Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[KingandPriest]

Are you agreeing with the statement, or agreeing that my representation of the statement is accurate, while disagreeing with the statement itself?

I was in agreement that your representation of the statement is accurate. By correcting your statement to reflect that Christians have the type of faith in definition 1 and definition 2, you presented a statement I could agree with.

Can you explain the difference between scientific process as opposed to scientific method?

If you meant to demonstrate a difference between the two, I apologize for making an assumption that they were one and the same. Sometimes people used the term scientific process and scientific method interchangeably. I thought you were doing the same. If I was wrong, please correct and clarify.

Well, I did not mean to demonstrate a difference specifically so much as mark a distinction. Unfortunately, I do not find myself able to adequately state the difference. However, if pressed, I would have to say that by scientific process, I was referring to the more general application of the scientific method and the framework which is built around it.

So even though the more general application of the scientific method and the framework built around it, is not as rigorous as the scientific method, you find it worthy of your trust/faith.

I wrote about a generally accepted theory, age of the sun and composition of the Earth's core back in Post 17.

My argument was not that these theories did not follow the scientific method, but that they rely on the faith that the underlying assumptions are correct.

Ahh. In that case you would be incorrect. the utility of a theory or model is in it's predictive value; the underlying assumptions are irrelevant.

One does not have faith in a theory's underlying assumptions. If you have a model which is of great proven utility, yet has a known false underlying assumption, that simply means that you need to refine your assumptions, not that the theory is incorrect.

And you do not believe theories - that is not coherent. one accepts or rejects theories based upon the preponderance of evidence and the predictive capability of the theory.

How is the underlying assumptions irrelevant, when the entire model cannot exist without these underlying theories. This is like saying a persons parents are irrelevant to their conception, even though it is the sperm and egg of the parents which are the essential components needed.

Many attacks against claims of Christianity are attacks against the underlying assumptions made by believers. If as you state underlying assumptions are irrelevant, than a believer does not need to prove the underlying assumption that God exists. Christians can move forward with the utility of the Gospel of the Kingdom, and present empirical evidence to support the Gospels only. According to you, there should not be a need to prove the underlying assumptions.

So the model of the Gospel has great proven utility in the human race. Even if the underlying assumption cannot be proven, this does not make the message of the Gospel incorrect.

Belief is the acceptance of a claim as true. So when a person accepts a theory, they believe the theory. To believe = To accept. So when you state a person accepts a theory based on the preponderance of evidence, this is the exact same as saying a person believes a theory based on the preponderance of evidence.

A theory can follow the scientific method and still lack direct empirical evidence that proves the theory to be correct. The theory is believed to be true or accepted because it is often the best theory we have to date.

well, you can't prove a theory correct, but other than that, yes. Is this a problem?

No, not a problem. The fact that some theories cant be proven true is evidence that some theories are statements of faith. And by statements of faith, I mean something which is not currently evident or verifiable.

Some theories can be proven true in the future. For example, the composition of the earths core. Should we develop the technology, it is possible to one day verify and authenticate the actual composition of the core. If the actual verification matches our theorized composition, this theory will be proven true. If the actual verification of the composition yields a different mix of elements, we will prove the theory of a mostly iron core false.

Other theories such as whether we are in a privileged location in the universe cannot be proven true or false because by our calculations we will not be able to travel beyond our known universe. Although we know the universe is expanding through a stretching process, we know it is impossible to get beyond our universe to determine if our location is in fact special. Based on our observable universe, we are not in a privileged location. It is possible in the complete universe that we are in a special location.

Since some theories cant be verified they must be believed or accepted by faith. The faith in these theories is justified, but it is still faith.

If I follow your heirarchy of faith, you would place the highest amount of faith in the sciences of physics and chemistry, and little to no faith in biblical scholastic's.

Doesn't this hierarchy validate my initial claim in the OP that one needs to have more faith or a higher level of faith to be an atheist than a believer. Even if we limited faith to the definition 1, it can then be proven that a non-theists who has faith in science will have a higher level of confidence (faith) in their position. More faith to be an atheist than a believer.

That is actually the exact opposite of my meaning.

