Proof for Richard Dawkins?

[josh987654321]

Thank you all for your replies.

When I quoted Richard about “The ordinary Church goer believes deeply in miracles and it’s largely miracles that persuade that person into the Church in the first place.”

I don’t agree with him, I believe miracles play an important role, but that it’s not simply due to miracles my apologies if it looked like I implied that I agree with it.

I mainly wished to share with people this documentry called Science Tests the Faith - youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI to show that there is scientific evidence for miracles out there, especially in regard to the eucharistic miracles.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If God can create the universe and life, then every other miracle is minor by comparison, is a virgin birth a problem after creation?

 

[miguel]

Well, for one thing, Dawkins doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says “… it’s largely miracles that persuade that person into the church in the first place…”

That’s a load of absolute drivel, in typical Dawkins fashion. God calls people into the Church, and it appears that so far He hasn’t seen fit to call in Richard Dawkins. I’m not surprised frankly.

People only start accepting the miracles of Christ, Marian apparitions, healing, demonic presences, etc. AFTER they enter the church.

As someone who grew up Catholic, I do think Dawkins has a point here. Miracles made a huge impression on my faith. Without them, I’d have no idea how to discern the fact that Jesus is God. The miracles are crucial in this. God knows what he’s doing. He knows we’re naturally skeptical of anyone coming up to us in the street with claims of divinity. So he proved his divinity with miracles. And they have strengthened my faith. Eyewitnesses saw these events and recorded them for posterity. Who else has this kind of power but God? I don’t. And the Church survived for 2000 years in the teeth of ferocious persecution because God said it would. No other institution on earth can make that claim. God Bless.

 

[miguel]

If God can create the universe and life, then every other miracle is minor by comparison, is a virgin birth a problem after creation?

I love this…absolutely right. What is the parting of the Red Sea after creation of the universe? Trivial in comparison. But still way beyond human abilities. All miracles are way beyond human abilities. But human abilities are also amazing…playing guitar like Jimi, Stevie Ray, EC, or Derek Trucks. These are gifts from God…they border on the miraculous maybe, but they don’t display anything like dominion over the natural laws that humans are subject to. God Bless.

 

[weller2]

Richard Dawkins say’s “The ordinary Church goer believes deeply in miracles and it’s largely miracles that persuade that person into the Church in the first place, If there are miracles they are to be judged by scientific means, if there was a virgin birth, if somebody was raised from the dead, these are strictly scientific claims, and they’d be difficult to verify, but as I’ve said in the book ‘The God Delusion’ if you could imagine hypothetically DNA evidence could be discovered, showing that Jesus never had a father, that Jesus was born of a virgin, than can you imagine any theologian saying “oh no, not relevant, seperate magistirea science has no bearing on this case” of course they wouldn’t, science has every bearing on this case.”

Ah, Richard Dawkins at his finest – Y chromosome is inherited from one’s father. Therefore, if the alleged sample from Jesus’s body had Y chromosome Dawkins would claim that there was no virgin birth, and if the sample had no Y chromosome, Dawkins would say that it was from a female, which would mean it was not from Jesus. Win-Win for Richard Dawkins!

It reminds me of a small epiphany I had while reading atheist literature discussing the issue (I think it was Sam Harris). I realized that even if you produced a methodologically valid proof of the miracle, “professional skeptics” would still reject it, by altering the test criteria ex post.

Then I remembered that something like that has happened before, with the Viking probe which landed on Mars in 1976. The probe carried four experiments to detect life, including one called a “labeled release experiment” (Google if you want details). Criteria for the detection of life were set before flight. Viking lands on Mars, does the experiment, and the result, despite being weird, meets the pre-agreed criteria for detecting life on Mars. But, three other experiments have a negative, the result is not quite what was expected, so the “professional skeptics” have redefined the test criteria and announced that definitely there is no life on Mars.

The skeptics have practically won that one for 20 years, until someone has found a Martian meteorite with what looked like fossilized bacteria (ALH84001).

So, yeah, beware of professional skeptics.

NB – I actually don’t believe in Eucharistic miracles, because you cannot prove that nobody has tampered with the sample before it went to the lab.

