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.

[Mae von H]

Did you ever see the clip about Dawkins insisting that faith is something you believe for no reason and John Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife and was there a reason?

What did Dawkins answer

“Never mind about my wife.” He’d been caught making a statement about faith regarding religion that he didn’t apply to himself. Double standard.

[Mae von H]

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

Well, maybe later. The last clip was anything but logical or rational. It was simply repeated mocking over and over again reminding me of junior high school. Does this have some intellectual quality or is it again simply jeering like a 13 jeer old?

Did you ever see the clip about Dawkins insisting that faith is something you believe for no reason and John Lennox asked him if he had faith in his wife and was there a reason?

The last clip? About atheist dictators? It made the point that their dogmas were based on political ideas and not on atheism. Atheism is not the reason they did what they did. Nor does it mean that atheists have to be bad or even less that it makes it invalid. It is simply mud - slinging.

The old 'Faith' apologetic is rubbish. If one has a wife, it's like having a friend in that you know them enough to trust them. Just as we have reason to believe our car will start, or our house will not fall down. We know how the world works. We know cars sometimes fail, houses can start to develop cracks and we may get worrying signs about cracks in a spouse too. That is not at all the same thing has supposing supernatural beings exist when there is no good evidence for it, and more than that, Religious 'Faith' is the kind of belief or trust taken to absolute conviction in the face of no good evidence or even against the decent evidence.

Essentially, that apologetics is an equivocation fallacy.

Are you married? You needn’t answer as it’s personal information, but to equate your spouse as a “friend that you know enough to trust them” like your car starting makes me think you aren’t. That is so far from what having a life long companion is, words fail to describe it.

Otherwise you divorce what a man believes from how he behaves whereas it’s actually vital. People behave according to their presuppositions. If God does not exist, anything is permissible" was uttered by Ivan in 'Brothers Karamazov'.

Dostoyevsky

Greater minds than ours have seen clearly this connection that you deny. And it’s simple. If there are no consequences to doing wrong to others besides people catching you and even then it might mean nothing, then you feel free to do to others as pleases you. It is undisputed that if all the police left a city, people would do terrible things to others, those who don’t believe God is taking note and judgment awaits. Experiments with young people showed they were willing to give lethal electricity to innocent students if there are no consequences. Scientists were shocked. Believers in Christ wouldn’t be.

Now some can have an internal standard but Jordan Peterson studied how ordinary Germans became ruthlessly cruel overseers and it is clear to him, anyone can become such. I would add that a true follower of Jesus EVIDENCED by his choices (no true scotsman fallacy) would be least likely and many have refused to participate in evil at the cost of their own lives.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

I used to be married (1). I can only say that appeal to human confusion, misperception and mythology about instinct - driven human behavior does not a case make. Appeal to greater brains than mine (I might appeal to Voltaire, Russell and Einstein whose brains were greater but did not believe in any religion) is worthless because they didn't know what we know now.

Any High Schooler knows more about the universe than Galileo, but that is because of more knowledge, not smarts. Newton was aone of the greates brains, but he believed in Astrology and Alchemy as well as the prophecy of Daniel. Great brains are limited by information.

As to morals without God, Nietzsche is a nice example. He was in a fret about where morals would come from if God- belief was gone.

It isn't a question of use being smarter that Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but we understand now more about the Biological basis of morality and a god is no more needed for thought, instinct or morality than it is for Life, the Universe and everything.

(1) to avoid speculation, she was Asian, crazy as a coot but hot as hell. Gradually as we got (much) older she travelled back to be with family and friends more often (especially in winter) and the marriage was conveniently wound up when she went home permanently.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

I used to be married (1). I can only say that appeal to human confusion, misperception and mythology about instinct - driven human behavior does not a case make.

Who is doing this?

Appeal to greater brains than mine (I might appeal to Voltaire, Russell and Einstein whose brains were greater but did not believe in any religion) is worthless because they didn't know what we know now.

I seriously doubt the average westerner knows more than Einstein

Any High Schooler knows more about the universe than Galileo, but that is because of more knowledge, not smarts. Newton was aone of the greates brains, but he believed in Astrology and Alchemy as well as the prophecy of Daniel. Great brains are limited by information.

I seriously doubt the average high school or college grad could read Newtons Principa Mathematica and find they know more that he did.

As to morals without God, Nietzsche is a nice example. He was in a fret about where morals would come from if God- belief was gone.

No where. We do know more than those guys…some of us.

It isn't a question of use being smarter that Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but we understand now more about the Biological basis of morality and a god is no more needed for thought, instinct or morality than it is for Life, the Universe and everything.

Like what? What’s the biological basis for honor, for example?