The hierarchy I showed is a representation of the level of certainty that I believe one can have in the conclusions of the given subjects based on the processes employed by those subjects and the preponderance of evidence. It requires a greater amount of 'faith' of whatever sort to reach a given level of certainty in a subject which is less concretely evidenced, such as history or biblical scholastics, than in one which is more concretely evidenced, such as physics.

to reach a given level of certainty, when one does not have evidence, one makes up the deficit with faith.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. It not only requires a greater amount of faith to trust a known liar than a known truth-teller, but it also requires a different manner of faith.

To accept as likely to be true the words of a person who has a history of always telling the truth is a matter of rationally extrapolating from the evidence.
to accept as true the words of a person who has a history of frequently lying is quite a different thing.

So according to your revised analogy you would assert that the sciences of chemistry and physics are the consistent "truth-teller" while those made by those who study the bible or theology are consistent 'liars". The other sciences fall somewhere in between.

Please confirm if I got your revised analogy correct?

Wow, what a bold statement, "Science if never factually incorrect".
Lets see, science is self correcting and never factually incorrect at the same time. So what is getting corrected, if science is never factually incorrect?

I almost didn't say that, because I was afraid you would fixate on it and get derailed as you have. I chose my words carefully, which is why I said that if you want to be pedantic, then science is never factually incorrect. You have missed the meaning of some of my statements.

I said that science does not make truth claims. You seem to have skipped this in favor of fixating on the previous.

If I were to say that the theory of gravity is our best current model to explain the phenomenon of gravity, then that is not a truth claim, and even if the theory of gravity is proven false 5 years from now, my statement was still factually correct.

However, if I were to say that the theory of gravity is the correct explanation for the phenomenon of gravity, then I have made a truth claim, and if the theory of gravity is proven false 5 years from now, then my statement was factually incorrect.


as I have said, science provides models of the greatest predictive capability. it does not make truth claims. This is because technically, science cannot prove anything absolutely.

If science does not make truth claims, how can the fields of science be compared to a consistent truth teller in your revised analogy?

You are asserting that science does not make claims of truth, and thus can be trusted with a greater level of confidence as to what is true.

The next question is what is considered evidentiary? Is empirical evidence the only thing which can be called evidentiary?

Science relies strictly on empiricism as the basis for what is evidentiary. Since the natural sciences focuses on the empirical world, this makes sense.

Those questions which science does not or cannot answer typically are not limited to the empirical world. "Why questions" are not limited to the empirical world, so it doesn't make sense to limit the type of evidence to empirical evidence.

The evidence for claims about the immaterial world are going to be different than those focused solely on the empirical world. Just because some of the evidence that is presented to support the bible is not empirical, does not make it non-evidentiary.

Yes, it does make it non-evidentiary. you cannot generate evidence without empirical data. You can generate purely logical proofs, but you cannot generate evidence. Please give me an example of non-empirical evidence.

I was hoping to get an answer about what makes something evidentiary. Is the claim of evidentiary limited to empirical evidence.

There are 15 types of evidence. Of the 15, here are the types of non-empirical evidence:
Testimonial evidence
Statistical / Mathematical evidence
Presumptive evidence
Hearsay evidence
Documentation evidence
Demonstrative evidence
Circumstantial evidence
Character evidence
Analogical evidence
Anecdotal evidence

As you can see, empirical evidence is limited to only 5 out of the 15 types. This is great for the scientific method because it is focused strictly on the empirical world. As we know in reality, the world is far more complex than just physical components.

Things like will or intent cannot be measured empirically. We rely on non-empirical evidence all the time in the world to help us make decisions.

In correct assumptions about theology. Theology relies on a mix of empirical and non-empirical evidence. The Natural sciences are limited to only empirical evidence.

Science works.
Theology also works. Some claims of theology can be tested while others cannot because we do not have an adequate means to test them in a controlled or consistent manner.

Bolding mine. I would like to note that with this statement, you have essentially conceded the argument. This 'non-empirical evidence' of which you speak is faith. Definition 2.

So in your opinion to rely on any of the types of evidence below "is faith, definition 2". When a person is convicted of a crime on the basis of any of the forms of evidence below, it is faith, definition 2. I would implore you to take some time and read through various case law or scientific research that uses non-empirical evidence.

