I thought you were referring to your own “Millennials are lazy and entitled” statement. Mea maxima culpa.I notice that you did not answer my question. Do you think the statement was included to get a reaction?
Do you want proof beyond all doubt? It sounds like you only want proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the examples you provided could be conjured up by some infinitely more technologically advanced alien species with the capacity to hear your thoughts and then spontaneously brought into existence before you. Your “proof” will always be insufficient for someone. When I was a staunch atheist, I would have remained unconvinced. It may be sufficient “proof” for you, but why is your standard the standard that should be met? Why not my unattainable standards for proof? The point is that two factors are at play: the proof and our reception of it. There is reasonable proof for the existence of a god. But if you remain unreceptive, it’s unlikely anything will persuade you, as @Peebo said.I thought I would start a thread by explaining the view of a non-believer about miracle claims and what would need to be demonstrated to convince me. First, there is the question of what a miracle claim would convince me of, since a miracle could be done (some say) by another god, or a demon. For the sake of this discussion I will say that I would presume, after seeing evidence of an actual supernatural event, that it was cause by the spiritual being to whom prayers were directed prior.
You introduced the Millennial generation into this discussion unbidden. If you don’t like the OP’s attitude that’s one thing, but you decided to diss everyone in the 19-38 year old range. It was rude, and it added nothing to the discussion.I associate people who expect others to do their legwork for them as being a common trait in millennials. It isn’t fair to generalize, although I seem to encounter it several times daily.
I would say not even transcendent, just immaterial. For example, can the OP prove humans dream ? (dreams exist)If you have difficulty with the concept of the transcendent, this is going to be a tough sell.
Exactly, so any human reports of the inner life that are not perceived by the senses, such as imagination, emotion, artistic inspiration, etc will “not mean anything useful”.Anecdote is not something I accept as evidence unless it can be repeated as an experience under experimental conditions.
Thus the stories of all people about all non-material human experience do not represent evidence.Stories written years after the events they purport to report in an entirely different language from the participants do not represent evidence. They are stories of no more value than any other stories.
Hebrews 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”The point is that evidence of the sort I describe does not cause me to believe and is, therefore, not evidence.
Possibly, but having rejected all evidence that currently exists, it is unlikely.I could be persuaded.
Would it not be necessary to first prove that “imagination” exists?The word “miracle” literally means “any happening that is beyond imagination,
??if God does miracles to demonstrate his presence and power, why does he do not do miracles that demonstrate his presence and power?
He does not. The biggest miracles are those of conversion and inner healing, and cannot meet your standards of “proof”. If a person is healed of resentment and learns to forgive by the Power of God, how can you “prove” this one way or the other?Why does he do only miracles that could have a natural explanation?
This does not make sense. You are referring here to the matter of intention, which you cannot prove exists, either.And even if you believe they could not have a natural explanation (like deceit, delusion, trickery, mis-description etc) why does he not do miracles that could not possibly be fake?
Exactly! Prove, using your very narrow standards, the existence of intention and motivation.These so-calledmiracles promoted by the Church convince no one not disposed to believe already. So what are they for? Why would God bother?
How about if there was a more recent miracle, seen by many more than at Fatima, actually recorded and investigated, with no known natural explanation found.As already mentioned, the miracle of Fatima cannot be explained as being only natural. Neither can the incorruptibles. Neither can the healings at Lourdes, France. Neither can Eucharistic fasts. There are others. Where is your explanation?
Absolutely 100% false. Knowledge of something does not negate free will. Please explain how knowing something exists means you no longer have free will to follow it?This is a non-question. Futile. If there WERE a miracle that would convince everyone of the existence of God or any other religious belief, it would be contrary to free will. So there is no such thing–we have free will, so there is no absolute proof or God. It’s up to you (free will…) whether you want to believe or not.
How about we give an answer first. It’s pretty straight forward.Way too many factors to consider to answer that question. What so-called miracle are you hinting at?
The Fatima ‘miracle’ is ill-defined and poorly reported. Different people say different things. There are many examples of crowd delusions. This could easily be one. ‘Miracles’ that could happen naturally don’t impress me. Note that few if any protestants have been persuaded by the ‘evidence’. The Padre Pio and Futon Sheen miracles are also things that could happen naturally, or they are poorly attested (as for example in claims of bi-location). If God wants to demonstrate his power, why does he not do miracles that not only ‘do not have’ any clear natural explanation but miracles that ‘cannot have’ any such explanation. Most of the miracles in the Bible are of the latter kind. Why such unimpressive miracles today?If you did indeed read the article and read the reports associated with the cases then perhaps you can tell me on what basis you dismiss the miracle at Fatima and the miracles associated with Padre Pio and Fulton Sheen.
Why would a God who took this approach do miracles then?All miracles require faith. FiveLinden, apparently you have not been given that gift. Proof is the opposite of faith. If you want to learn the truth about Jesus Christ, ask for it. Jesus will not force anyone to believe but he wants all to believe. Ask and you shall receive.
I am not talking about non-material experiences. These may exist but I don’t know. I am talking about experiences in which matter (bodies, the sun, etc.) is claimed to have been changed in ways that could not occur naturally.Thus the stories of all people about all non-material human experience do not represent evidence