(1) to avoid speculation, she was Asian, crazy as a coot but hot as hell. Gradually as we got (much) older she travelled back to be with family and friends more often (especially in winter) and the marriage was conveniently wound up when she went home permanently.

Sorry it didn’t work. She wasn’t from Hong Kong, by any chance?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

I used to be married (1). I can only say that appeal to human confusion, misperception and mythology about instinct - driven human behavior does not a case make.

Who is doing this?

Appeal to greater brains than mine (I might appeal to Voltaire, Russell and Einstein whose brains were greater but did not believe in any religion) is worthless because they didn't know what we know now.

I seriously doubt the average westerner knows more than Einstein

Any High Schooler knows more about the universe than Galileo, but that is because of more knowledge, not smarts. Newton was aone of the greates brains, but he believed in Astrology and Alchemy as well as the prophecy of Daniel. Great brains are limited by information.

I seriously doubt the average high school or college grad could read Newtons Principa Mathematica and find they know more that he did.

As to morals without God, Nietzsche is a nice example. He was in a fret about where morals would come from if God- belief was gone.

No where. We do know more than those guys…some of us.

It isn't a question of use being smarter that Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but we understand now more about the Biological basis of morality and a god is no more needed for thought, instinct or morality than it is for Life, the Universe and everything.

Like what? What’s the biological basis for honor, for example?

(1) to avoid speculation, she was Asian, crazy as a coot but hot as hell. Gradually as we got (much) older she travelled back to be with family and friends more often (especially in winter) and the marriage was conveniently wound up when she went home permanently.

Sorry it didn’t work. She wasn’t from Hong Kong, by any chance?

Who is doing that?Anyone who appeals to religious claims as reliable fact. After all, if nobody is doing (or implying) that, what is the point of raising the morality argument, anyway?

You sorta get the point. Intelligence or even genius isn't the point, it os better knowledge. Einstein as smart as he was persistently denied quantum. he was wrong. We may admire and ever revere these thinkers but we must recognise the limitations.

The biology of honor, is the same as the biology of any social, family or tribal interaction. This study is only starting or only just being discussed, so of course we don't have all the answers yet, but for sure, the answers are to be found in evolved instinct and the group interactions that enable survival of individual, tribe and species. The point is that there is already an alternative hypothesis to 'God did that'. Morality is not now, nor ever was a valid argument for a god, never mind any particular one.

And I wouldn't say it didn't work; it did for a good while, but the dynamic changed. And not from Hong Kong, nor for that matter from Thailand nor the Philippines.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

I used to be married (1). I can only say that appeal to human confusion, misperception and mythology about instinct - driven human behavior does not a case make.

Who is doing this?

Appeal to greater brains than mine (I might appeal to Voltaire, Russell and Einstein whose brains were greater but did not believe in any religion) is worthless because they didn't know what we know now.

I seriously doubt the average westerner knows more than Einstein

Any High Schooler knows more about the universe than Galileo, but that is because of more knowledge, not smarts. Newton was aone of the greates brains, but he believed in Astrology and Alchemy as well as the prophecy of Daniel. Great brains are limited by information.

I seriously doubt the average high school or college grad could read Newtons Principa Mathematica and find they know more that he did.

As to morals without God, Nietzsche is a nice example. He was in a fret about where morals would come from if God- belief was gone.

No where. We do know more than those guys…some of us.

It isn't a question of use being smarter that Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but we understand now more about the Biological basis of morality and a god is no more needed for thought, instinct or morality than it is for Life, the Universe and everything.

Like what? What’s the biological basis for honor, for example?

(1) to avoid speculation, she was Asian, crazy as a coot but hot as hell. Gradually as we got (much) older she travelled back to be with family and friends more often (especially in winter) and the marriage was conveniently wound up when she went home permanently.

Sorry it didn’t work. She wasn’t from Hong Kong, by any chance?

Who is doing that?Anyone who appeals to religious claims as reliable fact. After all, if nobody is doing (or implying) that, what is the point of raising the morality argument, anyway?

Then raise that point with “anyone.” I’m not doing that.

You sorta get the point. Intelligence or even genius isn't the point, it is better knowledge. Einstein as smart as he was persistently denied quantum. he was wrong. We may admire and ever revere these thinkers but we must recognise the limitations.

I venture to say he knew MORE than most people today. You seem to lightly dismiss everyone it seems, except yourself. You’re thinking you don’t seem to question even though you’re not perfect either. But Everyone else, because they weren’t perfect, is less. You might Try applying the standard you put on Einstein to yourself.