• Testimonial evidence
  Statistical / Mathematical evidence
  Presumptive evidence
  Hearsay evidence
  Documentation evidence
  Demonstrative evidence
  Circumstantial evidence
  Character evidence
  Analogical evidence
  Anecdotal evidence

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 81 by KingandPriest]



[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Bad facts, vague definitions.
Part One[/center]

Can you explain the difference between scientific process as opposed to scientific method?

If you meant to demonstrate a difference between the two, I apologize for making an assumption that they were one and the same. Sometimes people used the term scientific process and scientific method interchangeably. I thought you were doing the same. If I was wrong, please correct and clarify.

Well, I did not mean to demonstrate a difference specifically so much as mark a distinction.

You want to mark a distinction between "method" and "process"?
I don't see any.

The words are synonymous, but we usually refer to "scientific method", instead of "scientific process" for some reason. I suppose method is a much more precise term for what scientists use.

Unfortunately, I do not find myself able to adequately state the difference.

So, you base your case on a distinction between "method" and "process", but you can't adequately state the difference.

Interesting.

However, if pressed, I would have to say that by scientific process, I was referring to the more general application of the scientific method and the framework which is built around it.

There is the "scientific method" and there is the more GENERAL "scientific method".
I wonder what that means?

When someone uses vague language and then uses vague language to explain the first comment, the vagueness only increases.

"Creationists constantly attempt to debunk evolution, claiming that it is incomplete and flawed. Miscarriages of justice revolve around the fact that juries took the testimony of 'expert scientific witnesses' to be true beyond reproach."
https://explorable.com/definition-of-th ... fic-method

And that, my friend, is one of the things you are arguing for in here.
And that's just not how science works, general, or specific to one particular discipline.

You get your facts about science wrong...
Over and over you do... close, but wrong.

I'm afraid that you might be getting your information about how science works from less that completely reliable sources. Somehow, you manage to interpret that science is built upon A PRIORI knowledge, when in fact, it's nothing BUT a posteriori.

You seem to have your facts about science quite UPSIDE DOWN.

Building a case on falsehoods is never going to be very convincing.
And vagueness is never going to clear anything up.
_______________

Questions:

• 
  1. If people keep having to ask what it is someone MEANS all the time... why would we think that person is being very CLEAR?
  2. If nobody is accepting our premises, should we expect to convince anyone about the soundness of our argument?

_______________

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 81 by KingandPriest]



[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Bad facts, vague definitions.
Part One[/center]

Can you explain the difference between scientific process as opposed to scientific method?

If you meant to demonstrate a difference between the two, I apologize for making an assumption that they were one and the same. Sometimes people used the term scientific process and scientific method interchangeably. I thought you were doing the same. If I was wrong, please correct and clarify.

Well, I did not mean to demonstrate a difference specifically so much as mark a distinction.

You want to mark a distinction between "method" and "process"?
I don't see any.

The words are synonymous, but we usually refer to "scientific method", instead of "scientific process" for some reason. I suppose method is a much more precise term for what scientists use.

Unfortunately, I do not find myself able to adequately state the difference.

So, you base your case on a distinction between "method" and "process", but you can't adequately state the difference.

Interesting.

However, if pressed, I would have to say that by scientific process, I was referring to the more general application of the scientific method and the framework which is built around it.

There is the "scientific method" and there is the more GENERAL "scientific method".
I wonder what that means?

When someone uses vague language and then uses vague language to explain the first comment, the vagueness only increases.

"Creationists constantly attempt to debunk evolution, claiming that it is incomplete and flawed. Miscarriages of justice revolve around the fact that juries took the testimony of 'expert scientific witnesses' to be true beyond reproach."
https://explorable.com/definition-of-th ... fic-method

And that, my friend, is one of the things you are arguing for in here.
And that's just not how science works, general, or specific to one particular discipline.

You get your facts about science wrong...
Over and over you do... close, but wrong.

I'm afraid that you might be getting your information about how science works from less that completely reliable sources. Somehow, you manage to interpret that science is built upon A PRIORI knowledge, when in fact, it's nothing BUT a posteriori.

You seem to have your facts about science quite UPSIDE DOWN.

