Miracles are evidence there is no God(s)

[Wildswanderer]

Many religions worships there own God(s) and deny the existence of other Gods. However, miracles happen to people of many different faiths. From this we can conclude that either:

1. People of your faith are telling the truth and everyone else is mislead or lying about miracles
2. Multiple intervening Gods exist
3. The God(s) of your faith performs miracles for non-believers too, or
4. There is a natural explanation for all miracles

With more education, technological advances, communication, etc. I think number four is becoming more and more likely.

Number 3 is the right one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People have the Holy Ghost with them when they have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. That enables miracles.

Would you say that it's the Holy Spirit that was behind the Ganesha milk miracle I mentioned earlier?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

What is a miracle

In this case I mean something that is claimed to be the work of and an intervening God

 

[Clara Tea]

Many religions worships there own God(s) and deny the existence of other Gods. However, miracles happen to people of many different faiths. From this we can conclude that either:

1. People of your faith are telling the truth and everyone else is mislead or lying about miracles
2. Multiple intervening Gods exist
3. The God(s) of your faith performs miracles for non-believers too, or
4. There is a natural explanation for all miracles

With more education, technological advances, communication, etc. I think number four is becoming more and more likely.

God sends everyone coded messages very frequently. He sets up names, thousands of years in advance, then, when you unscramble the letters you see the hidden messages in the longest words that they can spell.

For example, Pope Benedict XVI's real name is Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. Scramble the letters and spell the longest word, you get "respiritualizes."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) = Rigmarole (hassle).

Jesus of Nazarus = Aeronauts, authoress, fasteners, fourteens, hasteners, southerns, and nauseates. (so that's why preachers have southern accents).

William Jefferson Clinton (President) = Nonlinearities

Sandra Mason (president of Bahamas) = Madonnas.

Barham = brahma (bull), first name of leader of Iraq.

Barham Salih = malarias, marshall (full name of leader of Iraq).

Popeye the sailorman = hyperemotional

Spiderman = sprained, admires, aspired, damners, diapers, marines, praised, reminds, sidearm

Mister Green Jeans (of Captain Kangaroo) = mastersinger, reassignment

Captain Kangaroo = cartooning, partaking

Elvira Mistress of the Dark = semiterrestrial, deteriorative, overestimated

Ronald Wilson Reagan (three names each have 6 letters.....the 666 president) = Landownings, nonrailroad (seems like mammon or ranch)

Ronald Reagan = rangeland (seems like ranch)

Joseph Robinette Biden = Periodontist, repositioned, pretensioned

Adam and Eve = amended

Moses of Goshen = Hognoses, mongooses, someones.

Newt Leroy Gingrich = nitroglycerine

Donald John Trump = photomural, protohuman (primate resembling a human)

John Ellis Bush (aka Jeb) = insolubles, jolliness, bullions

Condoleeza Rice = recolonized

omicron (mutation of covid) = moronic (uses all of the letters). This is why it is called the moronic virus.

my real name = overcorrection, rhetoric (I talk too much....on that note, I'll quit for now)

 

[Clara Tea]

Would you say that it's the Holy Spirit that was behind the Ganesha milk miracle I mentioned earlier?

Ganesha drinking milk miracle - Wikipedia

It would make a great "got milk" commercial.

Scientists say that the milk is pulled by the statue out of a bowl by capillary action (the same thing that causes meniscuses to form in straws). It is caused by Van Der Waals force....and electrostatic force near the surface of a liquid.

Liquids, if composed of elongated molecules, tend to float with one end at the top because this is where the charge collects (electrons, that is). Then other molecules gather in alignment because the charges are in the first molecule. As a result, the entire liquid is polarized, and when light is shined through it, it polarizes the light. You can measure this polarization by rotating a polarized filter, relative to the polarized light. When aligned, light passes through, and when anti-aligned, light darkens.

When I was working at Smith Kline Beckman (working directly for Kline, who ran the company), we used this principle to detect antibodies attaching to viruses (as a means to detect our body's defenses attacking viruses). It was a test of virus infections (such as AIDS). We tested with chemicals, not live pathogens, because they are so dangerous.

