So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[fhansen]

You still don’t seem to realise that unlike inanimate molecules living beings have goals, one of which is to survive. They don’t have to “try”, they act instinctively. This is where your mechanistic view of life breaks down…

I think the point would be that, like a fly-by-wire drone programmed to navigate to different locales, a plant must also have a purpose, purposed by a programmer with goals.

 

[buffalo]

That’s one possible conclusion. Another possible conclusion is that a lot of people made an honest mistake, and there have been a variety of optical illusions suggested for this (for example, staring at the sun can cause the sun to leave after-images on your retina, which might very well be interpreted as the sun frantically moving around).

Frankly, I don’t know why so many people made the mistake that they did, but I don’t see sufficient evidence for thinking that their mistake was caused by a god.

I don’t know. Perhaps living creatures arose through some other natural process. Perhaps aliens created all living creatures on this planet. Perhaps some other god created all living creatures on this planet. Perhaps some other supernatural being – like Cthulhu – created all living creatures on this planet. etc, etc.

Even if you could somehow demonstrate that evolution is impossible – which you can’t…not with the sorry excuse for “evidence” you keep bringing up – it doesn’t mean that your god automatically exists.

“Evolution couldn’t have happened…therefore god exists” is a non-sequitur that is based in a false dichotomy.

Staring at the sun for that length of time would blind you, many reported recovering their sight.

The reason they knew it was of God is because the children were told by the Blessed Virgin Mary. They were also told to be there in advance. Why do you think 50000 people assembled on that day at that very spot?

OK - that is what ID the science claims - they do not know who is the intelligence. They leave that for the philosophers to figure out.

The evidence I bring up - you are free to refute the individual papers. But simply stating that they are a sorry excuse is bogus. They come from the same science community you worship.

As far as my discussion with you goes - I am content to show you evolution is unlikely. You decide where to go next.

 

[buffalo]

What “historical evidence”? If you’re referring to the Gospels, you have a number of documents written long after the purported events took place, written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses from oral tradition, that claim that supernatural things happened decades earlier.

That is not sufficient evidence that supernatural things happened.

Even if you had eye-witness accounts that were written down the next day, that’s not sufficient to demonstrate that something supernatural happened. As an example, there are people in the world right now – whom you can go and talk to today – who can give you their eye-witness testimony about being abducted by UFOs…sometimes multiple people claim to have been abducted at once.

Their testimony is not sufficient to demonstrate that UFOs really abduct people.

Testimony – particularly third- or fourth-hand testimony about supposed events that took place decades ago – is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of something supernatural.

You need to show that these events were written more than 60 years after the events.
You need to show that the people of the time were not able to transmit oral traditions accurately.
You need to show that Jesus did not walk the earth.
You need to show that the miracles He performed did not actually heal people.

We can start there.

 

[cassini]

So why doesn’t God write in the sky?

He did/ does. The problemn is that only theists can read His writings for the moment.

'St Paul said the pagans and now atheists] who affected not to know the truth of God had no excuse, because “God has manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: His eternal power also, and divinity, so that they are inexcusable.” ’ (Rom. 1:19-20)

Modern atheism, totally dependant on metaphysical assumptions for everything, will die in ignorance of God for some time. If however, our atheist friends are still around, God has promised to ‘write in the sky’ a little more personal so to speak:

‘And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations bewildered by the roaring of the sea and waves; men fainting for fear and for expectation of the things that are coming on the world; for the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand,’ -(Luke: 21:25)

 

[tonyrey]

I think the point would be that, like a fly-by-wire drone programmed to navigate to different locales, a plant must also have a purpose, purposed by a programmer with goals.

A delightful analogy!

 

[Thyme]

This morning I wrote a reply regarding Scientific evidence of miracles, but I don’t think I clicked the ‘Submit Reply’ button before shutting down

Sorry, I’m a bit too tired to find the information that I gathered again, but I will summarise it for you and if that’s not enough, I will gather it again tomorrow.