The biology of honor, is the same as the biology of any social, family or tribal interaction. This study is only starting or only just being discussed, so of course we don't have all the answers yet, but for sure, the answers are to be found in evolved instinct and the group interactions that enable survival of individual, tribe and species. The point is that there is already an alternative hypothesis to 'God did that'. Morality is not now, nor ever was a valid argument for a god, never mind any particular one.

As I suspected, you cannot explain honor nor any other virtue from biology. You just “it’s tobe found there” but cannot say where or how. Evolution is >100 years old and cannot explain the simplest of obvious truths. Honor exists among men (some at least.) Biology cannot explain why.

Hint: all virtues fly inthe face of evolution which has one code, your survival over others no matter the cost to others same as the jungle.

And I wouldn't say it didn't work; it did for a good while, but the dynamic changed. And not from Hong Kong, nor for that matter from Thailand nor the Philippines.

Ok.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

I used to be married (1). I can only say that appeal to human confusion, misperception and mythology about instinct - driven human behavior does not a case make.

Who is doing this?

Appeal to greater brains than mine (I might appeal to Voltaire, Russell and Einstein whose brains were greater but did not believe in any religion) is worthless because they didn't know what we know now.

I seriously doubt the average westerner knows more than Einstein

Any High Schooler knows more about the universe than Galileo, but that is because of more knowledge, not smarts. Newton was aone of the greates brains, but he believed in Astrology and Alchemy as well as the prophecy of Daniel. Great brains are limited by information.

I seriously doubt the average high school or college grad could read Newtons Principa Mathematica and find they know more that he did.

As to morals without God, Nietzsche is a nice example. He was in a fret about where morals would come from if God- belief was gone.

No where. We do know more than those guys…some of us.

It isn't a question of use being smarter that Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but we understand now more about the Biological basis of morality and a god is no more needed for thought, instinct or morality than it is for Life, the Universe and everything.

Like what? What’s the biological basis for honor, for example?

(1) to avoid speculation, she was Asian, crazy as a coot but hot as hell. Gradually as we got (much) older she travelled back to be with family and friends more often (especially in winter) and the marriage was conveniently wound up when she went home permanently.

Sorry it didn’t work. She wasn’t from Hong Kong, by any chance?

Who is doing that?Anyone who appeals to religious claims as reliable fact. After all, if nobody is doing (or implying) that, what is the point of raising the morality argument, anyway?

Then raise that point with “anyone.” I’m not doing that.

You sorta get the point. Intelligence or even genius isn't the point, it is better knowledge. Einstein as smart as he was persistently denied quantum. he was wrong. We may admire and ever revere these thinkers but we must recognise the limitations.

I venture to say he knew MORE than most people today. You seem to lightly dismiss everyone it seems, except yourself. You’re thinking you don’t seem to question even though you’re not perfect either. But Everyone else, because they weren’t perfect, is less. You might Try applying the standard you put on Einstein to yourself.

The biology of honor, is the same as the biology of any social, family or tribal interaction. This study is only starting or only just being discussed, so of course we don't have all the answers yet, but for sure, the answers are to be found in evolved instinct and the group interactions that enable survival of individual, tribe and species. The point is that there is already an alternative hypothesis to 'God did that'. Morality is not now, nor ever was a valid argument for a god, never mind any particular one.

As I suspected, you cannot explain honor nor any other virtue from biology. You just “it’s tobe found there” but cannot say where or how. Evolution is >100 years old and cannot explain the simplest of obvious truths. Honor exists among men (some at least.) Biology cannot explain why.

Hint: all virtues fly inthe face of evolution which has one code, your survival over others no matter the cost to others same as the jungle.

And I wouldn't say it didn't work; it did for a good while, but the dynamic changed. And not from Hong Kong, nor for that matter from Thailand nor the Philippines.

Ok.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

I used to be married (1). I can only say that appeal to human confusion, misperception and mythology about instinct - driven human behavior does not a case make.

Who is doing this?

Appeal to greater brains than mine (I might appeal to Voltaire, Russell and Einstein whose brains were greater but did not believe in any religion) is worthless because they didn't know what we know now.

I seriously doubt the average westerner knows more than Einstein

Any High Schooler knows more about the universe than Galileo, but that is because of more knowledge, not smarts. Newton was aone of the greates brains, but he believed in Astrology and Alchemy as well as the prophecy of Daniel. Great brains are limited by information.

I seriously doubt the average high school or college grad could read Newtons Principa Mathematica and find they know more that he did.

As to morals without God, Nietzsche is a nice example. He was in a fret about where morals would come from if God- belief was gone.

No where. We do know more than those guys…some of us.

It isn't a question of use being smarter that Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky, but we understand now more about the Biological basis of morality and a god is no more needed for thought, instinct or morality than it is for Life, the Universe and everything.

Like what? What’s the biological basis for honor, for example?