Building a case on falsehoods is never going to be very convincing.
And vagueness is never going to clear anything up.
_______________

Questions:

• 
  1. If people keep having to ask what it is someone MEANS all the time... why would we think that person is being very CLEAR?
  2. If nobody is accepting our premises, should we expect to convince anyone about the soundness of our argument?

_______________

You misquoted both Final Enigma and myself. The quotes you attribute to me, actually belong to FinalEnigma, and vice versa Please go back to ref:Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?: Post 81

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 83 by KingandPriest]

You misquoted both Final Enigma and myself. The quotes you attribute to me, actually belong to FinalEnigma, and vice versa[/b] Please go back to ref:Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?: Post 81

Thanks for the clarification.

I sometimes imagine that everyone quotes other people the same way that I do.
I mix people up a lot.

Must be frustrating for others.
BUT.. at least, I try to be clear as to whom I am quoting, so that errors like that are CLEARLY visible and EASY to clean up.

so, ok, I should address my criticisms and questions to FinalEnigma.
a very sheepish "meowwww" from me

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

I dongt question the age of the solar system. Just the proclaimed age of the sun. It is proclaimed to be 4.6 billion as a fact when it is based on a position of faith. If we can base the age of the sun on faith in the nebular hypothesis, why can Christians base their belief in the faith that the bible is correctly describing God?

Faith in hypothesis A (nebular hypothesis) is acceptable, while
Faith in hypothesis B (the bible / God hypothesis/ what ever you want to call it) is unacceptable.

Why the inconsistency?

Why the inconsistency? Because you are attempting to compare conclusions derived from directly studying the physical evidence at hand with conclusions based on the ruminations of ancient people who had no real idea of what was occurring or why. It's rather like comparing a modern book on physics to a comic book version of reality. Ongoing investigation may, in the future, reveal further details which will cause the physics book to become obsolete. But the comic book version of reality never had any connection to anything valid and real right from the start.

For example, comic books tell us that Superman has super powers because he was native to a planet that had a red sun, and here on earth with it's yellow sun Superman is endowed with many powers above and beyond that of humans native to a solar system with a yellow sun. Physics however tell us that some stars are red because they have used up much of their lighter elements, have expanded and are now burning at a cooler temperature. Which causes them to produce light at a red wave length. Now, try placing red light bulbs in your lamps, and notice that changing the color of the light does NOT give you super powers. Because the wave length of light has nothing to do altering physiology. In exactly the same way, ancient make believe does NOT alter reality. Reality can however be studied and understood. And when it is, one must be ready to let go of ancient ignorance and accept what physical reality has to tell us.

So am I really comparing Superman to God? ABSOLUTELY! Both are claimed to have powers which enable them to defy the laws of physics. And neither can in any way be shown to physically exist. The only obvious difference is that one has been declared to be extent, and the other is understood to be purely entertainment. Neither can be counted on to actually turn up in case of an emergency however.

Sorry, for the delay in getting to this post, I have been pre-occupied with both Blastcat and Divine Insights replies, and have not been able to keep up.

I would assert that comparing God to Superman is an inadequate comparison because a lack of supporting evidence. No person has actually claimed that superman saved them from a peril, or performed a miracle. Superman was written about in a comic book, tv series and movies. I am not aware of a group of people who claim to have personal encounters with Superman, like Christians proclaim and describe personal encounters with Jesus.

Now, if you want to make the comparison of the comic book to certain stories in the bible, this may be more of a fair comparison, as you would be comparing biblical supernatural claims vs other claims of superhuman (or supernatural) abilities of superman. Unlike superman however, there are several accounts of by believers and non-believers (at the time) who write about God speaking to them during a difficult period or in some cases performing a miracle to save their life. Some have come to faith in Christ based on these actual encounters. In comparison, there are no records of people claiming a person saved them by shooting heat vision from their eyes or by freezing something with their breath.

Things like the nebular hypothesis are believable based on the compilation of indirect evidence, testimony of respected cosmologists, and mathematical calculations showing the even is possible or most likely occured in the manner proposed.

Likewise, a Christian can provide indirect empirical evidence, testimony of respected/trustworthy persons and mathematical calculations or simulations showing the even is possible or most likely occured in the manner proposed.