Basically, there are reports from the atheist newspapers about the MIracle of the Sun. All confirm the same events and that the crowd and surroundings were instantly dry after being drenched morning and night. All confirmed that the sun zig-zagged towards Earth, it spun, it didn’t hurt to look at, blind people could see, it happened exactly when the children said it would etc…

If this was caused by temporary damage to the retina by staring at the sun, why has it never happened since? Why was everyone suddenly dry and why did these flukes only happen at the time the children said it would?

If you want something that is still available for Scientific examining, there are the eucharistic miracles. I did a quick read and one of the groups who examined one was NASA. One blood droplet was equal to the weight of five, blood has been preserved for 1300 years with no perservatives, All blood from miracles is always the blood type AB, it only contains the female chromosones and so on…

There were too many reports to choose from, covering different miracles, so I just summarised it for you.

 

[abucs]

OK Antitheist, i wish you good luck.

You do raise some important questions and objections.

 

[abucs]

Interesting book regarding Fatima from John Haffert who supports the acceptance of the apparitions.

I have a copy at home and it gives a good perspective on the different types of people who were present and the political background to the reported apparitions.

amazon.com/Meet-Witnesses-John-M-Haffert/dp/1890137561

goodreads.com/book/show/1055830.Meet_the_Witnesses

 

[AntiTheist]

You need to show that these events were written more than 60 years after the events.
You need to show that the people of the time were not able to transmit oral traditions accurately.
You need to show that Jesus did not walk the earth.
You need to show that the miracles He performed did not actually heal people.

No, I don’t need to show those things. Most reputable scholars – including Christians --agree that no one knows exactly who wrote the Gospels. If you have a Bible with a scholarly section at the beginning of each of the books, give those introductions a read sometime.

The fact is that you are claiming that documents that are decades removed from events are sufficient evidence that the supernatural happened. They’re not.

I’m not denying that there was a Jesus – i.e. a guy upon whom the stories were based. In fact, I think it’s quite likely that there was. I’m just saying that there is insufficient evidence to believe the supernatural parts of the story.

Here’s a good analogy: a lot of scholars think that King Arthur was probably a real king. But that doesn’t mean that the stories based on him actually happened: that doesn’t mean that the supernatural elements of the stories actually took place.

You can’t use stories to demonstrate that the supernatural happened. A curious thing about this particular time period we’re discussing is that tales of magic and the supernatural were relatively common. Go read some of the Roman histories, where generals and other charismatic figures are described with stories that have all kinds of supernatural stuff going on. Stories of magic did tend to crop up around charismatic figures, and it’s not terribly surprising that a popular moral teacher – one who attracted the wrath of the government – would be depicted a supernatural miracle-worker in the tales that got passed down about him.

 

[AntiTheist]

Basically, there are reports from the atheist newspapers about the MIracle of the Sun.

Yes. No one’s denying that the people there saw something. They obviously did.

But no matter how much it may have looked like the sun dancing, we know that the sun did not really dance because we have exceptionally good evidence that it did not (such as observatories monitoring the sun at the same time, and the lack of the total destruction of planetary orbits that would have happened if the sun actually danced).

So what we have is a large group of people that made a mistake. What’s the cause of this mistake? I really don’t know, but I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to claim that it was a divine cause.

Look at your own post: all you have is an argument from ignorance: “I can’t imagine how this could have happened naturally, so therefore it must have been a divine supernatural miracle.”

That’s not sufficient evidence.

If this was caused by temporary damage to the retina by staring at the sun, why has it never happened since?

I recall reading that there have been other “miracles of the sun” on smaller scales…can’t remember where I read that, though. I’ll look into it if I get time.

Why was everyone suddenly dry and why did these flukes only happen at the time the children said it would?

Well, in answer to your last question, it happened at that time because that was the time that thousands of people got together and stared at the sun.

Again, I don’t really now what caused so many people to make a mistake, but “I don’t know” can’t be used to support your argument.

 

[R_Daneel]

You still don’t seem to realise that unlike inanimate molecules living beings have goals, one of which is to survive. They don’t have to “try”, they act instinctively.

Of course they do. But to call that a “purposeful” action only serves to create confusion.

 

[Thyme]

Yes. No one’s denying that the people there saw something. They obviously did.