In a previous job, we noted that beer not only is polarized (because of elongated organic molecules), but it also sustains a population inversion, so we made a laser out of a glass of beer. It wasn't very efficient, but it worked.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

So your thesis is that since different people had varying ideas and/or theories about the killing of John F Kennedy, he didnt exist? Or since you might bring in an argument without understanding this analogy, different people have varying perspectives about some figure in history, he doesnt exist.

Any thing that has different concepts about it doesn't exist??

Im sorry but arguments for atheism are drowning these days. With all the education, technological advances, communication etc, it keeps drowning further.

If miracles indeed happen in every religion and theology as you say, either all of them are bogus, some of them are bogus, or all of them are true. Two of these options means there is something other than the natural world out there. It doesnt prove God doesnt exist. It just proves somethings out there. If all of the miracles are bogus, it proves people are bogus. Doesnt prove anything about God.

People having different beliefs either prove they are all bogus, or some of them are bogus, but not that all of them are absolutely correct. Worst case scenario, if all of them are bogus, it still does not prove anything about God.

The God, could still exist.

This is a false argument.

I have opened up a can of worms with my OP explanation
To clarify, I'm saying that many religions claim to worship an intervening God(s) that performs miracles, and some of those religions also claim that all other Gods and religions are false. Yet all those types of religions have their own miracle stories. Indeed some stake their whole credibility on these stories.
I didn't say God could not exist.
I'm saying everytime a "miracle" happens, it's really evidence against these types of religions.

Someone in your religion claims to witness a miracle, if credibility is equal, that's + 1 for your religion and - 1 for the others. The more miracles there are the net sum will go further into the negative.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Would you say that it's the Holy Spirit that was behind the Ganesha milk miracle I mentioned earlier?

Idk

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

God sends everyone coded messages very frequently. He sets up names, thousands of years in advance, then, when you unscramble the letters you see the hidden messages in the longest words that they can spell.

For example, Pope Benedict XVI's real name is Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. Scramble the letters and spell the longest word, you get "respiritualizes."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis) = Rigmarole (hassle).

Jesus of Nazarus = Aeronauts, authoress, fasteners, fourteens, hasteners, southerns, and nauseates. (so that's why preachers have southern accents).

William Jefferson Clinton (President) = Nonlinearities

Sandra Mason (president of Bahamas) = Madonnas.

Barham = brahma (bull), first name of leader of Iraq.

Barham Salih = malarias, marshall (full name of leader of Iraq).

Popeye the sailorman = hyperemotional

Spiderman = sprained, admires, aspired, damners, diapers, marines, praised, reminds, sidearm

Mister Green Jeans (of Captain Kangaroo) = mastersinger, reassignment

Captain Kangaroo = cartooning, partaking

Elvira Mistress of the Dark = semiterrestrial, deteriorative, overestimated

Ronald Wilson Reagan (three names each have 6 letters.....the 666 president) = Landownings, nonrailroad (seems like mammon or ranch)

Ronald Reagan = rangeland (seems like ranch)

Joseph Robinette Biden = Periodontist, repositioned, pretensioned

Adam and Eve = amended

Moses of Goshen = Hognoses, mongooses, someones.

Newt Leroy Gingrich = nitroglycerine

Donald John Trump = photomural, protohuman (primate resembling a human)

John Ellis Bush (aka Jeb) = insolubles, jolliness, bullions

Condoleeza Rice = recolonized

omicron (mutation of covid) = moronic (uses all of the letters). This is why it is called the moronic virus.

my real name = overcorrection, rhetoric (I talk too much....on that note, I'll quit for now)

Are you serious? I can't tell

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Ganesha drinking milk miracle - Wikipedia

It would make a great "got milk" commercial.

Scientists say that the milk is pulled by the statue out of a bowl by capillary action (the same thing that causes meniscuses to form in straws). It is caused by Van Der Waals force....and electrostatic force near the surface of a liquid.

Liquids, if composed of elongated molecules, tend to float with one end at the top because this is where the charge collects (electrons, that is). Then other molecules gather in alignment because the charges are in the first molecule. As a result, the entire liquid is polarized, and when light is shined through it, it polarizes the light. You can measure this polarization by rotating a polarized filter, relative to the polarized light. When aligned, light passes through, and when anti-aligned, light darkens.

