How about a Miracle!

[Sender]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see diferent opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

[Scrotum]

It is the theme and subject of the whole old testament . Again, Isiah 53 written six hundreds years earlier, got it right down to Him being pierced in his side.

This might just be stupid ' ol me, but let me see if i got this right....

We have this book, saying this and this will HAPPEN, and then we have ANOTHER book, saying this HAPPENED... And hence, the prophecy is complete.... ehm.. Did i miss something?

So, you use Book I as a basis, and Book II as the "evidence" for the prophecy that Book I did....... Damn, Science would be sooooo easy if we could do it the same way Fundamentalists do it..

[Master Coelacanth]

Jesus IS omnipotent, but he has given you a free will to choose on your own. Do you actually want him to decide for you?

That would also negate the crucifiction. I can tell you he wants you to come to him, but he has given you the freedom to decide on your own.

But I deny Jesus and deny the crucifixion, there are no proofs, right? , so the first miracle should be an introduction card from this spirit, or God, or whatever it is supposed to be.

[Everstruggling]

All it would take for me to believe would be for Jesus to show up to me an about 3 of my friends or family. (People I know and trust.) For him to let us put our hands in his side and our fingers in his hand. And have him say something like, "Hey guys, I know that none of this makes any sense right now, but keep the faith, and we'll all have a good laugh when it's over."

I'm not even sure about the hole finger in the hand thing, as long as I was definitely certain that it was Jesus. (The hole in the side would be pretty darn convincing. I know some people would need something more on a grander scale, but I'm an easy sell. I would find it hard to convince myself that I was really hallucinating I think. If Jesus did that, I would cast aside any doubt and serve him the rest of my days, or the rest of days, which ever came first.

[The Nice Centurion]

He made the sun stand still for twenty fours hours.

Of course I'd like to point out that if the 'sun stood still' WRT the galaxy we'd have a hard time spotting any difference. Now if the Earth stopped spinning for 24 hours, that'd be different. The atmosphere better stop too or it would scour the surface clean with 1100mph winds.

You shouldn't believe nonsense like this. It's simply too much of a stretch to have all these miracles, one-to-one conversations and divine interventions compressed into the narrow timeframe of biblical accounts -- while the authors were busy with their pens. Then once Jesus pulls-out it all stops abruptly. What does this activity profile tell us? I think it speaks volumes about the process of story-telling and myth creation.


It just seems too convenient to have all the 'big events' taking place in the chronological safety of past millenias. This leaves us unable to probe or question the reports with the benefit of our current understanding and critical thinking. And before you reprimand me for talking in terms of doubting and seeking evidence... what are miracles if they are not meant to be evidence to persuade doubters?

It is exactly the opposite. A youner earth should be easier to disprove, yet here it is. Six billion years is what eveolutionist need to make their theory work, again this too for another thread.

Where are the modern day miracles? If there was incontrovertible evidence of a miracle the world would be obsessively focussed on it. You might be witness to what you think is a miracle, but you will be unlikely to get the world to share your conviction. Of course there's always a first for everything.

And that briings us back to the this threads topic. What type of miracle are you suggesting would have to happen for you (or anyone) to believe in Jesus? Would laying on of hands in the name of Jesus, healing the blind, the cancerous, AIDS, deceasses of all sorts, in the name of Jesus would that do it?

Yeah, here we have once again brought on the (proposed) miracles of healing the blind, the lame and the homosexualist.

Why is it so hard to even touch the proposal of a miracle that is for all we know impossible in principle.

The blind, the lame and the homosexualist are healed here and there all the time, or else a cure for people called to suffer from these things can be easily faked.

What about a lost limb growing fully back within seconds before live audience.
(Not on film, for today CGI could fake that easily.)

Hell, what about a severed head growing back IN SHORT TIME BEFORE LIVE AUDIENCE on a decapitated person and that person living happily ever after.

The only regrow of an allegedly amputated limb I could find is the Miracle of Calanda.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

And this one is far more shady and suspicious than Photographs of Bigfoot

[Mae von H]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see diferent opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

Jesus did tons of miracles and still they didn’t believe. Why do you think modern people are different?