But no matter how much it may have looked like the sun dancing, we know that the sun did not really dance because we have exceptionally good evidence that it did not (such as observatories monitoring the sun at the same time, and the lack of the total destruction of planetary orbits that would have happened if the sun actually danced).

So what we have is a large group of people that made a mistake. What’s the cause of this mistake? I really don’t know, but I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to claim that it was a divine cause.

Look at your own post: all you have is an argument from ignorance: “I can’t imagine how this could have happened naturally, so therefore it must have been a divine supernatural miracle.”

That’s not sufficient evidence.

I recall reading that there have been other “miracles of the sun” on smaller scales…can’t remember where I read that, though. I’ll look into it if I get time.

Well, in answer to your last question, it happened at that time because that was the time that thousands of people got together and stared at the sun.

Again, I don’t really now what caused so many people to make a mistake, but “I don’t know” can’t be used to support your argument.

Hello,

As said before, we believe this to be a local miracle. Many miracles have been aimed at a small area. There are many things such as these, which scientists cannot understand (for example, a drop of blood from a eucharistic miracle weighing the same as five and never decaying etc…). Scientists have confirmed that there are no added persevatives and that it consists of all the properties of blood. The same applies to flesh when it appears in eucharistic miracles. So, either scientific laws are invalid, scientific laws were somehow bent or it was a miracle.

I believe in the laws of science and that if they are bent, then there is something out there, greater than physical laws who is able to do this.

 

[buffalo]

No, I don’t need to show those things. Most reputable scholars – including Christians --agree that no one knows exactly who wrote the Gospels. If you have a Bible with a scholarly section at the beginning of each of the books, give those introductions a read sometime.

The fact is that you are claiming that documents that are decades removed from events are sufficient evidence that the supernatural happened. They’re not.

I’m not denying that there was a Jesus – i.e. a guy upon whom the stories were based. In fact, I think it’s quite likely that there was. I’m just saying that there is insufficient evidence to believe the supernatural parts of the story.

Here’s a good analogy: a lot of scholars think that King Arthur was probably a real king. But that doesn’t mean that the stories based on him actually happened: that doesn’t mean that the supernatural elements of the stories actually took place.

You can’t use stories to demonstrate that the supernatural happened. A curious thing about this particular time period we’re discussing is that tales of magic and the supernatural were relatively common. Go read some of the Roman histories, where generals and other charismatic figures are described with stories that have all kinds of supernatural stuff going on. Stories of magic did tend to crop up around charismatic figures, and it’s not terribly surprising that a popular moral teacher – one who attracted the wrath of the government – would be depicted a supernatural miracle-worker in the tales that got passed down about him.

First let’s deal with when and by whom they were written. Then we can move on.
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/authors-gospels-1.htm
The Gospels are Historical

CHAPTER XXI

THE UNFOLDING OF EVENTS

Undisputed dates in the list below are in bold type. The sequence of events concerning the Christian Community have been inserted, some tentatively, within this framework.

