Thanks for the conversation. You’re really helping me think about my own approach to these things.
Frankly, I suspect the vast majority of scientists just go about their business (in the lab or on the computer) and tend to not worry about the philosophical parts. This forum is not necessarily “normal” 
Some are very wary (warranted or not) of philosophy. I get where they are coming from but I think it’s kinda fun.
But hasn’t the large majority of the planet’s population failed to accept Jesus as their personal savior, and aren’t they therefore going to eternal suffering? He doesn’t want us to suffer, but he set up the system, he enforces it, and he has failed to save many more people than he’s saved. Yes, that does sound like a bad scorecard.
Why is making it obvious depriving us of free will? After all, he used to be obvious, at least if you take the bible seriously.
It isn’t clear what you mean by that.
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: An exhortation from Greg on Genesis, miracles, and natural evil
Is it rationalization over a lack of proof that should be expected, or is it a part of the plan? Is there enough indication that God exists to choose to have faith in him, or not? God, clearly, did not skywrite proof of his existence. He did say that it would take faith. So, one person looks at the situation and says “I only see a lack of concrete evidence” and he is right to do so. Another person looks and says “I see enough indication of God’s presence to take a leap of faith” and he is right to do so.
No, he is alleged to have said that it would take faith. In order to believe that he said that, you already have to believe he exists. You’re going around in circles. And no, there is not enough indication that God exists to “choose to have faith in him”. Really, belief is not a choice; or, rather, if it is, that’s pathological.
This is your opinion. This is not my opinion. Belief is a choice. I can believe, serving on a jury in a court of law, that the defendant is innocent or guilty. That opinion can change over the course of the trial based upon evidence. Similarly, one can have experiences throughout life that will tip the scales one way or another, wherein one reaches a point where he chooses to believe.
The definition of “belief” includes “acceptance”…
I thought I’d throw in this information from National Public Radio’s 2016 article “How The Catholic Church Documented Mother Teresa’s 2 Miracles”
Roman Catholic authorities embrace the idea of miracles from heaven with such confidence that they invite skeptics to challenge them. Before candidates qualify for sainthood, the miracles attributed to them must be proven. If someone is suddenly healed after praying to a would-be saint, the Vatican has doctors verify there’s no medical reason for it.
A group advocating sainthood for Marguerite d’Youville, a nun who lived in 18th century Canada, for example, sought an alternative explanation for the sudden recovery of a woman with incurable leukemia who had prayed to the nun 200 years after the nun’s death. The assignment went to Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, a hematologist at Queen’s University in Ontario.
Duffin agreed to do the investigation, but only after warning the group that she was not herself a believer.
“I revealed my atheism to them,” Duffin says. “I told them my husband was a Jew, and I wasn’t sure if they’d still want me. And they were delighted!”
The group reasoned that if Duffin, as an atheist, found there was no scientific reason the woman should have recovered, who could doubt it was a miracle? In fact, after her investigation of the woman’s recovery, Duffin agreed that the woman’s healing was — for lack of a better word — miraculous.
Intrigued by the experience, Duffin investigated hundreds of other miracle stories chronicled in the Vatican archives in Rome. She came away convinced that “miracles” do indeed happen.
“To admit that as a nonbeliever, you don’t have to claim that it was a supernatural entity that did it,” Duffin says. “You have to admit some humility and accept that there are things that science cannot explain.”
[NB: In Catholic theology when someone “prays to”, say, St. Theresa of Calcutta they are asking Theresa to ask God to do something for them, not asking Theresa to do something for them by herself. As the linked article says, “In the Catholic tradition, only God works miracles. Therefore, miracles received after appeals for intercession are taken as evidence that the candidates for sainthood are with God.”]
I’m genuinely curious to hear from @swamidass and others if the kind of exploration and conclusion recounted above counts as “evidence” or is still better dubbed as “evocative”?
Clearly, we have different opinions on what “choice” means. I think that a “choice” based on evidence is compelled, not free. You could of course choose to ignore the evidence, but that’s the pathological bit I was talking about.
Let’s remember also that Jesus sometimes appears on toast; yet another miracle. Still, compared to speaking from a burning bush or parting the Red Sea, it’s all pretty small potatoes.
I think the limit is evidence that leads to the conclusion there is a mind behind the universe. What that mind is requires other evidence perhaps historical.
It seems that major miracles are given at major junctures in salvation history. At other times it seems they are more rare. But more rare doesn’t mean non-existent. What are your thoughts on Dr. Duffin’s investigation? Do you think it’s reasonable if believers point to such conclusions as evidence for God’s existence?
According to Scripture, satan can accomplish the supernatural in smallish deceitful ways and the anti christ will accomplish feats of such a magnitude that they will appear miraculous too. So for me, i dont respect anybodys message if they simply follow it w justification over a “miracle” Rather, i respect Gods prophets who, in the old covenant point to the ultimance of God and in the New Testament point to this and the utter importance and centrality of the cross of calvary for salvation by grace.
So, if the evidence is inconclusive, you would just make no choice? It seems to me that you have made a choice already and that your position is that you are not going to change that position unless or until the balance of evidence swings in the other direction. Were you compelled to the position in which you now stand? Or did you choose, freely, to conclude that God does not exist?
I see that major junctures seem to have happened much more often in the bible than they have lately, and their rate seems to have decayed exponentially since the creation.
No. It’s more God of the gaps. “I don’t know how that happened” ≠ “God did that”. Dr. Duffin seems unusually credulous for a supposed agnostic.
Sure. Doesn’t that seem reasonable? “I don’t know” is a perfectly good answer to many questions. But in the current case, I don’t think the evidence is inconclusive.
Yes, by the evidence. In this case the evidence is a lack of the evidence one should expect if God existed.
You don’t think that the evidence is inconclusive? You mean that you have proved a negative?
Correct.
Two responses. First, “proved” is not a useful word. Second, one can as easily have evidence favoring a negative as a positive, provided the positive is not so vague as to lack all entailments.
So, did you come in to the debate from a neutral position and then analyze the available evidence, and then conclude that God does not exist because there is insufficient evidence? Or did you come in to the debate disbelieving, evaluate the evidence, and then choose to maintain your position?
53 posts were split to a new topic: An exhortation from Greg on Genesis, miracles, and natural evil
It certainly is not scientific evidence, but that does not mean it does not have validity. I think the challenge, in this case, is that there are often good alternative explanations in each individual case, so multiplying them 100x does not really solve this problem. Of course, the fact that there are alternate explanations does not actually rule out a miracle.
I would call them possible miracles, that are not “signs.”
@rcohlers will certainly have thoughts on this.