[TRANSPONDER]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see different opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

Jesus did tons of miracles and still they didn’t believe. Why do you think modern people are different?

This is a serious question. Why, when Jesus did 'tons of miracles' didn't they believe? And this has been raised before in a thread or two - If God knew what it would take to make people believe, turn, repent and be saved, why didn't He arrange it so that would happen? Why - the thread asked - wasn't Jesus' resurrection done openly and in public so there would be no doubt?

cue: 'God knows best', and the answer would be to not interfere with free will. If people KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and if for surethat Jesus was god, then there is no room for Faith, and Faith requires an element of belief beyond mere convincing factual support.

Arguably what Jesus did back then, miracles and all, wasn't enough to persuade people then and could not be or Faith is undermined. And if it was intentionally not going to be enough to persuade people then, why should it be enough to persuade us now?

The thing about miracles is that they are either not verified, are credibly faked (it does happen) or are unexplained. Remission from cancer is a favourite 'Miracle', but until we know what does it, we do not know it is a miracle. Axiomatically, the unexplained is just unexplained; it is not Explained as a miracle, let alone to be credited to any particular god. It's the old problem and the irrational basis of Theist thinking: the assumption is that God's doing is the default hypothesis, so anything 'Unexplained' (or indeed hearsay) is God's doing until science proves 100% that it isn't. That is not how logic works. God is a claim that requires convincing evidence and is not the default until 100% debunked - which will never happen, since scientific proof is dismissed as 'human opinion' at need. No, it is validated science that explains how things happen, no god necessary, that is the 'materialist default'. But Theist thinking totally and persistently thinks God is the go - to theory when logically it is not. This is why all theist - thinking is fundamentally illogical even before they start arguing.

NDE's was a good example. We know that the NDE enthusiasts tried to rush us all to Belief in a soul, heaven and God before we even knew what this stuff was. Giving benefit of doubt about good intentions, it was an object lesson (if poor old Anthony Flew wasn't enough of one) that letting Believers rush us into conclusions before we really know what is going on is not something we can allow to happen, just so we don't look silly afterwards.

[Mae von H]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see different opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

Jesus did tons of miracles and still they didn’t believe. Why do you think modern people are different?

This is a serious question. Why, when Jesus did 'tons of miracles' didn't they believe? And this has been raised before in a thread or two - If God knew what it would take to make people believe, turn, repent and be saved, why didn't He arrange it so that would happen?

Because each man must choose to believe the evidence. And that choice will cost the man. The goal isn’t all believe whatever it takes. The goal that each man will lay his rebellion, surrender and walk with God. Miracles won’t guarantee this.

Why - the thread asked - wasn't Jesus' resurrection done openly and in public so there would be no doubt?

It says he appeared to hundreds.

cue: 'God knows best', and the answer would be to not interfere with free will. If people KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and if for surethat Jesus was god, then there is no room for Faith, and Faith requires an element of belief beyond mere convincing factual support.

He persuades. He doesn’t conquer. But “God knows best” is a weak answer.

Arguably what Jesus did back then, miracles and all, wasn't enough to persuade people then and could not be or Faith is undermined. And if it was intentionally not going to be enough to persuade people then, why should it be enough to persuade us now?

Some don’t want to believe. Miracles were done because people were suffering.

The thing about miracles is that they are either not verified, are credibly faked (it does happen) or are unexplained. Remission from cancer is a favourite 'Miracle', but until we know what does it, we do not know it is a miracle. Axiomatically, the unexplained is just unexplained; it is not Explained as a miracle, let alone to be credited to any particular god. It's the old problem and the irrational basis of Theist thinking: the assumption is that God's doing is the default hypothesis, so anything 'Unexplained' (or indeed hearsay) is God's doing until science proves 100% that it isn't. That is not how logic works.

You’ve answered your own question. You, yourself wouldn’t believe if a miracle happened right in front of you because you’ve concluded they’re faked, unverified or unexplained. You require that a miracle be verified or explained before they’ll convince you to believe.