Year AD Event
The Resurrection.
The leaders of the Jews persecute the first Christians.
Saul/Paul is converted.
Matthew composes his Hebrew gospel/ liturgy in Palestine.
Matthews gospel is translated into Greek.** King Herod Agrippa executes the Apostle James the Great. Peter escapes and flees to Rome. The other apostles spread out from Palestine. **44** King Herod Agrippa dies. **49** Jews and Christians expelled from Rome following riots. **Luke writes his gospel for the Gentiles, partly based on Matthews gospel.
First of Pauls epistles; some influenced by Matthews gospel.
Paul imprisoned by Romans.
A copy of Matthew’s Gospel taken to India.
**54 ** Nero becomes emperor.
The Apostle James the Less, bishop of Jerusalem, killed by stoning.
The Christians are expelled from the Temple.
Luke completes his Acts of the Apostles.
Paul asks Timothy to join him on a mission to Spain.
Paul released from prison.
Peter ordains Linus, Cletus and Clement as assistant bishops.
Peter endorses Lukes gospel by using it in a series of talks. Mark issues a first transcript of Peters talks.
Peter approves Marks transcript. Used as a Gospel. Lukes gospel published as an authorised gospel.
Acts issued with the authorisation of Paul and Peter.
John writes twenty chapters of his Gospel.
64 July Rome devastated by fire.
65 Spring Nero commences persecution of Christians.
Peter martyred.
Linus replaces Peter as bishop of Rome.
Mark issues second edition of Peter’s talks.
66 Jewish rebellion in Palestine.
Paul goes to Spain.
68 early Jerusalem surrounded for first time by Romans.
68 June Suicide of Emperor Nero followed by civil strife. This leads to the Roman troops surrounding Jerusalem being withdrawn.
Paul returns from Spain and visits Asia and Crete.
Paul writes an epistle to the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem.
The Hebrew Christians flee from Jerusalem to Pella.
Paul again imprisoned in Rome and then martyred.
69 Galba, Vitellius and Otho die trying to become emperors.
69 Vespasian becomes emperor and renews war in Palestine.
69 Romans surround Jerusalem for second time.
Clement of Rome replies to Corinthians on behalf of Linus.
70 Aug Jerusalem, including its Temple, is destroyed.
Linus dies (about 81). Cletus becomes bishop of Rome.
91 Domitian starts persecution.
Cletus dies (about 92). Clement becomes bishop of Rome.
Jewish leaders (about 96) hold a conference at Jamnia.
Clement, bishop of Rome, exiled by Romans to the Crimea.
John the Apostle (About 96) adds final chapter to his gospel.
John the Apostle dies.
**98 ** Trojan becomes emperor.
About 101 Clement dies and Evaristus becomes bishop of Rome.
About 130 Papias records that Mark wrote down Peter`s words.

 

[buffalo]

Yes. No one’s denying that the people there saw something. They obviously did.

But no matter how much it may have looked like the sun dancing, we know that the sun did not really dance because we have exceptionally good evidence that it did not (such as observatories monitoring the sun at the same time, and the lack of the total destruction of planetary orbits that would have happened if the sun actually danced).

So what we have is a large group of people that made a mistake. What’s the cause of this mistake? I really don’t know, but I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to claim that it was a divine cause.

Look at your own post: all you have is an argument from ignorance: “I can’t imagine how this could have happened naturally, so therefore it must have been a divine supernatural miracle.”

That’s not sufficient evidence.

I recall reading that there have been other “miracles of the sun” on smaller scales…can’t remember where I read that, though. I’ll look into it if I get time.

Well, in answer to your last question, it happened at that time because that was the time that thousands of people got together and stared at the sun.

Again, I don’t really now what caused so many people to make a mistake, but “I don’t know” can’t be used to support your argument.

An atmospheric lensing cannot be ruled out.

Just because other places did not record it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

 

[mangy_dog]

I hope most of you understood what I mean by that question.

A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

This is a very serious objection. If God would personally appear to us all, then it would be much easier to believe in him and follow his will.

Some will say that this, in some way, would negate free will.

But the angels knew God existed, and yet they still had a choice to rebel.

So why doesn’t God reveal to us all that he truly exists, and that Christianity is true?

Even though the Apostles suffered much for their faith, they at least had assurance that God exists. They themselves saw the Resurrected body of Jesus! So why can’t we all have this personal experience, that way there wouldn’t be any atheists? I don’t mean to sound grumpy or arrogant when I say this.

I just wish we could all have assurance like they did.

So why doesn’t God just “write in the sky”?

NOTE: This question originally popped up in my mind as an emotional response while watching a Christian vs. Atheist debate (Dinesh D’Souza v. John Loftus to be specific). While I was watching, I just thought to myself: This atheist sounds pretty sincere to me, as I’m sure most are. I felt sad for him and all of the unbelievers out there. We all want to know the truth. Why do you think God doesn’t tell us the truth in the way I described?

He does and He did and He still does.

If you understand that Jesus is true God and true man and that He is the Word of God made flesh, then your questions are answered. The words of Jesus Christ - the Man God -
are your answers.

It is very easy for a couple of debaters to get wrapped around the axle if the premise is not Jesus Christ, one in being with the Father.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, either scientific laws are invalid, scientific laws were somehow bent or it was a miracle.

I believe in the laws of science and that if they are bent, then there is something out there, greater than physical laws who is able to do this.

