Question for Atheists

[reggieM]

gearhead – many thanks for a long and detailed reply. I appreciate the time you took with the answers.

The most important thing I learned was that you are seeking information about Catholicism to learn about your wife’s faith, and with regard to the issues that brings up in your family. I apologize for misunderstanding your motive. Certainly, what you’re doing is admirable and it should be supported here on CAF.

I was trying to understand your motive because that makes a very big difference in how to approach the discussion. In this case, I will try to give the best replies I can with the hope that it will be useful for you.

However, you have to realize a key difference between our worldviews, and therefore (I assume) in our standards of evidence: if you already accept with certainty that God exists, He is eternal, He has performed miracles in the past as described in the Bible, and He has promised to watch over and protect humanity in future, then it’s not that extraordinary to claim that He is still performing miracles now just as He promised. However, to someone like me, who has yet to accept any of those premises, the claim of a miracle is amazingly extraordinary. And like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That is a good point and a good explanation. For myself, the claim that God is acting in the world is not an extraordinary claim at all. I see it so widespread in human history, in every culture on earth, that to me it’s the default position. I’d see materialist atheism, in that case, as the extraordinary claim.

So, I don’t think one should demand extraordinary evidence for something that is widely acknowledged and accepted in all cultures. A reasonable amount of evidence should be sufficient – not necessarily to convince someone fully, but to show that faith in God is a reasonable proposal.

Also, though this is a very, very distant possibility at this point, I promised my wife I’d try to keep my mind as open as it could be to becoming Catholic myself. However, since then, my exploration of my own beliefs has led me to label myself an atheist instead of an agnostic as I used to (and more recently simply “humanist”, since I’ve come to feel that my religious beliefs or lack of them shouldn’t be what defines my belief system) and my exploration of what the Church teaches has led me even further away from it than I ever was. So… I’m still trying my best to keep my promise, but I’m not holding my breath.

Again, the fact that you’re exploring it is impressive and I admire your effort to bring an open mind to the investigation. I’m interested in how you moved from an agnostic position to an atheist, since very often things move in the other direction. I would seem that at one time you considered God as a possiblity but then later you closed that off.
If you’d prefer not to get into that here that’s certainly understandable – I’m not asking in order to argue but just to understand your thought process.

…once a person has accepted that the Catholic Church is correct, the mental hurdle to accept Catholic miracles as valid is much smaller than the hurdle involved in accepting, say, Hindu or Pagan miracles. In the one case, the miracle is simply a specific instance of something you already held to be generally true; in the other case, accepting the miracle as true would involve rejecting as false a whole number of ideas you’d already accepted as true with high certainty.

That is true, but it does not seem likely that God will manifest his presence only to orthodox Catholics. The general belief is that God will work more significantly in the Catholic Faith (more frequently, more obviously or spectacularly) in order to show the truth of Catholicism. But God can use miracles in otherwise false religions in order to draw people to faith in general.

This is only evidence of supernatural power if the opposite effect implies the opposite conclusion. When people pray and receive no answer, is this an expression of supernatural impotence?

This assumes that all prayers are of equal goodness and merit. It only takes one prayer to be answered in a way that is convincing to the pray-er to be evidence of supernatural power to that person. Millions have that experience. There are thousands of Catholic religious who pray 8 or more hours a day. This is evidence that something is happening for them.

Successful prayer is something that requires some preparation and some “skill”. Catholicism provides some very sophisticated spiritual teachings that explain the paths of prayer and the stages of growth in the spiritual life.

So, prayer is not like a vending machine where you put money in and necessarily get a candy bar out. It’s a communication with God and that takes much awareness and guidance and practice over time.

When a child falls down trying to ride a bicycle, is that proof that riding a bike is impossible, or that nobody can possibly do it?
Obviously, we can see people riding bikes. In the same way, we can read about people who have communicated with God through prayer – we can learn from them how to do it and how to evaluate the answers we receive from prayer.

 

[reggieM]

And my “personal exploration” has led me to conclude that no gods exist at all. Are both your “exploration” and mine equally valid?

I guess it depends on how you’ve conducted your exploration. Yours might not be valid at all if you sought to find the existence of God using inadequate or incorrect methods or tools.

Also, I realized something important: a sinking submarine wouldn’t exactly be a fixed frame of reference. As it goes down, it would pitch, roll, yaw and accelerate in ways that make objects appear to behave differently than they would when the frame of reference is at rest. Is there “black box” data (or does a submarine even have a “black box”?) or maybe SONAR data from nearby ships that can be used to determine what the magnitude and direction of the sub’s linear and rotational acceleration was at the moment when the door was closed?

Some of the facts that we have about this incident are as follows:

1. Lieutenant Roger Cotrina realized it would be humanly impossible to shut the door.
2. Cotrina “couldn’t breathe” and began to pray to Sr. Maria Petkovic
3. The Lieutenant saw a “brilliant light”
4. He said a “supernatural force” helped him close the door
5. A military commission “later determined that what Cotrina did was humanly impossible”
6. The twenty-two survivors said it was thanks to the intercession of Mother Maria de Jesus that they were alive and that she helped them to avoid a greater disaster.
7. The Croatian nun was beatified on June 6, 2003, by Pope John Paul II, thanks to the miracle that saved the Peruvian sailors. Cotrina and his wife participated in the ceremony.
8. A documentary film about this event was created
9. The survivors attended a private screening of the film, along with the Vice President of Peru and top Navy officials

Those are some facts regarding the story as posted.

To evaluate this one one standard of evidence is to look at the various probabilites involved and make some kind of judgement.
To use another standard (the one many atheists use) is say that if there is the tiniest room for the slightest doubt, then the story must be dismissed.
The problem with that standard, as I see it, is that it’s applied selectively. It takes an extremely skeptical view of this incident – when such extreme-skepticism is not applied to other matters. So, it strikes me as inconsistent.

We have to judge the probablities.

1. How probable was it for Lieutenant Roger Cotrina to close the door at all? According to him, the 22 survivors, and the military commission – it was “impossible”. So, zero probablity. But applying extreme-skepticism (selectively ,and I’ll say unjustly) we can grant that there was “some” probablity that none of these people could see. Perhaps the submarine rolled over coincidentally just as Cotrina pushed the door. Coincidence is never a very good explanation for something, but with extreme skepticism, it is often the “solution” to the problem.
2. It’s not only that the door was closed against tons of water pressure – but how probable is it that the crew member who closed the door would say that he saw a “brilliant light” and was filled with “supernatural force” right after he prayed to Sr. Maria?
   Again, he could have been lying. Or, maybe these things happened but had nothing to do with the event. But there is no motive for him to lie – what probabilty can be assigned to that? Additionally, people do not often see a brilliant light and claim to be filled with power to close a door like that. So, the probablity of that happening, along with the door actually closing is even more of a coincidence.
3. Then, what is the probability that the military and crew members would all agree that it was an impossible situation solved by a miracle? They witnessed the event. A film was made out of it. The Vice President of the country attended and Sr. Maria was canonized by the Pope for this miracle. Again, applying extreme skepticism one could say that there was some small chance that nobody in the crew noticed that the sub happened to roll over and the door coincidently closed at the same time that Cotrina prayed, saw a light, and pushed the door closed.