 

[weller2]

youtu.be/7b3EP4pB_3E

youtube.com/watch?v=AwQ-_g8KuHI

 

[Memaw]

Well, males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes. God is omniscient and omnipotent and, if he wanted, could have created Jesus as being the genetic son of Joseph even if Joseph would not play a part in his conception. I am not wed to the interpretation. I don’t think it’s true. I don’t see it as inherently problematic, though.

This goes back to my point about looking for and expecting a scientific explanation for miracles. Why do we do this? I don’t see a need to take Christ’s reception of humanity from Mary as Christ’s genetic identity with Mary.

EDIT: I realize Peter Plato hit my point exactly.

Seems we try so hard to pin God down to our point of view. When will we ever realize HE is so far above us we will never solve HIS Divine Mysteries. Jesus I TRUST in THEE, You have all the answers. God Bless, Memaw

 

[HardRockGTR]

Coming from an agnostic, I can happily say, with past experiences reading things Dawkins has said, that the man is either an idiot, a charlatan, or a combination of both.

Scientists really are baffling beings. It’s like they single-handedly prove that intelligence and stupidity aren’t mutually exclusive and in fact, neighbors. On one hand, Dawkins brought us the idea of memetic mutation. On the other, he can’t even understand Aquinas’ arguments, comes up with irrelevant conclusions to his own syllogisms, and treats God, from the get-go, as a contingent being. Of course you arrive to his conclusions if you equate God to contingency.

Same for Carl Sagan. Brilliant astrophysicist (and, unlike Dawkins, a man I can actually admire). Pot smoker and advocate.

 

[newenglandsun]

Hi,

I was watching a debate on youtube between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox about his book “The God Delusion” when I noticed at 34:00 when he talks about ‘miracles’

youtube.com/watch?v=Domm1mvTEh0

Richard Dawkins say’s “The ordinary Church goer believes deeply in miracles and it’s largely miracles that persuade that person into the Church in the first place, If there are miracles they are to be judged by scientific means, if there was a virgin birth, if somebody was raised from the dead, these are strictly scientific claims, and they’d be difficult to verify, but as I’ve said in the book ‘The God Delusion’ if you could imagine hypothetically DNA evidence could be discovered, showing that Jesus never had a father, that Jesus was born of a virgin, than can you imagine any theologian saying “oh no, not relevant, seperate magistirea science has no bearing on this case” of course they wouldn’t, science has every bearing on this case.”

Some of our skeptical brothers and sisters basically say, if you could prove the virgin birth, it would be proof enough.

The thing is, there is a documentry I watched called “Signs from God” on the Fox Network that was aired in 1999 by Mike Willesee, which contains the Stigmata of a lady named Katya Rivas on film and a statue of Christ weaping tears and blood also on film, they also feature a Eucharistic miracle in argentina (flesh and blood grew on the bread like bacterial growth), the statue was also put under a CAT (CT) scan to find any mecognisms that would explain the bleeding and weeping in which they found none.

The other thing, is that the blood from this statue was put under scientific investigation (studied by several pathologists who are refferenced in the youtube link Science tests the Faith, who had no idea what they were studying to eliminate biases), in which it had no DNA profile, something which all DNA has, somethign which traces our mather and father, something which I believe would prove the virgin birth, they also did the same with the Eucharistic miracle in Argentina and it also had no DNA profile. You can watch it here on youtube - **Science Tests the Faith **- youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

For more information please go here youshallbelieve.com/ and read this short pdf. youshallbelieve.com/A-plea-to-humanity.pdf

What do you guys think?

Thank you for reading
Josh

i am skeptical that richard dawkins could have debated anyone…he doesn’t exist…there’s no proof of him

 

[miguel]

Coming from an agnostic, I can happily say, with past experiences reading things Dawkins has said, that the man is either an idiot, a charlatan, or a combination of both.

Scientists really are baffling beings. It’s like they single-handedly prove that intelligence and stupidity aren’t mutually exclusive and in fact, neighbors. On one hand, Dawkins brought us the idea of memetic mutation. On the other, he can’t even understand Aquinas’ arguments, comes up with irrelevant conclusions to his own syllogisms, and treats God, from the get-go, as a contingent being. Of course you arrive to his conclusions if you equate God to contingency.

Same for Carl Sagan. Brilliant astrophysicist (and, unlike Dawkins, a man I can actually admire). Pot smoker and advocate.