Both use the same method, but you assert we should treat the two trains of thought in an inconsistent manner because one did not know why an event occurred, and the other gave a good guess.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 85 by KingandPriest]


"Things like the nebular hypothesis are believable based on the compilation of indirect evidence, testimony of respected cosmologists, and mathematical calculations showing the even is possible or most likely occured in the manner proposed.

Likewise, a Christian can provide indirect empirical evidence, testimony of respected/trustworthy persons and mathematical calculations or simulations showing the even is possible or most likely occured in the manner proposed."


Wait what?!!!

Q: What empirical evidence can a Christian provide?

Q: What mathematical calculations or simulations can a Christian provide?

Never heard of such things.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 85 by KingandPriest]


"Things like the nebular hypothesis are believable based on the compilation of indirect evidence, testimony of respected cosmologists, and mathematical calculations showing the even is possible or most likely occured in the manner proposed.

Likewise, a Christian can provide indirect empirical evidence, testimony of respected/trustworthy persons and mathematical calculations or simulations showing the even is possible or most likely occured in the manner proposed."


Wait what?!!!

Q: What empirical evidence can a Christian provide?

Q: What mathematical calculations or simulations can a Christian provide?

Never heard of such things.

When Christians present evidence of miracles such as unexplained recovery from an illness or injury after being prayed for or having a minister lay hands on them, these are specific cases of empirical evidence. This evidence is not a direct proof, much like indirect evidence which support many scientific hypothesis and theories. The common reply by skeptics is correlation does not prove causation.

You allow scientist to use correlation of indirect evidence to support their proposed theories (causation) but refuse to allow others (Christians) to use correlation of indirect evidence to support their theories (miracles).

There are simulations which explain how the flood in Genesis could have occurred. Many reject the calculations because of the source, rather than the math and simulations themselves. If the math is wrong, that is one thing, but if the math is correct but rejected because it is based on a biblical theory, this is an inconsistent approach to analyzing information.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

Can you provide some links with this indirect empiric evidence for miracles healings.
Specific examples and studies.
Can you provide links to these simulations and mathematical calculations?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

Q: What empirical evidence can a Christian provide?

Q: What mathematical calculations or simulations can a Christian provide?

Can you provide some links with this indirect empiric evidence for miracles healings.
Specific examples and studies.
Can you provide links to these simulations and mathematical calculations?

Here is a link of a woman who tested positive for HIV. After being prayed for, she claimed she felt better and felt that she was healed. After about 3 months, she went back to the doctor for a check up and subsequent tests revealed she was HIV negative. She went to another hospital to get a second opinion, and that test also came back negative.


Here is another link showing testimony and accompanying lab results of confirmed HIV and then confirmed healing of the same disease.


There is also the well documented trail of evidence written about in the book "Cold Case Christianity." Here an atheist sought to prove that the Gospels were a result of collusion and could be proven to be false. After much research and use of the same investigative techniques used by law enforcement detectives, he discovered the testimony recorded in the Gospels is as reliable (if not more) as any other secular text available.
Section 2 of this book deals specifically with the supporting evidence for the validity of the testimonies of miracles claimed in the new testament. I have included a link to a PDF copy of the book.
http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Chri ... ianity.pdf

There is also the well documented miracles of spontaneous remission of certain types of cancer.

The spontaneous healing of cancer is a phenomenon that has been observed for hundreds and thousands of years and after having been the subject of many controversies, it is now accepted as an indisputable fact.
...
Cancer therapies have been standardized and have improved since Coley's day, but surprisingly modern cancer patients do not fare better than patients treated 50 or more years ago as concluded by researchers in 1999.
...
The standard definition of spontaneous regression as “the partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumor in the absence of treatment or in the presence of therapy considered inadequate to exert a significant influence on the disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

So there are well established records in modern medicine of individuals getting better (with no natural explanation) and no method of explaining why some get better while others do not.

All of these cases support the fact that miracles do occur. These are proven empirically and in some cases of medical miracles, have been studied and proven to occur.

The evidence of miracles taking place supports the theory that God can and will perform miracles. In addition, there is additional evidence of specific cases (like the ones above) of individuals being healed specifically through prayer.

There are also cases of non-medical miracles like those which were evidenced in the life of George Muller.