Again, in case you missed it, “I don’t know how this happened” cannot be evidence that the event had a supernatural cause.

buffalo:

An atmospheric lensing cannot be ruled out.

Just because other places did not record it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I agree that something happpened – a whole bunch of people saw what looked like the sun dancing, and they were mistaken.

We’re discussing why they were mistaken. You’ve given a possible natural explanation in your post, and I’ve suggested a possible natural explanation, and there’s also the possibility that some magical being (either your god or maybe some other spiritual being, like a mischievous leprechaun) caused all these people to make a mistake.

But the real answer is that nobody knows.

 

[AntiTheist]

First let’s deal with when and by whom they were written. Then we can move on.

It is not at all controversial among Biblical scholars that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are names attributed to anonymous, non-eyewitness authors. If you have such poor working knowledge of the scholarship that you do not even know this fact, then it would be pointless to discuss it further with you.

I would recommend Randel Helms’ book Who Wrote the Gospels if you wish to educate yourself further on this issue.

But as I said, it’s irrelevant. Even if you could demonstrate that the Gospels were all written the next day by eyewitnesses – something you can’t demonstrate because it’s not true – it couldn’t be evidence that supernatural things happen.

Stories cannot demonstrate that the supernatural happened.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I think more to the point is: No amount of evidence can demonstrate the supernatural to someone with an *a priori * rejection of the possibility of the supernatural. That rejection is a metaphysical position, not an empirical one.

 

[Thyme]

I think more to the point is: No amount of evidence can demonstrate the supernatural to someone with an *a priori * rejection of the possibility of the supernatural. That rejection is a metaphysical position, not an empirical one.

I agree. I don’t think that any miracle would be enough because people will always be expecting another solution.

Every single one of my prayers has been answered and as mentioned earlier, my Mum visited Lourdes as a last resort before having her lung collapsed- upon arriving home, she was immediately better (no scars etc). She had been in and out of hospital for years and was at the point where she had to do school work in bed at home. If her lung wasn’t collapsed as the last resort, she would die. She has medical reports to prove all this.

Are all my answered prayers and all the miracles enough to prove God? Well, it depends on how many coincidences you need in order for them to be seen as proof. If I made a wish on a birthday cake for something, I would know it would just be for fun and that it would never come true.

However, if I prayed for something, It will always be answered. This is all the proof I need.

 

[ddarko]

It is not at all controversial among Biblical scholars that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are names attributed to anonymous, non-eyewitness authors. If you have such poor working knowledge of the scholarship that you do not even know this fact, then it would be pointless to discuss it further with you.

I would recommend Randel Helms’ book Who Wrote the Gospels if you wish to educate yourself further on this issue.

But as I said, it’s irrelevant. Even if you could demonstrate that the Gospels were all written the next day by eyewitnesses – something you can’t demonstrate because it’s not true – it couldn’t be evidence that supernatural things happen.

Stories cannot demonstrate that the supernatural happened.

Hi AntiTheist,

I think you are 1) missing a key point here and at the same time 2) answering the question asked by the OP on why God doesn’t write in the sky.

First to explain on (1), what do you think caused these people to preach that Christ rose from the dead in the midst of persecution? I can believe that one or two people would have been psychologically insane but the whole group? And I mean why preach that he rose from the dead which is something absurd at the time? Why not go for something like the Muslims do that he never died in the first place? I think the more reasonable answer to this is that it actually must have happened. So the existence of Christianity today is the best proof of the supernatural and God.

Now on (2), you say “Stories cannot demonstrate that the supernatural happened”. But everything is a story. Me writing down the observations from a microscope is a story. The only difference is that you will be willing to accept what I wrote down about a scientific observation and something that agrees with you rather than something that doesn’t. So if there was indeed something written in the sky tomorrow that “I AM GOD AND I EXIST”, you will have a million Godless explanations for how it happened and if all of them were refuted, you will simply say that absence of a Godless explanation does not mean there isn’t one. So God will do miracles when he knows it is the exact time that it can help a believer or make a unbeliever believe. Otherwise he has no need to “write in the sky” and your reply highlights the reason why

God Bless