Supernatural?

Resident Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 372 Location: Canada

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

I usted to be christian and i experienced all kind of weird stuff. I know they can be just imagination, but here are few things i just can't explain:

1) I had this computergame called "Black Mirror". There's some occultism in the end of the game, and God warned me about the game. It happened when the priest of my church prayed for me. He got this vision that i was playing a computergame that was unorthodox. I didn't even know that there was occultism in the end of that game. And i never told anyone that i had that game, or that i was playing computergame of any kind, because i don't usually play any computergames, and my friends know that. So how could a normal man like my priest know that i was playing that game, when nobody knew it. And if you try to say that he can read my mind (which sounds stupid), i definitely didn't think about that game by the time he prayed for me.

2) My friend's sister said that "God doesn't exist", and right away their medicine cabinet flew across the room and fell to the floor. COINCIDENCE?

3) My friend HAD coeliac disease. And there is no cure for coeliac. It was healed when a priest prayed for her. And by that time, she didn't even believe in God. So you can't say that she was healed because she believed that she will be healed.

I know it's hard to belive in these kind of stories, but i swear all this really happended. So PLEASE try to give an reasonable explanation to these "miracles" (if you can)

And sorry about my bad english.

#1) Most computer games would be called into question if a priest said something. All FPS, and RTS games for sure as well as many others. Many ppl play games. Saying something about a game to anyone at random would have many successful hits. Whether or not you normally play many games or not is irrelevant. Like most ppl, you played at least one, and one is enough. This story is also an anecdote, there is no way to go back and inspect the event and confirm things are as you remember them. Perhaps the priest said several general things and got lucky on the computer game. The all to human confirmation bias means that you are very likely to make the connection and reinforce a glancing similarity. Psychics take advantage of this all the time, and many honest ppl are fooled by them all the time. But except when the event is recorded (like the Crossing Over show) there is no way to show how easy it is to fool someone this way. incidentally when the event is recorded and analyzed, the oh so mysterious event becomes a joke.

#2 & 3) Are anecdotes. There is no way to verify what happened in either case. Many ppl say God does not exist. I say it all the time. Nothing unusual happens. Further there is no way to inspect the actual event. Did the cabinet fly across the room or fall? (Or did the event even happen at all?) I don't even have to suggest you or she might be lying at all. Ppl are mistaken all the time and that is why anecdotes are useless. The medical case could in principal be verified. But a Doctor would be the one to take a hack at explaining it. One familiar with the specifics of the case.

Resident Joined: Oct 13, 2005 Posts: 360 Location: USA

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

I usted to be christian and i experienced all kind of weird stuff. I know they can be just imagination, but here are few things i just can't explain:

1) I had this computergame called "Black Mirror". There's some occultism in the end of the game, and God warned me about the game. It happened when the priest of my church prayed for me. He got this vision that i was playing a computergame that was unorthodox. I didn't even know that there was occultism in the end of that game. And i never told anyone that i had that game, or that i was playing computergame of any kind, because i don't usually play any computergames, and my friends know that. So how could a normal man like my priest know that i was playing that game, when nobody knew it. And if you try to say that he can read my mind (which sounds stupid), i definitely didn't think about that game by the time he prayed for me.

Well, I play Doom III when I was a Christian, and going to church, (that game has pentagrams all over the place, in fact, the icon is a pentagram) my preacher said nothing to me, so what does this mean, how do you explain this if God told your priest that a video game was bad, but didn't tell me? Perhaps this means that God told your priest nothing, and that your parents saw you playing the game, and read about how evil this game was from a Christian book. Did your parents buy this game for you perhaps? If not, were you over 18 at the time, because I checked, and this game is rated M, and came out in 2003, and it is illegal to sell M rated games to minors. So someone over 18 must have known, other than yourself. You also say that the notion that the priest can read your mind is stupid, yet you have no qualms with the notion that a magical invisible being (God) could do the same thing, and transmit this information to your priest?

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

2) My friend's sister said that "God doesn't exist", and right away their medicine cabinet flew across the room and fell to the floor. COINCIDENCE?

Interestingly enough, I tried this out, and nothing happened, coincidence, or was God just not watching? Does your friends sister live near a train, where shaking over the years would loosen the screws, or whatever was holding it down? Just which room was your friends sister in, the only place I know of where medicine cabinets are in is a bathroom, and why would she randomly say "God doesn't exist". Was someone else in the bath room with her, because that just raises questions. Is it possible that a pipe burst, or moved, hitting the wall and causing the medicine cabinet to move? You decide, but remember that in order for an object to move, force must be applied, and to suggest that uttering words is force enough move a cabinet box, makes no sense. Forces are transferred energy, and the air moving from your mouth does not move medicine cabinets.