God is a claim that requires convincing evidence and is not the default until 100% debunked - which will never happen, since scientific proof is dismissed as 'human opinion' at need.

Actually believing in the spiritual world is the default. One has to be convinced it’s all bunk.

No, it is validated science that explains how things happen, no god necessary, that is the 'materialist default'.

This you had to be taught. It’s not the position humans have naturally had down through time. There’s so much science cannot explain it’s not funny. And science has been wrong plenty too.

But Theist thinking totally and persistently thinks God is the go - to theory when logically it is not. This is why all theist - thinking is fundamentally illogical even before they start arguing.

Probably you haven’t interacted with many intelligent believers. And actually, evolution is the go-to theory when logic fails. Can’t explain something? Evolution did it. Logic not necessary.

NDE's was a good example. We know that the NDE enthusiasts tried to rush us all to Belief in a soul, heaven and God before we even knew what this stuff was. Giving benefit of doubt about good intentions, it was an object lesson (if poor old Anthony Flew wasn't enough of one) that letting Believers rush us into conclusions before we really know what is going on is not something we can allow to happen, just so we don't look silly afterwards.

I don’t recall hearing of an NDE or any other testimony and feeling I was being rushed into a particular thinking.

[TRANSPONDER]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see different opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

Jesus did tons of miracles and still they didn’t believe. Why do you think modern people are different?

This is a serious question. Why, when Jesus did 'tons of miracles' didn't they believe? And this has been raised before in a thread or two - If God knew what it would take to make people believe, turn, repent and be saved, why didn't He arrange it so that would happen?

Because each man must choose to believe the evidence. And that choice will cost the man. The goal isn’t all believe whatever it takes. The goal that each man will lay his rebellion, surrender and walk with God. Miracles won’t guarantee this.

Why - the thread asked - wasn't Jesus' resurrection done openly and in public so there would be no doubt?

It says he appeared to hundreds.

cue: 'God knows best', and the answer would be to not interfere with free will. If people KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and if for surethat Jesus was god, then there is no room for Faith, and Faith requires an element of belief beyond mere convincing factual support.

He persuades. He doesn’t conquer. But “God knows best” is a weak answer.

Arguably what Jesus did back then, miracles and all, wasn't enough to persuade people then and could not be or Faith is undermined. And if it was intentionally not going to be enough to persuade people then, why should it be enough to persuade us now?

Some don’t want to believe. Miracles were done because people were suffering.

The thing about miracles is that they are either not verified, are credibly faked (it does happen) or are unexplained. Remission from cancer is a favourite 'Miracle', but until we know what does it, we do not know it is a miracle. Axiomatically, the unexplained is just unexplained; it is not Explained as a miracle, let alone to be credited to any particular god. It's the old problem and the irrational basis of Theist thinking: the assumption is that God's doing is the default hypothesis, so anything 'Unexplained' (or indeed hearsay) is God's doing until science proves 100% that it isn't. That is not how logic works.

You’ve answered your own question. You, yourself wouldn’t believe if a miracle happened right in front of you because you’ve concluded they’re faked, unverified or unexplained. You require that a miracle be verified or explained before they’ll convince you to believe.

God is a claim that requires convincing evidence and is not the default until 100% debunked - which will never happen, since scientific proof is dismissed as 'human opinion' at need.

Actually believing in the spiritual world is the default. One has to be convinced it’s all bunk.

No, it is validated science that explains how things happen, no god necessary, that is the 'materialist default'.

This you had to be taught. It’s not the position humans have naturally had down through time. There’s so much science cannot explain it’s not funny. And science has been wrong plenty too.

But Theist thinking totally and persistently thinks God is the go - to theory when logically it is not. This is why all theist - thinking is fundamentally illogical even before they start arguing.

Probably you haven’t interacted with many intelligent believers. And actually, evolution is the go-to theory when logic fails. Can’t explain something? Evolution did it. Logic not necessary.

NDE's was a good example. We know that the NDE enthusiasts tried to rush us all to Belief in a soul, heaven and God before we even knew what this stuff was. Giving benefit of doubt about good intentions, it was an object lesson (if poor old Anthony Flew wasn't enough of one) that letting Believers rush us into conclusions before we really know what is going on is not something we can allow to happen, just so we don't look silly afterwards.