(1) to avoid speculation, she was Asian, crazy as a coot but hot as hell. Gradually as we got (much) older she travelled back to be with family and friends more often (especially in winter) and the marriage was conveniently wound up when she went home permanently.

Sorry it didn’t work. She wasn’t from Hong Kong, by any chance?

Who is doing that?Anyone who appeals to religious claims as reliable fact. After all, if nobody is doing (or implying) that, what is the point of raising the morality argument, anyway?

Then raise that point with “anyone.” I’m not doing that.

You sorta get the point. Intelligence or even genius isn't the point, it is better knowledge. Einstein as smart as he was persistently denied quantum. he was wrong. We may admire and ever revere these thinkers but we must recognise the limitations.

I venture to say he knew MORE than most people today. You seem to lightly dismiss everyone it seems, except yourself. You’re thinking you don’t seem to question even though you’re not perfect either. But Everyone else, because they weren’t perfect, is less. You might Try applying the standard you put on Einstein to yourself.

The biology of honor, is the same as the biology of any social, family or tribal interaction. This study is only starting or only just being discussed, so of course we don't have all the answers yet, but for sure, the answers are to be found in evolved instinct and the group interactions that enable survival of individual, tribe and species. The point is that there is already an alternative hypothesis to 'God did that'. Morality is not now, nor ever was a valid argument for a god, never mind any particular one.

As I suspected, you cannot explain honor nor any other virtue from biology. You just “it’s tobe found there” but cannot say where or how. Evolution is >100 years old and cannot explain the simplest of obvious truths. Honor exists among men (some at least.) Biology cannot explain why.

Hint: all virtues fly inthe face of evolution which has one code, your survival over others no matter the cost to others same as the jungle.

And I wouldn't say it didn't work; it did for a good while, but the dynamic changed. And not from Hong Kong, nor for that matter from Thailand nor the Philippines.

Ok.

You are missing 2 points, one of which i explained. Einstein never knew about Black Holes. That doesn'tr mean he wasn't smart, only that we know a bit more than he did.

So that the Biological basis of morality was not considered by the ancients is not that they weren't smart, but we know more now.

The other point is that you don't get the point about human evolution. Biological evolution is about survival, yes and can be nasty, too, but also about pack and family co -operation. Human society became more complex and so did social instincts. Honor is part of that. Theoretically if not demonstrated by research. The point is that, with an alternative hypothesis of morals, God is not necessary. The argument from morality for a god (let alone a particular one) is dead.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Because Einstein didn’t know about black holes, you know more than he did??!!! Really? That is your measure of who knows more….1 subject!!

There is or was an interesting post once on line. Someone posted the test grade school or middle school children had to pass in order to graduate a century ago or so. The interesting part is that most university students today couldn’t pass it. I guess that makes Americans 2 generations ago smarter because they knew more.

You have not established a reason for any morals from evolution. You write just as if the point has been made. Greater minds have tried and failed. That’s because if the highest value is survival, you have the jungle. There are no morals if the only value is surviving. If you cannot provide an intelligent connection, then don’t retreat to ad hominem as I can provide a logical reason why no morals emerge in an evolutionary world. I get it whereas you still need to show you do.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Because Einstein didn’t know about black holes, you know more than he did??!!! Really? That is your measure of who knows more….1 subject!!

There is or was an interesting post once on line. Someone posted the test grade school or middle school children had to pass in order to graduate a century ago or so. The interesting part is that most university students today couldn’t pass it. I guess that makes Americans 2 generations ago smarter because they knew more.

You have not established a reason for any morals from evolution. You write just as if the point has been made. Greater minds have tried and failed. That’s because if the highest value is survival, you have the jungle. There are no morals if the only value is surviving. If you cannot provide an intelligent connection, then don’t retreat to ad hominem as I can provide a logical reason why no morals emerge in an evolutionary world. I get it whereas you still need to show you do.

Because Einstein didn't know about Black Holes is just an example. He didn't know what the other side of the moon looked like either, or about DNA or what the surface of mars was like. It is about the increased amount on information we have can enable us to answer questions those earlier thinkers couldn't. It's the same with Morality. Understanding of instinctive behavior looks now like the way of undersatanding morality as a product of evolution, biological and then social.

It doesn't matter if we don't know all the answers and mechanisms, but that is the line of research and it has meant the 'God' hasn't been the answer for a long time.

Your insistence that only the basic biological arms -race is the only thing we now have is short -sighted. Society has added to that basic instinct or drive that Biology dealt us. We can think enough to reason things out and no, we do not need to postulate a god (name your own) to do that for us.

I won't comment on your finger -pointing more than to say that you have to do some catching up on what the argument actually is before any meaningful discussion can take place.