When I was working at Smith Kline Beckman (working directly for Kline, who ran the company), we used this principle to detect antibodies attaching to viruses (as a means to detect our body's defenses attacking viruses). It was a test of virus infections (such as AIDS). We tested with chemicals, not live pathogens, because they are so dangerous.

In a previous job, we noted that beer not only is polarized (because of elongated organic molecules), but it also sustains a population inversion, so we made a laser out of a glass of beer. It wasn't very efficient, but it worked.

Modern science making sense of miracles. Exacrly

 

[firedragon]

To clarify, I'm saying that many religions claim to worship an intervening God(s) that performs miracles, and some of those religions also claim that all other Gods and religions are false. Yet all those types of religions have their own miracle stories. Indeed some stake their whole credibility on these stories.

Your Title say it.

I'm saying everytime a "miracle" happens, it's really evidence against these types of religions.

I explained that that's a false assumption.

Someone in your religion claims to witness a miracle, if credibility is equal, that's + 1 for your religion and - 1 for the others. The more miracles there are the net sum will go further into the negative.

Absolutely not. Even if all the miracles are false, bogus, none of that proves the theology false, or the divinity false. This is an illogical argument.

 

[firedragon]

Modern science making sense of miracles. Exacrly

How does modern science make sense of miracles? Science can only prove a false claim false. Science cannot prove a miracle false or true, if the miracle is a true miracle. All science can do is say "we cannot prove it false, or true" because "modern science" as you refer to it observes the natural world, not the metaphysical.

If a miracle actually occurs, all science can do is keep trying to falsify it. If its false, one day science will prove it false. If its true, science will not acknowledge it, but will keep trying to falsify it. Thats how science works.

You are being unscientific DN.

 

[Sheldon]

Even eyewitness evidence is evidence worthy of consideration.

I witnessed a man fly unaided to the moon last night, how much credence do you give that eyewitness testimony?

A sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of just eyewitness evidence can have me believing an event almost certainly occurred.

That's another bare claim of course, this time appealing to numbers, it's a known logical fallacy called an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and it is an irrational claim by definition. Eye witness testimony incidentally, is notoriously unreliable, on it's own I'd not trust it, most especially in subjective groups giving post ad hoc testimony.

Do you distinguish a difference between the words 'evidence' and 'proof'?

Yes, proofs are really for mathematics and logic, but I occasionally use the word in the phrase burden of "proof", but this does not denote absolute certainty, which I think is epistemological impossible.

You do know that you have now posted about 4 or maybe 5 times, and despite repeatedly claiming there is evidence, presented none? Why is that I wonder? I mean if I thought there were compelling evidence, then I'd start with the that, the best I thought there was.

 

[George-ananda]

I witnessed a man fly unaided to the moon last night, how much credence do you give that eyewitness testimony?

Zero given my impression it is meant facetiously.

That's another bare claim of course, this time appealing to numbers, it's a known logical fallacy called an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and it is an irrational claim by definition. Eye witness testimony incidentally, is notoriously unreliable, on it's own I'd not trust it, most especially in subjective groups giving post ad hoc testimony.

If five people report that they saw the same thing it would be irrational to believe what they saw occurred as that would be an argumentum ad populum fallacy? You might need to brush up on the terms you use.

There is a rational ability we possess to form a judgment on the quality and reliability of the witnesses.

Yes, proofs are really for mathematics and logic, but I occasionally use the word in the phrase burden of "proof", but this does not denote absolute certainty, which I think is epistemological impossible.

You do know that you have now posted about 4 or maybe 5 times, and despite repeatedly claiming there is evidence, presented none? Why is that I wonder? I mean if I thought there compelling evidence I'd start with the that, the bets I thought there was.

Do you realize this thread is not even about the presentation of evidence for any one specific miracle claim.

I already know one can argue about any one claim for infinity. No point in re-proving that knowledge.

 

[leroy]

I'm unwilling to accept your assertion that there are good reasons to think it happened as a substitute for actual good reasons to think it actually happened.