I don’t recall hearing of an NDE or any other testimony and feeling I was being rushed into a particular thinking.

Ok Apart from appeal to Belief and personal conviction, which is evidence of nothing,and claims he did tons of miracles and appeared to hundreds of people, which I personally doubt, you make a couple of points. If a miracle happened in front of me I probably would beleive, but I wouldn't expect others to believe it just because I say so. Miracle claimsin apologetics roll out that way. Someone says things in their life convinced them that God was intervening. This as 'open minded' (which i may post again as anyone who debates should watch it) says ' the other party has no way of verifying the event or knowing what parts might have been misremembered or left out. In my job I may say, I initiated (thanks to atheist -led critical thinking 'are you calling me a liar' policy where we had to say that anecdotal claims are not valid evidence for a case.

No. Supernatural claims are not the default. You say yes, I say no.Neither you nor I are the authority view here, but people must decide - Faith or logic and evidence.It is religious claims that have been shown to lose ground. Science moved on, sure, but generally to better understanding, rarely to say they were wrong about black holes, relativity or indeed evolution. Even Creationists nmow accept evolution - except they claim with no valid evidence that there is some kind of genetic fnce between Micro and macro.No more than there is a wire fence stopping aircraft that fly to Chicago going onto Japan. Micro = time= Macro. Also they now seem to endorse both evolution of critters and the deep time geology, but want to cram it into 1,000 years between the Ark and the pyramids. Religion has Dogma, science has re-evaluation. That is why it is 'always changing its'mind' - it makes science stronger in the end. Persistent denial makes Religious dogma weak in its' case.

You have a point that critical thinking and evaluating evidence logically has to be learned. Human instinct leads to what the Religious apologists call 'imperfect human perception'. It leads to illusion and delusion. It has to be taught and learned to do critical thinking and logical assessment of data. That is a point in its' favour. Rejection of evidence and reasons and claiming it is evidence and reason just weakens the religious case. You seem to be unfamiliar with th e case for evolution. I'll just say 'cetan sequence' (that is, whale evolution) That is why you present it as b ad logic and no evidence. It has compelling evidence; the denial and bad reasoning is on the Creationist side. I can see this will lead to discussion

I do recall, clearly, an attempt by the one who made the Big fat NDE claim to insist it was proof of a soul, Heaven and God, when the skeptic side were saying 'we don't know, yet; let'so the research'. The research generally showed that the results were in the human mind, not some outer reality.

Now let's post the mustwatch vid on critical thinking. You should watch it.

[The Nice Centurion]

The blind, the lame and the homosexualist are healed here and there all the time, or else a cure for people called to suffer from these things can be easily faked.

What about a lost limb growing fully back within seconds before live audience.
(Not on film, for today CGI could fake that easily.)

Hell, what about a severed head growing back IN SHORT TIME BEFORE LIVE AUDIENCE on a decapitated person and that person living happily ever after.

Why does no one want to answer my questions

[TRANSPONDER]

The blind, the lame and the homosexualist are healed here and there all the time, or else a cure for people called to suffer from these things can be easily faked.

What about a lost limb growing fully back within seconds before live audience.
(Not on film, for today CGI could fake that easily.)

Hell, what about a severed head growing back IN SHORT TIME BEFORE LIVE AUDIENCE on a decapitated person and that person living happily ever after.

Why does no one want to answer my questions

Because they know it doesn't happen. The response is always excuses for why 'miracles' happen in a way that could just as well happen without a god there. I quote an 'answered prayer' that happened to me. But I am an atheist and do not pray. It was simply incredible good luck, as they say. Cancer remission, placebo effect (that worked on me, too and nobody was praying) and other believe it or not things, but growing back a missing arm or leg.*crickets*. Except I recall a claim that some leg grew back or maybe "You can't prove a leg hasn't grown back". I think that was it. Reversal of burden of proof as you will identify. It is why anecdotal claims of the supernatural are not good enough, even if the stories do not self -contradict like the resurrection - accounts.