Through all this, Müller never made requests for financial support, nor did he go into debt, even though the five homes cost over £100,000 to build. Many times, he received unsolicited food donations only hours before they were needed to feed the children, further strengthening his faith in God. For example, on one well-documented occasion, they gave thanks for breakfast when all the children were sitting at the table, even though there was nothing to eat in the house. As they finished praying, the baker knocked on the door with sufficient fresh bread to feed everyone, and the milkman gave them plenty of fresh milk because his cart broke down in front of the orphanage.
...
Müller prayed about everything and expected each prayer to be answered. One example was when one of the orphan house's boiler stopped working; Müller needed to have it fixed. This was a problem, because the boiler was bricked up and the weather was worsening with each day. So he prayed for two things; firstly that the workers he had hired would have a mind to work throughout the night, and secondly that the weather would let up. On the Tuesday before the work was due to commence, a bitter north wind still blew but in the morning, before the workmen arrived, a southerly wind began to blow and it was so mild that no fires were needed to heat the buildings. That evening, the foreman of the contracted company attended the site to see how he might speed things along, and instructed the men to report back first thing in the morning to make an early resumption of work. The team leader stated that they would prefer to work through the night. The job was done in 30 hours.[37]
In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workmen at once found the site of the problem.[38][39]
Strong gales in Bristol on Saturday 14 January 1865 caused considerable damage in the area and over twenty holes were opened in the roofs. Around 20 windows were also broken and two frames damaged by falling slates. The glazier and slater normally employed had already committed their staff to other work so nothing could be done until the Monday. Had the winds continued, with heavy rain, the damage to the orphanage would have been much greater. After much prayer, the wind stopped in the afternoon and no rain fell until Wednesday, by which time most of the damage had been repaired.[40]
Once, while crossing the Atlantic on the SS Sardinian in August 1877, his ship ran into thick fog. He explained to the captain that he needed to be in Quebec by the following afternoon, but Captain Joseph E. Dutton (later known as "Holy Joe") said that he was slowing the ship down for safety and Müller's appointment would have to be missed. Müller asked to use the chartroom to pray for the lifting of the fog. The captain followed him down, claiming it would be a waste of time. After Müller prayed, the captain started to pray, but Müller stopped him; partly because of the captain's unbelief, but mainly because he believed the prayer had already been answered. When the two men went back to the bridge, they found the fog had lifted. The captain became a Christian shortly afterwards.[41]
Müller's faith in God strengthened day by day and he spent hours in daily prayer and Bible reading. Indeed, it was his practice, in later years, to read through the entire Bible four times a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M%C3%BCller