And if I were to bet, I bet that you are unwilling to defend any alternative explanation for the facts surrounding the resurrection.

I would say that the milk miracle is analogous with the Resurrection. The main difference is that the milk miracle has much stronger evidence supporting its claim... partly because of the fog of time and partly because the quality of the evidence is better.

For instance, for the milk miracle, we have multiple non-Hindu sources documenting the testimony from independent observers of the "miracle." For the resurrection, we have only really one Christian account.

We can actually see video of Ganesha statues all over the world drinking milk. We have nothing approaching this level of evidence for the Resurrection.

ok this is my alternative explanation for ganesha drinking milk
,

the milk got 'sucked out' of the spoon by a physical phenomenon called siphon action and trickled down the surface of the idol to the base to form puddles
Observations and explanations to mystery behind idols of deities drinking milk

I am willing to defend that explanation and accept my part of the burden proof against anyone who claims that it is a real miracle.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Your Title say it.



I explained that that's a false assumption.



Absolutely not. Even if all the miracles are false, bogus, none of that proves the theology false, or the divinity false. This is an illogical argument.

What if the theology backs the claim of a miracle, endorses it, uses it as evidence that the theology is true?

 

[firedragon]

What if the theology backs the claim of a miracle, endorses it, uses it as evidence that the theology is true?

The Theology cannot do that, some person or a set of people will do that. And if the claim was a lie, it will be disproven by science if investigated. BUT, if the claim was true, science will only attempt to falsify the claim.

None of that can prove this so callee theology false. It can only prove the claimant wrong.

Lol. Of course unless you are directly referring to a particular theology like Christianity that claims Jesus had a miraculous birth. You cannot falsify it. Too far gone. You can only assume it false because they cannot repeat it. But you see, they are people, the claim is that God did that miracle. So people cant do anything. So if you can speak to God directly as a scientist, maybe you can attempt it. But then you are proving God true and miracles true by "speaking to God".

Science does not work this way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Idk

So... you don't know whether the Holy Spirit was trying to guide people toward Ganesha?

Does this mean that you're also not sure whether it's a good idea for LDS missionaries to guide people away from Ganesha?

 

[TripleZ]

Many religions worships there own God(s) and deny the existence of other Gods. However, miracles happen to people of many different faiths. From this we can conclude that either:

1. People of your faith are telling the truth and everyone else is mislead or lying about miracles
2. Multiple intervening Gods exist
3. The God(s) of your faith performs miracles for non-believers too, or
4. There is a natural explanation for all miracles

With more education, technological advances, communication, etc. I think number four is becoming more and more likely.

well I must say that I have never witnessed any miracle/s at all..

 

[TripleZ]

The Theology cannot do that, some person or a set of people will do that. And if the claim was a lie, it will be disproven by science if investigated. BUT, if the claim was true, science will only attempt to falsify the claim.

None of that can prove this so callee theology false. It can only prove the claimant wrong.

Lol. Of course unless you are directly referring to a particular theology like Christianity that claims Jesus had a miraculous birth. You cannot falsify it. Too far gone. You can only assume it false because they cannot repeat it. But you see, they are people, the claim is that God did that miracle. So people cant do anything. So if you can speak to God directly as a scientist, maybe you can attempt it. But then you are proving God true and miracles true by "speaking to God".

Science does not work this way.

well according to the Scriptures, Yeshua's birth was a normal birth, but His Conception was a miracle in and of itself, ie; NO human father.

 

[oldbadger]

Many religions worships there own God(s) and deny the existence of other Gods. However, miracles happen to people of many different faiths. From this we can conclude that either:

1. People of your faith are telling the truth and everyone else is mislead or lying about miracles
2. Multiple intervening Gods exist
3. The God(s) of your faith performs miracles for non-believers too, or
4. There is a natural explanation for all miracles

With more education, technological advances, communication, etc. I think number four is becoming more and more likely.

As a Deist who accepts that the controlling supervisor for everything around here is Mother Nature, I can agree with 4 that there is a natural explanation for all miracles, spirit experiences, healings etc.