So what’s the difference between agnostic and deist? I thought deists firmly believe God exists, that he created the universe, but doesn’t care what happens to us, his creatures, after that? And you say you are now agnostic? And agnostics aren’t athiests. How is that different from deism?

 

[HardRockGTR]

So what’s the difference between agnostic and deist? I thought deists firmly believe God exists, that he created the universe, but doesn’t care what happens to us, his creatures, after that? And you say you are now agnostic? And agnostics aren’t athiests. How is that different from deism?

Agnosticism and deism are both umbrella terms, and agnosticism isn’t just concerned with belief in God. Agnosticism maintains that nothing is really knowable, let alone whether God exists. In a way, agnosticism is really a synonym for philosophical or religious skepticism.

Some agnostics believe there is a God, others don’t, and many just have no idea or are apathetic (apatheism). In fact, probably the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are in fact agnostics. However, an agnostic will not assert anything with what he or she currently knows, because one believes that humanity is too naturally ignorant to make any veritable, falsifiable claim. In a way, it’s very Socratic. There are “weak” agnostics and “strong” agnostics. The weak variety will tell you that the truth is unknown, but isn’t necessarily unknowable. In contrast, Pyrrho was a strong agnostic in that he believed that you could not assert anything because nothing is truly knowable,* including* that very belief. Personally, I’m very Pyrrhic in my way of thinking, but I don’t think I’m a strong agnostic, as theoretically, a perfectly powerful God can eliminate any shadow of doubt within a skeptical mind through revelation. That said, if said God truly, objectively exists, it is possible to know the truth (however, I agree with Descartes, who was also heavily inspired by Pyrrho, in that rationality, like the senses, can fool and mislead you).

Deism, on the other hand, is like theism in that a deist assumes belief in at least one deity, but is less strict regarding the omnibenevolence of said deity. Deists also believe that we can determine whether God exists by observing nature and through logic and rationality (which most theists do as well). It’s a more liberal way of seeing God, as a deist can hold that God may love us, but it’s not certain, or God has either abandoned us (like Pascal believed) or is just apathetic regarding our existence, that humanity is a byproduct of the universe’s creation and that the universe exists for some greater purpose (like Voltaire believed). Regarding afterlife, deists can have varying beliefs as well; some believe that there is redemption or damnation depending on how well you lived your life (determining what is moral is approached in a Hegelian way in that like determining whether God exists through study and observance of the universe, it’s possible to have an idea of what is ethical and what isn’t), whereas others don’t necessarily believe in an afterlife (like long-time atheist Anthony Flew, who near the end of his life he became a deist, but still maintained that there was no afterlife).

All in all, agnosticism and deism aren’t “religions” (as are any other form of belief when it comes to deities) as much as they are individual beliefs or “doctrines”, if you will. In fact, I’m an agnostic but I tend to lean more towards belief in deities and/or spirits. However, since I am still mostly agnostic, I can’t even begin to fathom what these deities or spirits are, let alone their nature. Because of this, I still technically am a deist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi,

I was watching a debate on youtube between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox about his book “The God Delusion” when I noticed at 34:00 when he talks about ‘miracles’

youtube.com/watch?v=Domm1mvTEh0

Richard Dawkins say’s “The ordinary Church goer believes deeply in miracles and it’s largely miracles that persuade that person into the Church in the first place, If there are miracles they are to be judged by scientific means, if there was a virgin birth, if somebody was raised from the dead, these are strictly scientific claims, and they’d be difficult to verify, but as I’ve said in the book ‘The God Delusion’ if you could imagine hypothetically DNA evidence could be discovered, showing that Jesus never had a father, that Jesus was born of a virgin, than can you imagine any theologian saying “oh no, not relevant, seperate magistirea science has no bearing on this case” of course they wouldn’t, science has every bearing on this case.”

Some of our skeptical brothers and sisters basically say, if you could prove the virgin birth, it would be proof enough.

The thing is, there is a documentry I watched called “Signs from God” on the Fox Network that was aired in 1999 by Mike Willesee, which contains the Stigmata of a lady named Katya Rivas on film and a statue of Christ weaping tears and blood also on film, they also feature a Eucharistic miracle in argentina (flesh and blood grew on the bread like bacterial growth), the statue was also put under a CAT (CT) scan to find any mecognisms that would explain the bleeding and weeping in which they found none.

