God’s alleged benevolence with the problem of evil. Be careful not to throw bricks around if you live in a glass house.

If I offended you, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Of course, you are right that skeptics will try to find a natural explanation. However, faster than light traveling, rearranging the stars is not possible. Not just impossible according to the known laws of the universe, but physically impossible, since it would necessitate an infinite force. And also the reversal of time.** Of course God is supposed to be able to create “miracles”, which are not possible in nature, so that would be the only possible explanation.**

I think you would find that among Catholics, the above bolded is not our actual position. God does not violate the laws of nature, which He created. Miracles are not natural impossibilities, though they may certainly be statistical impossibilities. The idea of a miracle is not that it is impossible, but that outside of an intelligent mind intending it, it would not otherwise occur.

 

[MPat]

Wow… live and learn! So if one responds to what actually has been said, that is a “strawman”… while shamelessly distorting what has been stipulated is the “true” version. Is this an official catholic teaching?

That is exactly what I meant by rationalisations.

If you think that you are responding to “what actually has been said”, let’s look what has actually been said. In the original post you have cited this:

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.

After a couple of posts you have replaced it with this:

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”.

This version - for some reason, “Google” doesn’t seem to find it very popular, to say the least (just a couple of cites in this forum; you gave no source for it) - differs from the original one in several ways. And those are exactly the places you have attacked:

It is as definitive and general as it can be. It talks about ALL the believers and ALL the unbelievers.

No, the saying does not say that. It is just a simple assertion without any qualification about the wish of the recipient.

Yes, it is a clear example of strawman fallacy. You have cited the claim you disagree with and then you have explicitly changed it to a different one (strawman). However, even that strawman is too strong, if it can be understood poetically, thus you keep claiming that only the most literal meaning counts…

Not to mention that the way in which you have argued here is rather close to being a counterexample to your own view: looks like you have cited no evidence in favour of your claim (no experiments by psychologists or historical data of things people believe or disbelieve, just further unsupported claims of what would happen and irrelevant claims about Physics), as if it was not necessary, yet dismiss or ignore all evidence to the contrary, as if it was never sufficient.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

MrSnaith:

Not backpedaling. Just explaining what I thought was obvious. I freely admit I should have been more clear. My mistake.

You were crystal clear. This is what you said:

An advanced race of aliens must be in orbit of earth and projecting a mass hologram around the earth. They are doing this in collusion with the Catholic Church, and will soon announce an alien saviour. Because this is a clearly undeniable miracle, everyone on earth will convert and become slaves to the universal world order.

This is just one example of people saying something what they do not mean. Just like “…for those who do not believe no evidence is sufficient”. The usage of the universal operator is “dangerous”.

The funny thing is that I did not question any dogma or doctrine of the church, only pointed out a sloppy phrase, and some people rise up in arms and defend it. What is this conditional reflex? If I would assert that the sky is blue, some would say that it is not blue, it just looks blue…

MrSnaith:

I think you would find that among Catholics, the above bolded is not our actual position.

For most catholics it is. They say: “with God everything is possible”. Do they mean that God can create logically impossible states of affairs? Some actually do, some don’t. But they definitely say that God created the laws of nature, so he can freely violate them.

 

[MrSnaith]

You were crystal clear.

Obviously, I was not.

This is just one example of people saying something what they do not mean.

Actually, this isn’t true. I said what I meant. I just didn’t make it clear that what I was saying was the hypothetical thought process of a skeptic of your scenario. Again, I accept the blame for that error, but I will not accept your false attribution of my words.

For most catholics it is. They say: “with God everything is possible”. Do they mean that God can create logically impossible states of affairs? Some actually do, some don’t. But they definitely say that God created the laws of nature, so he can freely violate them.

Alright, I accept this critique, because it’s possibly true, though I don’t think you could easy prove that most Catholics believe this. But, it’s really not what the Church Herself teaches.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Are you similarly critical when someone recovers from a runny nose at Lourdes, and it is declared a “miracle”?

I didn’t know that was all there was to declaring a miracle at Lourdes–good to know.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MrSnaith]

I didn’t know that was all there was to declaring a miracle at Lourdes–good to know.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html#latapie

 

[SonOfMan]

Its interesting to see that people of one religion will require more evidence for the claims of another religion asserting something, but when it comes to their belief all it takes is “Thats what he said, who heard it from him.”

I think the evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection is extremely weak. I think there is better evidence for Krishna and Sathiya Say Baba than for Jesus, and Christians continue to refuse to believe in those Indian gods. Why the double standard?

 

[MrSnaith]

Its interesting to see that people of one religion will require more evidence for the claims of another religion asserting something, but when it comes to their belief all it takes is “Thats what he said, who heard it from him.”

I think the evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection is extremely weak. I think there is better evidence for Krishna and Sathiya Say Baba than for Jesus, and Christians continue to refuse to believe in those Indian gods. Why the double standard?

If you would like to open up a new thread (so as not to derail this one), please feel welcome to present your evidence and we can discuss it.