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

3) My friend HAD coeliac disease. And there is no cure for coeliac. It was healed when a priest prayed for her. And by that time, she didn't even believe in God. So you can't say that she was healed because she believed that she will be healed.

It is a documented medical phonemena that diseases sometimes simply go away, for no known reason, this happens to people of all religions. As for her disease, all she would have to do is avoid certain foods for life, this disease isn't really life threatening if you eat what foods are allowed. Another name for this disease is gluten intolerance. Too bad my friend can't be cured of her lactose intolerance.

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

I know it's hard to belive in these kind of stories, but i swear all this really happended. So PLEASE try to give an reasonable explanation to these "miracles" (if you can)

Tell me if my possible explanations are satisfactory.

Newbie Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 11

LOl.......this discussion is reaching nowhere. The debate over the facets of a videogame and its susceptiblity to a priest's intuitive or spirtual perception may or may not be true. However, I fail to find what the entire purpose behind this discussion truly proves itslef to be. Shouldn't the discussion truly be focuesed on the validity of miracles rather then on the particulars of one sepculative miracle?

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

GODDIDIT is a non-answer because it really doesn't answer anything at all. What it means is "I don't know and I really don't want to know so just STFU."

Newbie Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 11

I might add that "God-did not do it" is also a non-answer. For it implies that one holds conclusive, non-religously based evidence that can account for this event....which I am yet to see presented in this discussion. Such an answer is just a means of saying "I have infinite knowledge of the universe to say definitvely that God did not do it." Otherwise, one side believes that "God did do it" while another believes naturalistic forces "did it" and both are relaying their claims on perosnal beliefs. Where is the truly secular man at?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

of course no one can say god didnt do it, and no one can say god didnt do it because until we understand what we're talking about we're still at a non-answer.

so tell me what god is.

until then, god did it, is a NON-answer.

if there is an apple in front of me and you disagree that's it on the table in front of US, then you need to convince me that what WE are seeing is not there. i'm staring at the facts, and i see what's truly there. it is not a personal belief. a theist is saying 'god' and i'm saying wtf. so the ball is in the theists court. show me that the apple isnt there. because i certainly dont think that the fact that the apple is on the table is a personal belief.

Resident Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 372 Location: Canada

gmankbadi wrote:

I might add that "God-did not do it" is also a non-answer. For it implies that one holds conclusive, non-religously based evidence that can account for this event....which I am yet to see presented in this discussion. Such an answer is just a means of saying "I have infinite knowledge of the universe to say definitvely that God did not do it." Otherwise, one side believes that "God did do it" while another believes naturalistic forces "did it" and both are relaying their claims on perosnal beliefs. Where is the truly secular man at?

Except that the one saying "God did it", is implicitly claiming there is a God. Something that needs to be proven. For example if they said a Leprechaun did it, you wouldn't take them seriously. They have to come up with evidence a leprechaun exists first.

But the problem is that these events are held out as evidence for God. Then turning around and saying that God did it, is both an argument from ignorance and a circular argument.

You could say that saying "God did not do it" claims there is no God and that makes it the same. Except that it is the falsifiable position, and it is not circular. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim of God.

Furthermore, it rules out far less. The statement "God did it" rules out Natural phenomenon (the only kind we know exists), as well as a whole slew of supernatural phenomenon such as leprechauns, ghosts, telekinesis, and invisible pink unicorns. "God did not do it" is by far the more rational option, even with the caveat that it could be wrong, then the alternative which jumps to a conclusion.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

gmankbadi wrote:

I might add that "God-did not do it" is also a non-answer. For it implies that one holds conclusive, non-religously based evidence that can account for this event....which I am yet to see presented in this discussion. Such an answer is just a means of saying "I have infinite knowledge of the universe to say definitvely that God did not do it." Otherwise, one side believes that "God did do it" while another believes naturalistic forces "did it" and both are relaying their claims on perosnal beliefs. Where is the truly secular man at?