The other thing, is that the blood from this statue was put under scientific investigation (studied by several pathologists who are refferenced in the youtube link Science tests the Faith, who had no idea what they were studying to eliminate biases), in which it had no DNA profile, something which all DNA has, somethign which traces our mather and father, something which I believe would prove the virgin birth, they also did the same with the Eucharistic miracle in Argentina and it also had no DNA profile. You can watch it here on youtube - **Science Tests the Faith **- youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

For more information please go here youshallbelieve.com/ and read this short pdf. youshallbelieve.com/A-plea-to-humanity.pdf

What do you guys think?

Thank you for reading
Josh

Dawkins, Hawking, etc. are nothing but snake oil salesmen for the mindless, university class, wallowing in narcissism, drugs, sex, who seek a rational justification for their insanity.

Linus2nd.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Deism, on the other hand, is like theism in that a deist assumes belief in at least one deity, but is less strict regarding the omnibenevolence of said deity. Deists also believe that we can determine whether God exists by observing nature and through logic and rationality (which most theists do as well). It’s a more liberal way of seeing God, as a deist can hold that God may love us, but it’s not certain, **or God has either abandoned us (like Pascal believed) **or is just apathetic regarding our existence, that humanity is a byproduct of the universe’s creation and that the universe exists for some greater purpose (like Voltaire believed).

I wish I knew where you got this notion about Pascal. Pascal was a deeply devoted Catholic who, while recognizing the difficulty of proving God’s existence to atheists, posed the argument that it is difficult for atheists to refute: namely, that if you cannot prove God does not exist (and you can’t) you reject God at your own peril. Only a fool does that according to Pascal.

 

[miguel]

Agnosticism and deism are both umbrella terms, and agnosticism isn’t just concerned with belief in God. Agnosticism maintains that nothing is really knowable, let alone whether God exists. In a way, agnosticism is really a synonym for philosophical or religious skepticism.

Some agnostics believe there is a God, others don’t, and many just have no idea or are apathetic (apatheism). In fact, probably the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are in fact agnostics. However, an agnostic will not assert anything with what he or she currently knows, because one believes that humanity is too naturally ignorant to make any veritable, falsifiable claim. In a way, it’s very Socratic. There are “weak” agnostics and “strong” agnostics. The weak variety will tell you that the truth is unknown, but isn’t necessarily unknowable. In contrast, Pyrrho was a strong agnostic in that he believed that you could not assert anything because nothing is truly knowable,* including* that very belief. Personally, I’m very Pyrrhic in my way of thinking, but I don’t think I’m a strong agnostic, as theoretically, a perfectly powerful God can eliminate any shadow of doubt within a skeptical mind through revelation. That said, if said God truly, objectively exists, it is possible to know the truth (however, I agree with Descartes, who was also heavily inspired by Pyrrho, in that rationality, like the senses, can fool and mislead you).

Deism, on the other hand, is like theism in that a deist assumes belief in at least one deity, but is less strict regarding the omnibenevolence of said deity. Deists also believe that we can determine whether God exists by observing nature and through logic and rationality (which most theists do as well). It’s a more liberal way of seeing God, as a deist can hold that God may love us, but it’s not certain, or God has either abandoned us (like Pascal believed) or is just apathetic regarding our existence, that humanity is a byproduct of the universe’s creation and that the universe exists for some greater purpose (like Voltaire believed). Regarding afterlife, deists can have varying beliefs as well; some believe that there is redemption or damnation depending on how well you lived your life (determining what is moral is approached in a Hegelian way in that like determining whether God exists through study and observance of the universe, it’s possible to have an idea of what is ethical and what isn’t), whereas others don’t necessarily believe in an afterlife (like long-time atheist Anthony Flew, who near the end of his life he became a deist, but still maintained that there was no afterlife).

All in all, agnosticism and deism aren’t “religions” (as are any other form of belief when it comes to deities) as much as they are individual beliefs or “doctrines”, if you will. In fact, I’m an agnostic but I tend to lean more towards belief in deities and/or spirits. However, since I am still mostly agnostic, I can’t even begin to fathom what these deities or spirits are, let alone their nature. Because of this, I still technically am a deist.

Thanks for the explanation. God Bless.