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-prob ... erspective
~~~
Now to the simulations and mathematical calculations that support the bible:



Also the probability of correctly predicting the age in which the Messiah would appear, die and subsequent destruction of Jerusalem were foretold roughly 500-600 years before Jesus was born, is so small that modern statistics would assert this prediction is not possible. The bible not only records such a prediction, but the probability of it coming to pass is actually greater than the probability of our universe coming together as we see today. This means there is a greater chance of creating another universe than making the prophecies outlined in the book of Daniel. I wrote about those prophecies in Here is my evidence: Post 73

Here is a simulation of how the flood could have occurred as described in Genesis through the hydroplate theory.
http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origin ... s/engl.htm

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

"Here is a link of a woman who tested positive for HIV. After being prayed for, she claimed she felt better and felt that she was healed. After about 3 months, she went back to the doctor for a check up and subsequent tests revealed she was HIV negative. She went to another hospital to get a second opinion, and that test also came back negative.


Here is another link showing testimony and accompanying lab results of confirmed HIV and then confirmed healing of the same disease.


There is also the well documented trail of evidence written about in the book "Cold Case Christianity." Here an atheist sought to prove that the Gospels were a result of collusion and could be proven to be false. After much research and use of the same investigative techniques used by law enforcement detectives, he discovered the testimony recorded in the Gospels is as reliable (if not more) as any other secular text available.
Section 2 of this book deals specifically with the supporting evidence for the validity of the testimonies of miracles claimed in the new testament. I have included a link to a PDF copy of the book.
http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Chri ... ianity.pdf

There is also the well documented miracles of spontaneous remission of certain types of cancer.
Quote:
The spontaneous healing of cancer is a phenomenon that has been observed for hundreds and thousands of years and after having been the subject of many controversies, it is now accepted as an indisputable fact.
...
Cancer therapies have been standardized and have improved since Coley's day, but surprisingly modern cancer patients do not fare better than patients treated 50 or more years ago as concluded by researchers in 1999.
...
The standard definition of spontaneous regression as “the partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumor in the absence of treatment or in the presence of therapy considered inadequate to exert a significant influence on the disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/

So there are well established records in modern medicine of individuals getting better (with no natural explanation) and no method of explaining why some get better while others do not.

All of these cases support the fact that miracles do occur. These are proven empirically and in some cases of medical miracles, have been studied and proven to occur.

The evidence of miracles taking place supports the theory that God can and will perform miracles. In addition, there is additional evidence of specific cases (like the ones above) of individuals being healed specifically through prayer. "

Someone experienced an unexplained medical recovery, therefore my God(Yahweh) exist is an argument from ignorance.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.


1. HIV tests are highly sensitive and may result in a false positive.

As for the cancer:
“Everson and Cole offered as explanation for spontaneous regression from cancer:
In many of the collected cases ... it must be acknowledged that the factors or mechanisms responsible for spontaneous regression are obscure or unknown in the light of present knowledge. However, in some of the cases, available knowledge permits one to infer that hormonal influences probably were important. ... In other cases, the protocols strongly suggest that an immune mechanism was responsible.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing
“The American Cancer Society states "available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments."[4] "Death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses."[4] When parents use faith healing in the place of medical care, some children have died that otherwise would have been expected to live.[9] Similar results are found in adults.�
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ldren.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... dical-help

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical3.htm


2. Maybe she is lying and the papers are fake.

3. Some kind of placebo effect.

4. Maybe TB Joshua is a fraud.

https://tbjoshuawatch.wordpress.com/201 ... -revealed/
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/09/real ... -miracles/

5. Even if she had HIV and then suddenly recovered, it still not means it was a miracle. The same goes with unexplained cancer recoveries.

Only that it is an unexplained medical phenomenon; maybe we don’t have a medical explanation now, but maybe in 50-100 years we will do.

Like when someone sees an UFO (unidentified flying object). It does not prove the existence of aliens, only that someone saw something in the sky and didn’t knew what it was.

6. Even if there is no natural explanation for the event, therefore a proof for the supernatural how do you determine which entity, being, gods or what is responsible for the event.

In 1963, Sathya Sai Baba suffered a stroke and four severe heart attacks, which left him paralysed on one side. These events culminated in an event where he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.
http://www.saibaba.ws/miracles.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

The argument from contrariety, first developed by David Hume in his mid-18th-century Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, notes that the contrary claims of competing religions are mutually exclusive and thus cannot all be true. Moreover, the testimonial "evidence" for the truth of any one religion (whether understood as testimony for the occurrence of public miracles or private religious experiences) is on an equal footing with the contrary testimonial evidence for any other religion (such that the clash of equally credible testimonies yields a "he said, she said" situation). Since there are a multitude of competing religions, and thus a multitude of (absent anything better than testimony) equally credible yet contrary testimonies, the probability that any given religion is true--and thus that any religion at all is true--is extraordinarily low. Consequently, it is highly probable that all religions are false. Although an argument from contrariety can be combined with an argument from religious confusion to demonstrate the probable nonexistence of God, it does not have to be; an argument from contrariety stands on its own as a strong argument for the falsity of all religions.

Q: Which is more likely that Sathya Sai Baba and TB Joshua have really performed miracles or that they tricked the gullible and the desperate?

Even though what you show might fool the gullible, does not convince anyone who is objective and rational in looking at the evidence. Not one "miracle healing" has been proven true.
We only see claims of miracle healing for diseases and illnesses that can go away on their own.
Or of people that have claimed to have heal others but were suspected later of being frauds.

Q: Can you show me cases of amputees with their limbs grown back, people cured of MS, Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Congenital hypothyroidism, Prader–Willi syndrome, 22q13 deletion syndrome, Huntington's disease, Acute intermittent porphyria?(And please don’t tell that nobody pray for these people)

Studies on intercessory prayer
“Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_o ... ory_prayer

“Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.�
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html