I guess we can't say that unicorns and leprechauns had nothing to do with it either, since we don't have conclusive evidence.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

gmankbadi wrote:

I might add that "God-did not do it" is also a non-answer. For it implies that one holds conclusive, non-religously based evidence that can account for this event....which I am yet to see presented in this discussion. Such an answer is just a means of saying "I have infinite knowledge of the universe to say definitvely that God did not do it." Otherwise, one side believes that "God did do it" while another believes naturalistic forces "did it" and both are relaying their claims on perosnal beliefs. Where is the truly secular man at?

Those who don't accept the non-answer of "GODDIDIT!" usually also have a more plausible answer instead. Science is not based on a belief. It is based on the available evidence. Thus, it is much more of a real answer than "GODDIDIT!"

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

unicorns didnt do it is the same as saying god didnt do it.

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

fattychunks wrote:

unicorns didnt do it is the same as saying god didnt do it.

I agree, and we can indeed say it without having to support it. The idea that unicorns exist is ridiculous in and of itself. Until someone can support the possibility of the existence of unicorns, we needn't entertain the possibility that they created the universe and morality and gave meaning to our existence.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

JFAgnostic wrote:

I agree, and we can indeed say it without having to support it. The idea that unicorns exist is ridiculous in and of itself. Until someone can support the possibility of the existence of unicorns, we needn't entertain the possibility that they created the universe and morality and gave meaning to our existence.

At least unicorns are possible through genetic engineering. How do you engineer god? Go though the rift at the edge of the galaxy? :whistle:

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:51 pm

Ok, even if your god did do it, what a pathetic piece of fucking SHIT your god is. Yes I just typed god is a fucking piece of shit. I just said it out loud too.......nothing. If your god has time to fling fucking medicine cabinets across a room to make a point yet lets children starve to death he is a PIECE OF SHIT unworthy of worship. The only thing that fucking loser is worthy of is our contempt and hatred. Fuck your god, fuck the concept of your god and fuck the idiots that blindly follow that piece of shit out of fear of death and delusions of heaven.

That is my Thanksgiving prayer.

AMEN!

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

AMEN

Newbie Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 11

Hmm....now I must apologize but I can only respond to one poster or rebuttal at a time. If a whole host of responses are bombarded in a relatively short time, I will need time to read and earnestly respond to each. As such I 'll begin with Lszek's response.

Quote:

Except that the one saying "God did it", is implicitly claiming there is a God. Something that needs to be proven. For example if they said a Leprechaun did it, you wouldn't take them seriously. They have to come up with evidence a leprechaun exists first.

I agree wholeheartedly that the statement "God did it" entails the positing of God's existence. You then proceed to state that such a statement is "something that needs to be proven" juxtaposing it with a statement such as "Leprechauns exists". However, claiming that both statements are theoretically identical is logically facetious. To begin, the definition of God is far from equivalent to the definition of a Leprechaun. The classical definition of God is an omnipotent Being that is infinite, independent and uncreated....whose very reason for existence is in Himself. On the other hand Leprechauns are creatures particularly embroiled with dependent, finite and created attributes. How can I tell? Since, the very notion of Leprechaun originates from mythological accounts that have never historically deemed such creature as deities; or for that matter as existentially real.

Now you might retort "Well, by the same token, the very definition of God has been deemed by some as entirely mythical ". However, such a claim would be the discourse of centuries of discussion and the underlying theme behind this very forum. Although, the issue of God is particularly debated throughout the entire world, I have yet to find even one serious debate over the existence of Leprechauns. While I don't believe it's even necessary to further discuss your analogy and it's prevalence in today's society…I will entertain your premises for the sake of frivolity. You argument suggests that since it is ridiculous to claim Leprechauns do not exist without definitive proof, one might as well claim God’s own existence falls under the same line of scrutiny since both cannot be empirically validated with absolute proof. However, the notion of any entity’s existence is primarily dependent upon the knowledge founded within an individual’s existential mindset. Granted, that one cannot definitively prove Leprechauns do not exist….in itself, it becomes fallacious to claim that such creatures can not exist. For all that man may know, there may indeed be Leprechauns that do exist (in another world, planet, dimension etc.) Unless man has absolute knowledge of the universe such an assertion is logically unwarranted. However, as a theistic-girded individual I do believe that belief in Leprechauns is ludicrous because the existence of such a creature falls in sharp contrast with my religious worldview. An atheist worldview would also espouse the existence of Leprechauns as untenable since on a naturalistic scale, only that which falls in accord with empirically verifiable datum can be accepted as realistically sound. The idea of Leprechauns in itself is not comical….it only becomes so when first examined against one’s worldview.