Totalling the probablities involved, what do we have? A million to 1 odds? It’s hard to say. But the chances of those events occuring simultaneously, with no motive for lying, among military men who are trained to understand the mechanics of their vessels – those odds are small.

So, is extreme skepticism justified in dismissing this event by betting on the 1 in a million chances, simply because there is some “slim” chance that it could have been a natural phenomenon that nobody else recognized?

Extreme skepticism is not a reasonable standard by which to evaluate data because if the rule is “if I can doubt it, I can dismiss it” then no science would every get off the ground. We could take evolutionary theory as a good example. There’s an extraordinary claim for us – but is it supported by extraordinary evidence that does not admit the slightest, tiniest doubt? (I don’t want to change the topic to evolution, but it’s one of many examples in science that is built on hypothesis which are far from proven).

 

[reggieM]

For example, when certified medical personnel state that “there is no scientific explanation” for the cure – it means that the cure does not fall into an explicable pattern.

Sure, but is the reason for that deviation from the pattern supernatural intervention through a French shrine?

Well again, we look at Lourdes and consider the probabilies.

How probable is it for an uneducated girl to state that the Virgin Mary told her that a shrine would be built on a rustic back-lot in rural France – and that happens?
How probable is it that a crowd of witnesses would watch this girl move, as if commanded, to dig in the soil and reveal an underground spring that was never known to exist before?
How probable was it for that uneducated girl who could barely read to explain to skeptical clerics that she was talking to “The Immaculate Conception” when that theological doctrine was known only to the most educated scholars and had only just been promulgated as a doctrine 4 years earlier?
How probable was it for the spring that Bernadette revealed to be the site of pilgrimage and healing for the next 100 years?

The extreme skeptical view could say that someone told Bernadette about the Immaculate Conception and the spring. Or, it was a coincidence. The people were taken up by enthusiasm and emotion, etc.

But again, weighing the probabilities – there was no reason for Bernadette to lie. She suffered for years by telling the truth about her story. She ended in a convent in a poor life of self-denial until she died. She could have falsified or changed her statements any time, but it never happened.

So again, the odds are a million to one that this happened by coincidence or as a deliberate scheme of some kind.

But an extreme skeptical standard of evidence could bet on the 1 in a million – if there was the tiniest room for doubt, then the event is dismissed.
But again, is that a reasonable way to view the affairs there?

 

[reggieM]

Take Lourdes: if we accept your suggestion that God does heal some of the people who visit there, He still doesn’t heal the rest. Apparently, He could’ve done so but didn’t. So… why? Were they not faithful enough? Did they not pray hard enough? Does God simply not like them?

So… the sailor prayed to God, and God saved most of the crew of the Pacocha. But God didn’t save any of the crew of the Kursk. Why? It’s not because God can’t save sailors on sinking submarines - you just pointed out that He can. Apparently, God could’ve saved the men on the Kursk but chose not to. Did God want those men to die?

With these questions you’re wondering “why would God do it that way?” I can see where that would be important because in your view, a God who exists should to be consistent, logical, “fair” and understandable in His actions.

For example, when Jesus walked the earth He cured thousands of people. “But why didn’t He cure everyone on earth?”

The way to judge God’s actions is to start at the end. One has to start with “God’s goals” for humanity – not with our particular interests an opinions.

In reading a mystery story, we might ask why an author put an “irrelevant” passage in the middle. Clearly, the relevance of the passage can only be judged when the mystery is solved (and a good author will tie the clues together).

It’s like many things – why are those cars driving in a circle on a track? They go around and never get anywhere. Once we know the goal and purpose (a NASCAR race) then what seems purposeless has meaning and makes sense.

So, we have to start with God’s goal. If it was to make life on earth devoid of pain and loss – then God has never been very successful. Death is certain – it has been for human history. Why doesn’t God just prevent everyone from dying?

God’s goal is to bring people to heaven, first. “My kingdom is not of this earth”. Getting to heaven is learning to live in God – which is learning to love and give of oneself. It’s forgetting one’s own interest and finding tremendous joy in serving God and in union with God.

Why would anyone want to do that?

The answer is because God is the source and fulness of all that is Good. So, when we seek the Good, we are seeking God. But the Good here on earth is always transitory and temporary. It’s never fully good because it does not last.

We experience evil in order to be free beings. God could force all people to be good, but we would not possess the freedom to commit evil that way.

So, it could have been better that all the men on the submarine would have been saved – but we cannot know that. It may have been much better for them to have died on the ship. If they are in heaven now, with God – they would all say it was better that they died then, because if they had lived longer they might not have made it to heaven.

 

[reggieM]

I understand that there are some people who have, basically, a hatred of God.

Not me. I don’t believe in God. The idea of hating God makes about as much sense to me as hating unicorns.

Going back to standards of evidence and how you judge things – here’s one point that I hope can help.
In this case, you’ve said that you do not hate God and that is very good (the same is not true of many atheists I’ve discussed things with).
But in your explaination, you say that hating God would be about the same as hating unicorns.
The comparison of God with unicorns is actually quite common. Later, you used the term “pixies” as being a possibility.
There are a lot of problems here though.
Why would you compare belief in God with belief in unicorns? You may say it was an off-handed comment, but the thing is – people who believe in unicorns, if there are any, would surely be very foolish, worthy of ridicule. Unicorns are a fantasy creature, and nobody supports evidence that unicorns exist.
But the same is not true of God.
If you cannot see that, then you’re definitely missing a major piece of evidence in support of God.
First, there are billions of people who believe that God exists. How many believe in unicorns?
There are many, many people who have lived and who live now who are much more intelligent and much more academically accomplished than you are – who also believe in God. How many scholars believe in unicorns?
The evidence for God is based on philosophical considerations, evidence from nature and eyewitness testimonies. Unicorns do not play in those categories.
There are thousands of Catholics who devote their entire lives to God – we could look at Benedictine, Carthusian or Carmelite monks throughout the world – praying for 8 hours a day. I know a Benedictine who has prayed his whole life for 50 years in a monastery.
This is evidence that some communicate with God and have found truths about the existence of God. Again, you couldn’t talk about unicorns in the same sentence as these considerations.

A better example would be to say, “The idea of hating God makes about as much sense to me as hating the idea of a multiverse”.

That would make a lot more sense. There is more evidence in support of the existence of God then there is of a multiverse. You do not know the origin of the universe, but you’ve already excluded the possiblity of God in favor of some other idea (or a non-idea).

Again, this is selective skepticism since you would not be skeptical about any ideas on the origin of the universe except for the possiblity of God – which you exclude entirely.
That does not seem consistent.

 

[reggieM]

Is it fair to say that this is your way of saying that God is not subject to rational inquiry?

No, on the contrary. It’s irrational to conclude that empirical, materialistic science is the only valid method to use to obtain true knowledge. Rationality itself requires faith (for reasons given, one cannot begin to use rational thought until some trust is given to matters which contain doubt).

Which itself poses another problem for citing miracles as evidence. Even if every single purported miracle that supports Christianity were true, this isn’t necessarily support for Christianity. For example, they could all be the work of the trickster-god Loki as part of his campaign to lead people away from worship of the true gods of Norse mythology.

And how can you reject this possibility once you’ve opened the door to supernatural explanations?

Opening the door to supernatural explanations does not mean that there is no way to discern the validity, origin or meaning of supernatural events. One does not need to propose a trickster-god, since it is known that Satan can work preternatural signs, some even seeming to support Christianity, in order to win people to the worship of Satan.
Those things happen (a newly released book The Rite by Matt Baglio gives some good information about demonic possession and exorcism).

Right now, all I know about him is that early in his life as a priest, he had stigmata. Then, he took to wearing gloves but still claimed he had stigmata… but didn’t show them to people. Finally, when he died, his gloves were removed and the stigmata were “healed”.

The first explanation that comes to mind for all this is that he could’ve simply created the stigmata himself, then started wearing gloves when he decided to stop gouging his palms up. The wounds healed over time, until there wasn’t anything left to see by the time he died as an old man.

What probablity is it that you’re correct about Padre Pio. I’d think you’d believe that you’d think that you have at least a 60% probability of being correct in your view.

If it proved, however, that you were completely wrong – would you re-evalute the standards on which you draw conclusions about this? In other words, would you be skeptical about your own powers of observation and evaluation of the information?

Traditionally, stigmatics’ wounds would be on their palms. However, in the 60s, Pierre Barbet published his work that claimed that the palms weren’t strong enough to take the forces of crucifixion, so the Romans must have driven the nails into their victims’ forearms. This story was repeated in the popular press, and almost immediately, when new stigmatics came forward, their wounds were on their forearms. Then, years later, other researchers tried to confirm Barbet’s results and decided that he was wrong - the hand was strong enough, and Barbet had failed to account for the contribution that the legs would provide in supporting the body. As their findings were published and repeated in the press, suddenly stigmatics started showing up with wounds in their palms again.

Which stigmatics came forward with wounds in their forearms (Barbet claimed it was in the wrist at the base of the palm)? I have never heard of any, myself.

To an outside observer like me, it almost seems like Jesus couldn’t remember how he was crucified.

It’s a clever remark but it reveals that you’re thinking about stigmatics and trying to make sense of it, so that’s good. It’s important to consider the motive in these matters.

Everyone has bias. The trick is in being prepared to throw away that bias if it’s not valid.

That is true and a good point to be reminded of.

No, it’s merely common sense. What’s the alternative? To accept every claim you hear until it’s proven false?

When one hears 1,000 people saying the same thing about an event or something they experienced, does one judge that the same as hearing that only one person ever made the claim?

Well, like I said, I’ll look into it, but it might take a while.

I appreciate your willingness to look into this. I realize that it is difficult to get the time to read a book, but I believe that one will be very insightful for you.

As for this thread, it’s titled “Questions for Atheists”. Well, I’m an atheist, so hopefully my responses here will help other people gain some understanding into a viewpoint that they don’t share

Yes, your responses were very good and I do appreciate the time you’ve taken with them.

 

[gearhead]

That is a good point and a good explanation. For myself, the claim that God is acting in the world is not an extraordinary claim at all. I see it so widespread in human history, in every culture on earth, that to me it’s the default position. I’d see materialist atheism, in that case, as the extraordinary claim.

So, I don’t think one should demand extraordinary evidence for something that is widely acknowledged and accepted in all cultures. A reasonable amount of evidence should be sufficient – not necessarily to convince someone fully, but to show that faith in God is a reasonable proposal.

The main problem here that I see is that there isn’t one generic set of claims that all support some sort of generic theism. The claims of most religions contradict the claims of most others.

The default position isn’t “theism”, because theism as a position of its own doesn’t really exist. Every real instance of theism also has other, additional beliefs. There are a number of positions within theism that people and cultures have historically taken, but they have many more claims besides just the existence of God, and I don’t think any actual position held by real people can be claimed as any sort of default.

Also, I think there are good, plausible, naturalistic explanations for belief in God. It is extraordinarily adaptive, both indirectly and directly. Personally, I think it’s a manifestation of a number of factors, especially the human tendency to attribute agency to non-intelligent phenomena: a rustling in the bushes may be a predator, it may be prey, or it may just be the wind. However, on the balance, it’s better to have a sense of agency that’s more overactive than underactive. The cost of skittishness at the wind is relatively low; the cost of calmness in the face of a nearby tiger is relatively high.

I don’t think this is a sense that we can “turn off” easily, so it leads us to attribute agency to all sorts of things where there is none. As one analogy I heard put it, “this is why we see faces in clouds and not clouds in faces.”

Again, the fact that you’re exploring it is impressive and I admire your effort to bring an open mind to the investigation. I’m interested in how you moved from an agnostic position to an atheist, since very often things move in the other direction. I would seem that at one time you considered God as a possiblity but then later you closed that off.

For me, it’s not so much that I considered God as a possibility, but that I hadn’t considered the whole question of belief much at all and didn’t want to take a position without serious thought into where my position should be.

It was the process of looking at religion, looking at its claims and deciding how I felt about them that I explored my own beliefs. This led me to recognize that my beliefs, which I had had as long as I could remember, but hadn’t really sorted or labelled, were more accurately called atheist than they were agnostic.

That is true, but it does not seem likely that God will manifest his presence only to orthodox Catholics. The general belief is that God will work more significantly in the Catholic Faith (more frequently, more obviously or spectacularly) in order to show the truth of Catholicism. But God can use miracles in otherwise false religions in order to draw people to faith in general.

My point is that if Christianity is true, it seems to run counter to expectation that truly divine miracles would occur that would suggest that, say, Hinduism is correct.

Another way of putting it would be that if God is really the Christian God, Ganesh is not a true god and worshipping false gods is a sin, why would God do things like this?

milkmiracle.com/

I guess the one way to resolve the dilemma is to say that God didn’t do that, but since it seems to me to be better-supported than most miracles that the Catholic Church acknowledges, I don’t know what standard of evidence a person could use to exclude Ganesh drinking milk but not many miracles attributed to Catholic saints.

This assumes that all prayers are of equal goodness and merit. It only takes one prayer to be answered in a way that is convincing to the pray-er to be evidence of supernatural power to that person. Millions have that experience. There are thousands of Catholic religious who pray 8 or more hours a day. This is evidence that something is happening for them.

But that “something” is not necessarily supernatural.

By the same token, there are many, many atheistic Buddhists who meditate for 8 or more hours a day, which is also evidence that “something” is happening for them.

But which of these is evidence of the truth of the belief behind those prayers or meditations?

Successful prayer is something that requires some preparation and some “skill”. Catholicism provides some very sophisticated spiritual teachings that explain the paths of prayer and the stages of growth in the spiritual life.

So, prayer is not like a vending machine where you put money in and necessarily get a candy bar out. It’s a communication with God and that takes much awareness and guidance and practice over time.

Prayer isn’t automatic; it requires skill, guidance and practice… so God’s more like an arcade game than a vending machine?

I suppose your explanation is internally consistent, but it has interesting theological ramifications, for instance, that God’s actions are contingent on humans doing things correctly. This would seem to me to suggest that God would be incapable of creating a detailed plan for the universe and fulfilling it… not completely, at least.

When a child falls down trying to ride a bicycle, is that proof that riding a bike is impossible, or that nobody can possibly do it?
Obviously, we can see people riding bikes. In the same way, we can read about people who have communicated with God through prayer – we can learn from them how to do it and how to evaluate the answers we receive from prayer.

To run with the analogy for a moment, I think the current situation is more like this:

• plenty of people claim to have ridden bikes.
• a few people have claimed to see someone else ride a bike.
• whenever it’s set up to observe someone riding a bike, the rider always falls over.

However, I think the analogy is breaking down, because for riding a bike to be truly like prayer, there would also have to be no known or measurable mechanism by which a bike standing up could even theoretically be plausible, which would mean that the analogy would be taking place in a universe without angular momentum.

 

[gearhead]

I guess it depends on how you’ve conducted your exploration. Yours might not be valid at all if you sought to find the existence of God using inadequate or incorrect methods or tools.

But the same can be said of your exploration. Or of the exploration of anyone else.

Some of the facts that we have about this incident are as follows:

I have issues with some of the facts you list.

1. Lieutenant Roger Cotrina realized it would be humanly impossible to shut the door.

The Lieutenant believed it would be humanly impossible to shut the door. Whether this was actually the case is the question.

1. Cotrina “couldn’t breathe” and began to pray to Sr. Maria Petkovic

Okay, I guess… though it strikes me as odd that he would’ve made this decision. Why pray to Maria Petkovic and not, say, St. Nicholas (the patron saint of sailors, according to my quick Googling) or Jesus Himself?

1. The Lieutenant saw a “brilliant light”

By itself, this isn’t really surprising: he was exerting himself to his limits in a panic situation, and apparently he was also having trouble breathing.

Speaking from my own experience, I’ve only passed out a couple of times myself, but on one occasion, my vision became a wash of yellow before I lost consciousness. Exertion and adverse situations do cause naturalistic effects on vision.

1. He said a “supernatural force” helped him close the door

Okay, but as I pointed out before, a sinking ship is not the best frame of reference to determine which forces are supernatural and which ones are natural but behaving in unexpected ways.

1. A military commission “later determined that what Cotrina did was humanly impossible”

I’m having trouble finding any verification of this. You wouldn’t know where I can find a report or transcript of the commission’s findings, would you?

On the one hand, I wonder if the phrasing in the commission’s report might not have been something like “Lt. Cotrina exerted strength beyond accepted human limits” or “it is unreasonable to expect a crewman to exert the physical strength that Lt. Cotrina did” as opposed to, say, “Lt. Cotrina didn’t actually close the door - it was a miracle.” I think the distinction is important.

Also, since I would think that the purpose of a military commission in a case like this would be to determine responsibility and cause in the incident itself and make recommendations for how similar incidents can be avoided in future. If the commission’s findings were phrased in that context, I wonder if whether the statement might have been taken out of context.

1. The twenty-two survivors said it was thanks to the intercession of Mother Maria de Jesus that they were alive and that she helped them to avoid a greater disaster.

But none of them actually witnessed this supernatural force closing the door, did they? AFAIK, they were scattered around the ship and only later attributed their survival to the nun once they heard the story, right?

1. The Croatian nun was beatified on June 6, 2003, by Pope John Paul II, thanks to the miracle that saved the Peruvian sailors. Cotrina and his wife participated in the ceremony.

Okay, but this isn’t really evidence for anything other than the fact that the Vatican accepted the story as correct, right?

1. A documentary film about this event was created

Documentaries have been created about lots of false things. Just yesterday, I listened to a podcast about how most of the coverage of the Columbine shootings, including the film Bowling for Columbine got major details wrong.

Actually, in the case of Bowling for Columbine, they pointed out that the source of the title (the claim that Harris and Clebold attended their bowling class the morning of the shooting) was incorrect, and in fact, they skipped all their classes that day, which caused some of their friends and classmates to realize that something was wrong.

1. The survivors attended a private screening of the film, along with the Vice President of Peru and top Navy officials

Okay, but that’s not support for the central claim at all, is it?

Those are some facts regarding the story as posted.

To evaluate this one one standard of evidence is to look at the various probabilites involved and make some kind of judgement.
To use another standard (the one many atheists use) is say that if there is the tiniest room for the slightest doubt, then the story must be dismissed.
The problem with that standard, as I see it, is that it’s applied selectively. It takes an extremely skeptical view of this incident – when such extreme-skepticism is not applied to other matters. So, it strikes me as inconsistent.

Which matters?

We have to judge the probablities.

1. How probable was it for Lieutenant Roger Cotrina to close the door at all? According to him, the 22 survivors, and the military commission – it was “impossible”. So, zero probablity. But applying extreme-skepticism (selectively ,and I’ll say unjustly) we can grant that there was “some” probablity that none of these people could see. Perhaps the submarine rolled over coincidentally just as Cotrina pushed the door. Coincidence is never a very good explanation for something, but with extreme skepticism, it is often the “solution” to the problem.

I didn’t say that the submarine would have had to roll over, but it was moving quite a bit - the articles you gave even mentioned this. Apparently, it started out level (a safe presumption, I think, for a submarine on the surface), then at one point as it sunk it was on as much as a 40 degree angle, and finally settled on the bottom at something close to 10 degrees. I don’t think it’s questionable that the submarine was moving and rocking quite a bit; the only question in my mind is whether it rocked in such a way as to help close the door.

 

[gearhead]

1. It’s not only that the door was closed against tons of water pressure – but how probable is it that the crew member who closed the door would say that he saw a “brilliant light” and was filled with “supernatural force” right after he prayed to Sr. Maria?

Was it closed against tons of water? I’ve tried googling the incident, but the articles I’ve read are conflicted about this. Some have said that he couldn’t close the door because of water pressure, some have said that he couldn’t close the door because of the steep angle of the ship.

As for the “brilliant light”, I think it’s quite probable that he saw something, but I don’t see any more reason to suppose that his “brilliant light” was Sr. Maria than mine was when I passed out from an allergic reaction.

He was an imperfect being in a high-stress situation, pushing himself to the limits of human exertion. I think it’s reasonable to believe that he reported things as he understood them, but that doesn’t mean things necessarily happened like he said.

Again, he could have been lying. Or, maybe these things happened but had nothing to do with the event. But there is no motive for him to lie – what probabilty can be assigned to that? Additionally, people do not often see a brilliant light and claim to be filled with power to close a door like that. So, the probablity of that happening, along with the door actually closing is even more of a coincidence.

So… was Sr. Maria also intervening on my behalf when I saw what could reasonably be called a “brilliant light” as I passed out in a chair in the doctor’s office, only to be quickly revived by a nurse?

1. Then, what is the probability that the military and crew members would all agree that it was an impossible situation solved by a miracle? They witnessed the event.

Did they? What did they actually see? I assume that most of the men would have been in other places around the ship, and as for any who actually saw the door being closed, they just saw the Lieutenant close the door, right? No lightning bolts or apparitions, right? They didn’t see the “brilliant light” as well, did they?

A film was made out of it. The Vice President of the country attended and Sr. Maria was canonized by the Pope for this miracle.

The only support any of this really lends to you claim is the bit about the Vatican, and only if we make certain suppositions about their skeptical nature in evaluating miracle claims.

Again, applying extreme skepticism one could say that there was some small chance that nobody in the crew noticed that the sub happened to roll over and the door coincidently closed at the same time that Cotrina prayed, saw a light, and pushed the door closed.

I think this is more likely:

• the ship was moving and pitching - something that all the accounts I’ve read bear out.
• Cotrina prayed and exhibited a normal physiological reaction to high stress and high exertion.
• he closed the door, but none of the witnesses (however many there were - I doubt it was all 22 men) attributed the closure to Cotrina’s strength or the movement of the ship. However, as I’ve tried to point out, since they were in a moving frame of reference that they were used to seeing relatively still, it’s quite likely that their normal expectations of how objects behave on their ship were quite inaccurate.

Totalling the probablities involved, what do we have? A million to 1 odds? It’s hard to say. But the chances of those events occuring simultaneously, with no motive for lying, among military men who are trained to understand the mechanics of their vessels – those odds are small.

Military men are trained to understand the mechanics of a vessel in normal operation. They’re also trained to respond by habit and drill, not by judgement, in extremely abnormal situations.

Have you ever seen video of the helicopter “ditch” training that oil platform crews have to go through? When a helicopter goes into the water on its side, the people inside are completely disoriented. They’re trained to not trust their senses at all, and rather than trust even their judgement of which was is up or down, they rehearse a sequence of moves and just trust their “muscle memory”, even if it feels completely wrong at the time.

My point is just that when a familiar frame of reference moves in unfamiliar ways, whether it’s a sinking sub or a helicopter ditched in the ocean, our judgement of very basic things fails.

 

[gearhead]

So, is extreme skepticism justified in dismissing this event by betting on the 1 in a million chances, simply because there is some “slim” chance that it could have been a natural phenomenon that nobody else recognized?

Well, I have two points:

First, I don’t think the odds of the situation happening naturalistically are anywhere near a million to one.

Second, when choosing between two alternatives (e.g. “Cotrina closed the door himself” or “Cotrina was helped by a dead nun”), it’s not just the absolute likelihood of one possibility that matters; it’s the relative likelihood when compared to other alternative explanations.

Assuming that the only possibilities are naturalistic causes or intervention of Sr. Maria (though they probably aren’t the only explanations, especially when we’ve already opened ourselves up to the supernatural), we know that one of either “Cotrina closed the door himself” or “Cotrina was helped by a dead nun” actually happened. Given that, even if the odds against “Cotrina closed the door himself” are a million to one, if the odds against, “Cotrina was helped by a dead nun” were, say, a billion to one, then I’d put my money on the naturalistic explanation every time. However, we haven’t even touch on the likelihood of the supernatural explanation yet.

There’s an old joke about two guys running away from a bear. The first one says, “why are we doing this? We can’t outrun a bear!” The second responds, “I don’t have to outrun the bear; I only have to outrun you.” It’s not really the absolute probability of the one alternative that matters; it’s the relative probability of it when compared to the other possible explanations.

Now… I have no idea how to begin quantifying the likelihood that a dead Catholic nun would use supernatural powers to close a door on a sinking submarine when asked. But without that, we can’t really say whether it’s more or less likely than the naturalistic explanations, can we?

Extreme skepticism is not a reasonable standard by which to evaluate data because if the rule is “if I can doubt it, I can dismiss it” then no science would every get off the ground. We could take evolutionary theory as a good example. There’s an extraordinary claim for us – but is it supported by extraordinary evidence that does not admit the slightest, tiniest doubt?

For all practical purposes, yes, it is. Evolution is the theory that makes virtually all of biology work as science. It’s also strongly supported by evidence in a wide array of scientific disciplines.

However, this is also a good example of what I’m talking about: say you view evolution as unlikely; well, is it less likely than any alternative explanation?

 

[gearhead]

Well again, we look at Lourdes and consider the probabilies.

How probable is it for an uneducated girl to state that the Virgin Mary told her that a shrine would be built on a rustic back-lot in rural France – and that happens?

I don’t know, but I notice two things are going on here:

• selection bias: if an uneducated girl were to state that the Virgin Mary told her something and she wasn’t believed, you’d probably never hear about it.
• confusion of cause and effect: I think it’s more logical and reasonable to think that people heard the story of Bernadette and because of that story felt moved to build a shrine than it is to assume that she was given supernatural knowledge of the future.

How probable is it that a crowd of witnesses would watch this girl move, as if commanded, to dig in the soil and reveal an underground spring that was never known to exist before?

I don’t know. What foundation do we have to believe that this actually happened?

How probable was it for that uneducated girl who could barely read to explain to skeptical clerics that she was talking to “The Immaculate Conception” when that theological doctrine was known only to the most educated scholars and had only just been promulgated as a doctrine 4 years earlier?

From my quick Googling, while the Immaculate Conception wasn’t officially declared to be doctrine by the Vatican in 1854, it had been held by many in the Church for centuries before that. Why would it have been impossible for her to have never heard the term before?

How probable was it for the spring that Bernadette revealed to be the site of pilgrimage and healing for the next 100 years?

Quite likely, given the reception of the story by the Catholic faithful, I think.

However, if it hadn’t been used this way up to present day, you wouldn’t have brought it up - instead, you’d be citing some other miracle claim.

The extreme skeptical view could say that someone told Bernadette about the Immaculate Conception and the spring. Or, it was a coincidence. The people were taken up by enthusiasm and emotion, etc.

But again, weighing the probabilities – there was no reason for Bernadette to lie. She suffered for years by telling the truth about her story. She ended in a convent in a poor life of self-denial until she died. She could have falsified or changed her statements any time, but it never happened.

So again, the odds are a million to one that this happened by coincidence or as a deliberate scheme of some kind.

I doubt it was a deliberate scheme, but I think that the events there were seized with such fervor that it’s difficult to ascertain what really went on.

But an extreme skeptical standard of evidence could bet on the 1 in a million – if there was the tiniest room for doubt, then the event is dismissed.
But again, is that a reasonable way to view the affairs there?

I don’t know - how likely are the alternative explanations?

 

[reggieM]

The main problem here that I see is that there isn’t one generic set of claims that all support some sort of generic theism. The claims of most religions contradict the claims of most others.

Here is a set of claims that is supported by all forms of theism.

1. Immaterial powers exist
2. The immaterial powers that exist are supreme and transcendent (not confined to nature)
3. Prayer is efficacious
4. The immaterial powers intervene in the world

The default position isn’t “theism”, because theism as a position of its own doesn’t really exist. Every real instance of theism also has other, additional beliefs. There are a number of positions within theism that people and cultures have historically taken, but they have many more claims besides just the existence of God, and I don’t think any actual position held by real people can be claimed as any sort of default.

The default position is contrary to atheism. That contrary point can be called any kind of theism, and can differ in a few or many ways with other kinds – but it remains as a counter-point to atheism. The belief in a transcendent presence – even further, a personal, intelligent power – not confined or reducible to nature and capable of communication with human beings is, by far, the default position in human society and certainly in our own culture. It is not an extraordinary claim at all – the minority view is what is extaordinary. As I said, the idea that belief in God is comparable to belief in unicorns is an extaordinary view, for reasons I gave.

So, the atheist position would need to have extraordinary evidence to support it. I would be biased criticism to demand extraordinary evidence for a non-extraordinary claim – and at the same time, accept non-extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim.

My point is that if Christianity is true, it seems to run counter to expectation that truly divine miracles would occur that would suggest that, say, Hinduism is correct.

I think your expectation is interesting. You have an idea about what truly divine miracles are, and what tehy should mean. In this case, a truly divine miracle, for you, means that the religion of the believer (or of some aspect of the miracle) is proven correct by the proximity of the miracle.

These are your theological speculations – and they’re interesting because I don’t think you’ve really spent much time learning about theology. But you’ve picked up a few points somewhere and have applied them to an understanding of miracles. It wouldn’t be surprising if you got some of this from your wife or other Christians in your life.

I find this encouraging because your mind is partially formed by Christian theology (as evidenced in your analysis of miracles here).

Another way of putting it would be that if God is really the Christian God, Ganesh is not a true god and worshipping false gods is a sin, why would God do things like this?

Again, as above – you’ve offered your theological speculations here. I’ve assumed that you have very little training in theology but I might be wrong about that.
But more importantly, you’re jumping ahead to a good topic – namely, “is God really the Christian God”? I say “jumping ahead” because you are asking about more specific attributes of God and comparative religion before we’ve even validated that miracles are possible or that God is something more than an imaginary being or some kind of psychological projection.

Your theological assumptions are that God acts in consistent ways and teaches and confirms people through miracles. This is consistent with Catholic theology, but not with Hindu theology which is polytheistic. Additionally, you’ve concluded that “worshipping false gods is a sin”, but this assumes that a person is knowingly worshipping a false god and is not invincibly ignorant about the teachings of the True God (which Catholicism professes to teach).

In any case, God rewards those who seek him, even through imperfect and less-true religious paths. Those who commit themselves to spiritual growth (as many sincere Hindus do) will receive rewards from God for their efforts.
It’s my personal belief that something like this miracle that you’ve linked to may be a means for God to reaffirm the religious thinking of the people of that region. Why would God confirm them in a false religion? As the Holy Scripture shows in many ways, God works with his creatures to teach and guide them gradually to a better way of life. From the Catholic view, this is what God did with the Jewish people – leading them from simpler teachings based on the Law, to a deeper spiritual reality in union with Christ.
India, for example, is presently being heavily influenced by the secularized West and traditional spiritual practices of the people are being destroyed in the process. God may be trying to keep a belief in the supernatural alive for an evangelization activity that could follow.

I guess the one way to resolve the dilemma is to say that God didn’t do that, but since it seems to me to be better-supported than most miracles that the Catholic Church acknowledges, I don’t know what standard of evidence a person could use to exclude Ganesh drinking milk but not many miracles attributed to Catholic saints.

I gave one way above – namely, that your theological opinion is not necessarily correct and that God can work miracles without confirming people in sin. But there are other ways to resolve it. We know that there are preternatural (created but immaterial) beings at work as well and they are capable of paranormal powers (I referenced a new book on exorcism). So, not all actions that defy a scientific explanation are categorized as divinely miraculous. It could be a satanic power working in the world as a temptation or delusion. There’s a long history of writing about such events in Catholic mystical theology, tracing back to the apostolic era and the writings of the early Fathers of the Church.

It is Catholic teaching that God intervenes directly in nature to influse a soul in every human being at conception – so the supernatural power of God (that infusing of a soul is a miracle itself) is not limited to orthodox Catholics. Every human being is given that supernatural gift. So, the powers of God are not as limited as it might seem.

 

[reggieM]

By the same token, there are many, many atheistic Buddhists who meditate for 8 or more hours a day, which is also evidence that “something” is happening for them.

Yes, it is. I don’t see how that refutes the point. Aside from the fact that Buddhism proposes that there are many gods, these monks are practicing a mental exercise. They do not claim to be praying. Catholic monks state that they are communicating with God.

Again, to deny that they are doing what they say they’re doing is presumptious.
It’s claiming that they are lying, deceived or ignorant.

But which of these is evidence of the truth of the belief behind those prayers or meditations?

They both are evidence of the truth of the belief behind those prayers and meditations.
To deny this is to claim that all of these monks are lying or deceived or ignorant.
The Buddhist “atheists” (who believe in gods) are practicing a mental exercise which enables them to be mentally free from concerns – an emptying of the mind. The fact that they do this daily and have done so for hundreds of years is evidence of the truth of what they claim it to be – a mental exercise that works.
The Catholic monks are praying to God and claiming that they are in communication with God – speaking to God and receiving replies to their prayers. The fact that they do this daily and have done so for hundreds of years is evidence of the truth of what they claim it to be – a means of communication with God, and evidence that they believe that God exists.

To dismiss these claims without serious investigation is to lack a fundamental and necessary reciprocity in human interaction.

Prayer isn’t automatic; it requires skill, guidance and practice… so God’s more like an arcade game than a vending machine?

You seem amused by the idea that communication with God requires some preparation and effort.

I suppose your explanation is internally consistent, but it has interesting theological ramifications, for instance, that God’s actions are contingent on humans doing things correctly. This would seem to me to suggest that God would be incapable of creating a detailed plan for the universe and fulfilling it… not completely, at least.

God’s actions are not contingent. Human receptivity is contingent on proper awareness and inner disposition. The unjust and deceitful man is not well-dispositioned to receive the grace of God (which arrives most often as a “still, small voice” for a very good reason). God is truth and He delights when his own creatures reflect the truth about themselves – and this requires humility – to see oneself as he truly is and not as ego will claim he is. God is not “incapable” of anything, but he is unwilling to force himself on his creatures.

That is an essential point to reflect on. God has created a world where his creatures possess freedom to turn against him. The reason for that is so they could truly experience what it means to choose the Good – and not merely be forced into doing it.

However, I think the analogy is breaking down, because for riding a bike to be truly like prayer, there would also have to be no known or measurable mechanism by which a bike standing up could even theoretically be plausible, which would mean that the analogy would be taking place in a universe without angular momentum.

Have you tried prayer?

 

[reggieM]

However, this is also a good example of what I’m talking about: say you view evolution as unlikely; well, is it less likely than any alternative explanation?

The same might be asked about God’s intervention – as in the story of Lourdes or the story of the submarine that we looked at.

You say that it is unlikely that those invents involved the supernatural - even though millions accept that the supernatural was involved at Lourdes. Additionally, there are no alternative explanations for these healings – the claim is that they were divinely miraculous. Science merely states that there is no known cause for the cure. So, in one case there is a reason proposed for these events and in the other, the alternative is that it is “unknown”.

First cures, taking place between 1860 and 1862 …

Louis BOURIETTE, of Lourdes (27-2-1858) (1862) Blindness due to trauma, right eye. (Quarryman, father of family).
2.
Blaisette SOUPENE (married Cazenave), of Lourdes, (27-2-1858) (1862). Eye condition. Ectropion.
3.
Catherine LATAPIE-CHOUAT, of Loubajac. (1-3-1858) (1862). Paralysis of the right arm from stretching of the brachial plexus.
4.
Justin DUCONTE-BOUHORTS, called BOUHORTS, aged 2 years, of Lourdes. (1858) (1862). Paralysis of the legs due to tuberculosis.
5.
Henri BUSQUET, of Nay (28-4-1858) (1862). Scrofula. Typhic myositis of the sterno-mastoid.
6.
Mrs. Madeleine RIZAN, widow, of Nay (17-10-1858) (1862). Perhaps a thalamic lesion (vomiting and dyspepsia). Generalized disorders following cholera.
7.
Miss Marie MOREAU, of Tartas. (9-11-1858) (1862). Eye condition. Blindness in one eye, lacrimation and myopia.

From 1862 to 1907 no canonical enquiry.
Miss Jeanne TULSANE, of Tours (8-9-1897) (27-10-1907). Lumbar Pott’s disease.
9.
Miss Elise LESAGE, of Arras. (21-8-1892) (4-2-1908). Tuberculosis of the knee.
10.
Sr. MAXIMILIEN, of Marseilles (20-5-1901) (5-2-1908). Hydatid cyst of the liver. Phlebitis of the left leg.
11.
Miss Marie-Therese NOBLET, of Reims (31-8-1905) (11-2-1908). Dorso-lumbar Pott’s disease.
12.
Fr. CIRETTE, of Evreux (31-8-1893) (11-2-1908). Antero-lateral spinal sclerosis.
13.
Rosalie VILDIER (Sr. Sainte Beatrix) of Evreux (31-8-1904) (25-3-1908). Chronic Laryngo-bronchitis, probably of tuberculous origin.
14.
Miss Joachim DEHANT, of Namur (13-9-1878) (27-4-1908).
Ulcer of the leg with extensive gangrene.
15.
Miss Aurelie HUPRELLE, of Beauvais (21-8-1895) (1-8-1908).
Pulmonary tuberculosis.
16.
Sr. SAINT-HILAIRE, of Rodez (20-8-1904) (10-5-1908). Intestinal carcinoma.
17.
Miss Clementine TROUVE, of Paris (21-8-1891) (6-6-1908).
Osteo-periostitis of the right foot.
18.
Miss Marie LEBRANCHU, of Paris (20-8-1892) (6-6-1908).
Pulmonary tuberculosis (spinster, mattress maker).
19.
Miss Marie LEMARCHAND, of Paris (21-8-1892) (6-6-1908).
Lupus of the face. (Spinster householder).
20.
Miss Esther BRACHMANN, of Paris (21-8-1896) (6-6-1908).
Tuberculous peritonitis.
21.
Mrs. FRANCOIS, nee Rose Labreuvoies, of Paris (20-8-1899) (6-6-1908). Abscess of the right arm with gross fistula formation.
22.
The Rev. Fr. SALVATOR, a Capuchin of Rennes (25-6-1900) (1-7-1908). Tuberculous peritonitis.
23.
Mrs. Johanna DUBOS, married Bezenac, of Perigueux, (8-8-1904) (2-7-1908). Cachexia of unknown aetiology. Impetigo.
24.
Pierre de RUDDER, of Bruges (7-4-1875) (25-7-1908). Open fracture of the leg. (Father, agricultural worker).
25.
Sister MARIE DE LA PRESENTATION, of Cambrai (29-8-1892) (15-8-1903). Chronic gastro-enteritis.
26.
Miss Marie SAVOYE (20-9-1901) (15-8-1908). Rheumatic mitral disease with failure. Gastro-enteritis.
27.
Sister EUGENIA, of Evreux (21-8-1883) (30-8-1908). Peritonitis with septic phlebitis.
28.
Anne JOURDAIN (Sister Josephine Marie) (21-8-1890) (10-10-1908). Spinal deformity: pulmonary tuberculosis.
29.
Clementine MALOT, of Beauvais (21-8-1893) (10-10-1908).
Pulmonary tuberculosis.
30.
Cecile DOUVILLE DE FRANSSU (Sister Marie de Saint Jean de la Croix), of Versailles (21-9-1905) (8-12-1909).
Tuberculous peritonitis.
31.
Marie LUCAS, married Bire, of Lucon (5-8-1908) (30-7-1910).
Incurable blindness with optic atrophy.
32.
Aimee ALLOPE, of Angers (28- 5-1909) (5-10-1910). Cold tuberculous abscess

 

[shoewindow3000]

This has turned into quite the pissing contest.

 

[reggieM]

Most of what has been said in my several posts has been off-topic from your OP. I think we should stick to the question you asked and leave it there. Sorry for going off on several tangents. I merely stated that there are many miracles, documented and accepted as such. Gearhead obviously disagrees, for reasons given. What I said was not intended as a contest but just an attempt to answer a number of objections. With that, I’m done. Thanks.

 

[Lev23]

What do you make of the prophecies given to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres by Our Lady of Good Success back in the 17th century, which came true EXACTLY as they were told? (You can look it up yourself. They were not vague-they were specific.)

You will find that most athiests haven’t researched every saint, every miracle, and every religious claim in christendom.

And add every religion in the world(And their claims) into the mix, we will ALL be “willfully” ignorant about such religious beliefs.

The answer to this question is simple.

Athiests realize most claims, can be explained naturally with enough research. If it cannot, then we accept it cannot be explained until we gain further knowlege. The athiest, will not put the “god” equation onto an historical event. They are an athiest. It’s a different mindset. They will simply say, we dont’ know.

And those that research it and do know, will be at your google fingertips

This is why it is so important to show God’s prophecy from His scriptures. The God of Israel is batting 1.000 with His prophecy.

For the God of Israel says-
Isaiah 42:9
See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you."

 

[Lev23]

I’ve looked over several dozen so-called “prophecies,” the bulk of which are Biblical. I don’t remember them all. But I have kept a tally of how many prophecies turned out to be demonstrably genuine upon close examination: zero.

Based not only on this unambiguous trend, which commands much inductive power on its own, but more importantly on the failure of any prophecy in history to withstand the skepticism of professional inquiry at large, I have tentatively concluded that divine prophecy is a myth.

Next time you want to “tally” up the God of Israel’s prophecies, clean out your ears and open your eyes, because to call His prophecy false is to deny the proof your eyes see and ears hear.

Here is a prophecy of the servant of the Lord-

**Isaiah 42:1-9
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.
He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.

A bruised reed he will not break, 
   and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. 
   In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 

he will not falter or be discouraged 
   till he establishes justice on earth. 
   In his law the islands will put their hope." 

This is what God the LORD says— 
   he who created the heavens and stretched them out, 
   who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, 
   who gives breath to its people, 
   and life to those who walk on it: 

"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; 
   I will take hold of your hand. 
   I will keep you and will make you 
   to be a covenant for the people 
   and a light for the Gentiles,

to open eyes that are blind,
to free captives from prison
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

"I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not give my glory to another
or my praise to idols.

See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you."**

What really is amazing is
" I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people
and a light for the Gentiles, …

Look at how the Jewish Messiah(Jesus), the servant of the Lord and with His Jewish Apostles from Israel have been a light to millions of gentiles for hundreds of years. Many gentiles came to faith before the printing press was invented to mass print the scriptures in all languages for all to have their own copies! Christianity, that is the Church is not a man made idea.

The God of Israel’s prophecies are specific, very specific. They are not a broad guess at how bad the world be at a later time.

For instance-
Zechariah 12:1-2
This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: "I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.

Now go Google “Jerusalem”, “dividing Jerusalem”, “United Nations Jerusalem”, etc. etc. Look on the web-video-news sections of your google search. What is the biggest obstacles for the nations to solve the middle east problem? Jerusalem.

Amazing, isn’t it?

That is just one out of many. The prophecies came to pass in full detail that foretold the coming of Jesus as the suffering servant, and also there are more foretelling His coming back that will be fufilled to the letter.

**continued… **

 

[Lev23]

continued…

How about for being dispersed from their land for 2000 years, the Hebrew people are today are coming back into the land they were dispersed from. The dispersion was prophesied, and guess what, so was their return, which at the moment, is ongoing. And if you want to say the Hebrews in the land today are imposters because they are not following God the way He wants them to see Him, that is through His only Son Jesus Christ, then you might be amazed to see he brought them back in the land (((in unbelief))). There is a time coming when they all look and call out for their Messiah, who is Jesus.

**Ezekiel 36
A Prophecy to the Mountains of Israel
"Son of man, prophesy to the mountains of Israel and say, 'O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: The enemy said of you, “Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession.” ’ Therefore prophesy and say, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because they ravaged and hounded you from every side so that you became the possession of the rest of the nations and the object of people’s malicious talk and slander, therefore, O mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Sovereign LORD : This is what the Sovereign LORD says to the mountains and hills, to the ravines and valleys, to the desolate ruins and the deserted towns that have been plundered and ridiculed by the rest of the nations around you- this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my burning zeal I have spoken against the rest of the nations, and against all Edom, for with glee and with malice in their hearts they made my land their own possession so that they might plunder its pastureland.’ Therefore prophesy concerning the land of Israel and say to the mountains and hills, to the ravines and valleys: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I speak in my jealous wrath because you have suffered the scorn of the nations. Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I swear with uplifted hand that the nations around you will also suffer scorn.
" 'But you, O mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, and I will multiply the number of people upon you, even the whole house of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt. I will increase the number of men and animals upon you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the LORD. I will cause people, my people Israel, to walk upon you. They will possess you, and you will be their inheritance; you will never again deprive them of their children.

" ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because people say to you, “You devour men and deprive your nation of its children,” therefore you will no longer devour men or make your nation childless, declares the Sovereign LORD. No longer will I make you hear the taunts of the nations, and no longer will you suffer the scorn of the peoples or cause your nation to fall, declares the Sovereign LORD.’ "

Again the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight. So I poured out my wrath on them because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols. I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the LORD’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone.

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

" 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine. Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel!

" ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On the day I cleanse you from all your sins, I will resettle your towns, and the ruins will be rebuilt. The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass through it. They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.” Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it.’

“This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Once again I will yield to the plea of the house of Israel and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the LORD.” **

Again, to say this is not happening today, you have to deny what you eyes see and ears hear.

 

[Lev23]

The New Testament is full of fulfilled, provable prophecy.

There are towns still alive from the biblical times. But also there are specific towns that are no more from the biblical times, and guess what, Jesus spoke judgement over those towns that are no more.

Jesus prophesized the destruction of the 2nd Jerusalem Temple, and it happened. Ask any one who has been on a tour of Israel, there are those towns(Korazim) that have been destroyed that have been dug up. There are stones still lying around the Temple Mount from the destroyed Temple, Some of these stones were later picked up and used for other structures around Jerusalem. There are many Temple stones that show fire damage, etc., etc.