Quote:

But the problem is that these events are held out as evidence for God. Then turning around and saying that God did it, is both an argument from ignorance and a circular argument.

Your critique is developed for the following argument:

Premise1: If miracles exist, then God also exists
Premise 2: Miracles do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

Which has also be explicated into the forthcoming inversion:

Premise1: If God exists, miracles exist
Premise2: God exists
Conclusion: Miracles exist.

Now your claim to a philosophical circular fallacy would hold true if both arguments and the conclusions they lend credit to were completely sound. I believe this is far from being the actual case. For the sake of this discussion, the only argument that can be correctly fitted as a metaphysical glove should be the former of the two arguments. Let us carefully review the premises of and the forthcoming conclusion that follows from the intial argument. So long as the definition of the “miraculous” falls in line with the belief in a divine deity, then miracles can be asserted to, in fact, be demonstrable of God’s existence. Nevertheless, as the premise stands now; resuming to having the ambivalence of “miracles within;—a term that is essentially unclothed—the initial premise merely does not logically stand. For unless a miracle is the breaking of natural law by a supernatural force it does not logically follow that if miracles exist, then God also exists. Yet, if such definition was placed down as the implicit vehicle, then an a priori belief in God would be presupposed as a backdrop for the definition. As such, the definition of the miraculous would need to be clearly defined. Now, within the naturalistic worldview a miracle may occur and seemingly defy natural law only to be labeled as an inexplicable occurrence that will later be explained by future law. In the naturalistic worldview the miraculous is a priori ruled out….for man does not have infinite knowledge of the universe.

On the other hand, the second argument does remain soundly saddled with the philosophical framework of reality. For if God does exist then the definition of miraculous necessarily falls in line with the breaking of natural law. The breaking of natural law would then only be a reasonable claim if an all-powerful deity had initially set the natural law in place and was powerful enough to pervade its order. What’s even more so, within a Theistic (particularly Christian) worldview one may claim that certain miraculous events fall in correlative sequence with natural law while certain exceptional miracles pervade natural law. It therefore behooves an individual to discuss the philosophical worldview girding this discussion; namely whether or not God exists prior to discussing the existence of a miraculous event; for one consecutively follows from the other. Now so long as the definition of miraculous within the second argument is not definitively correlated with theistic beliefs, no circular fallacy takes place—only the second of the two arguments logically flows.

Quote:

You could say that saying "God did not do it" claims there is no God and that makes it the same. Except that it is the falsifiable position, and it is not circular. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim of God.

Let’s consider the premises of this inverted argument.

Premise1: If miracles do not exist, then God does not exist
Premise2: Miracles do not exist
Conclusion: God does not exist

Which has also been recapitulated as the following:

Premise1: If God does not exist, then miracles do not exist
Premise2: God does not exist
Conclusion: Therefore, miracles do not exist

Once again, the second of the two arguments is truly the only one that remains logically concrete. (Now I am presuming the first argument is what you really meant to have follow through from your retort. For according to your rebuttal, the former argument would really need premise 1 substituted with “If miracle A does not exist, then God does not exist”….which holds major philosophical discrepancies.) Now it does not follow that if miracles do not exist, then God does not exist. This depends primarily on what sort of a God you are espousing. While the God of Christianity is a God of Miracles, a Deistic or Pantheistic god may cheerfully exist without the pre-required sack of the miraculous beladen upon his shoulders. Furthermore, it is essentially presumptuous to claim that miracles do not exist. For until one has experienced the total scope of all perspectives enveloping all possible extants within the known universe, he can not for sure rule out the possibility of the miraculous. This would require definite proof for the non-existence of God as well as the ability to surmount the restriction time and decay hold on mankind. You are therefore right in stating that the “God did not do it” holds no circular fallacy; yet neither does the enterprising claim that “God did do it”….for in either case there may only be one viable argument to espouse; excluding its inversion.

Quote:

Furthermore, it rules out far less. The statement "God did it" rules out Natural phenomenon (the only kind we know exists), as well as a whole slew of supernatural phenomenon such as leprechauns, ghosts, telekinesis, and invisible pink unicorns. "God did not do it" is by far the more rational option, even with the caveat that it could be wrong, then the alternative which jumps to a conclusion.

This point I have already answered within the structure of my response. Such a statement only proves to be veritable so long as the Theistic god you're espousing is a personalized, omnipotent Being that seeks to reveal his creative work to mankind.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore