The Supernatural Part Ii

[Fjuri 119]

It's a difficult question. Not one I am really qualified to answer. Someone with a deeper theological understanding might be better to answer it, as it is out of my ball-park.

 

All I will say is that I don't know to what extent demonic powers are only counterfeits. I certainly believe only God can create life. God is omnipotent and since He made all things including angels/fallen angels, then whatever power He has given to those forces would be in line with His ultimate plan to use those forces as pawns, like when He allowed Satan to test Job.

Thank you for your answer. I'll think on it and maybe someone else chips in as well so I can get a more accurate picture.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

thankyou Fjuri-fly. (I have added more of my thoughts, as I edited the message, though as I say, I am not the most knowledgeable in this area).

[piasan 657]

Seems the skeptics are having a real problem wrapping their brains around the Dynamo fish thing.

Hopefully, everyone will agree that the vast majority of supernatural activity claims are fraudulent in one way or another.

 

Again, claims of the supernatural are, by their very nature extraordinary.  Given the fact that virtually all claims of supernatural activity are fraudulent and the extraordinary nature of those claims, a healthy dose of skepticism is fully justified.  This is especially true when one is dealing with performances by professional illusionists/magicians.

 

We merely take the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  A youtube video is far short of extraordinary proof.  As I've pointed out before, it's difficult to catch these guys even with frame-by-frame ability.

 

 

I say you need to explain how and where Dynamo hid the fish until they came pouring forth from the bucket. Then prove it.

I say the "magic" is that we don't know how he did it.  If we knew how these guys do their acts, they'd be out of business.

 

I also say the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

 

 

As I have said already several times, in this extended part of the video clip Dynamo's arms are extended from his body and in full view of everyone. So where did the fish come from? Now either explain this in rational terms or admit that you have no answer. Where did he hide the fish?

"We don't know" is far short of "it must be demonic."

 

To find out where the fish come from would require multiple camera angles recorded at high speed.  Without that kind of proof, there is no reason to believe these acts are anything more than parlor tricks on steroids.  (With full recognition to the skills of these performers.)

 

 

P.S. One can 'prove' anything with animation, but animation does not prove that it can be done literally in the physical.

We can agree on that much.  Animations should be taken as illustrations, not confirmation.

 

By way of clarification.... I have no way to "know" if these performers are working with supernatural forces or not.  However, given the history of their profession, I'm inclined to go with the odds ....

 

They are, in fact highly skilled illusionists, not true magicians.

[piasan 657]

Seems the skeptics are having a real problem wrapping their brains around the Dynamo fish thing.

Hopefully, everyone will agree that the vast majority of supernatural activity claims are fraudulent in one way or another.

 

Again, claims of the supernatural are, by their very nature extraordinary.  Given the fact that virtually all claims of supernatural activity are fraudulent and the extraordinary nature of those claims, a healthy dose of skepticism is fully justified.  This is especially true when one is dealing with performances by professional illusionists/magicians.

 

We merely take the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  A youtube video is far short of extraordinary proof.  As I've pointed out before, it's difficult to catch these guys even with frame-by-frame ability.

 

 

I say you need to explain how and where Dynamo hid the fish until they came pouring forth from the bucket. Then prove it.

I say the "magic" is that we don't know how he did it.  If we knew how these guys do their acts, they'd be out of business.

 

I also say the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

 

 

As I have said already several times, in this extended part of the video clip Dynamo's arms are extended from his body and in full view of everyone. So where did the fish come from? Now either explain this in rational terms or admit that you have no answer. Where did he hide the fish?

"We don't know" is far short of "it must be demonic."

 

To find out where the fish come from would require multiple camera angles recorded at high speed.  Without that kind of proof, there is no reason to believe these acts are anything more than parlor tricks on steroids.  (With full recognition to the skills of these performers.)

 

 

P.S. One can 'prove' anything with animation, but animation does not prove that it can be done literally in the physical.

We can agree on that much.  Animations should be taken as illustrations, not confirmation.

 

By way of clarification.... I have no way to "know" if these performers are working with supernatural forces or not.  However, given the history of their profession, I'm inclined to go with the odds ....

 

They are, in fact highly skilled illusionists, not true magicians.

[Calypsis4 639]

I've had piasan on ignore for quite awhile but whenever I see his posts following mine I can usually count on it that he's taking another pot shot at yours truly. I was right. He just can't resist. Oh, well. 

 

Piasan can't be reasoned with but I will nonetheless exegete his points for the rest of you.

 

 Hopefully, everyone will agree that the vast majority of supernatural activity claims are fraudulent in one way or another.

 

How does he know that? And what prejudice would lead him to even HOPE that this is true? Answer: He doesn't know and his attitude about it is pure prejudice. He doesn't believe the Word of God because he can't wrap his unbelieving mind around the supernatural occurrences that are found in scripture...the six day creation, creation of Adam and Eve, the temptation and fall of man by the serpent, and the miracle of Noah's flood. He believes in none of it.

 

But the fact is that all such supernatural claims are to be judged on a case by case examination. No one knows without such a careful examination. But about what I have posted about the supernatural acts of so called 'illusionists' is accurate and true. I am in a position to know because I have acquaintances who have seen those very artists privately, in action, up close.

 

We merely take the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  A you tube video is far short of extraordinary proof. 

 

He doesn't care about proof. Just look at the way he treats the so-called 'evolution of the species'. Has anyone ever observed life develop from non-living matter? No. But he believes it happened naturally anyway...by the blind forces of nature. Talk about 'magic'. Oh, he will never call it that. He believes that nature did it of its own accord but he doesn't believe that Adam was supernaturally created by God...even though Moses AND Jesus told us that He did.

 

I have personally seen the transformation of matter from one location to another on several occasions. And when these things happened there were no magicians, illusionists, nor special effects artists around to cause such things. So what I once believed for many years by faith I now believe by experience. My fellow helpers in the ministry and those we counseled are my witnesses. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses let a thing be established." II Corinth. 13:1

 

I say the "magic" is that we don't know how he did it.  If we knew how these guys do their acts, they'd be out of business.

I also say the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

 

 

But I do know how he/they did it. I am not being arrogant in this. I truly know how and those involved in witchcraft and or other of the dark arts that we converted to Christ know how he/they did it. The only problem here is that I am not at liberty to give the names of those who saw them. 

 

"We don't know" is far short of "it must be demonic."

 

To find out where the fish come from would require multiple camera angles recorded at high speed.  Without that kind of proof, there is no reason to believe these acts are anything more than parlor tricks on steroids.  (With full recognition to the skills of these performers.)

 

 

I didn't say I didn't know. I do know...and I am not alone in this matter. He doesn't believe his eyes when someone does something that appears supernatural and without rational explanation but he insists that nature makes changes that cannot be verified...i.e. the DNA of a rodent changes into the DNA of a bat; or the DNA of a lice, or a gnat becomes the DNA of an organism of a higher order. He's never seen such a thing and neither has anyone else (and..........they can't even force the DNA to produce a higher family/order of creatures without disastrous results) but piasan believes in it anyway. 

 

So can we assume that he and those like him merely believe in a different form of 'magic'? Of course. But he/they are so Orwellianized by junkfood 'science' that they will never, ever admit it. Like our moderator, Bonedigger suggested, piasan posts his physics equations as evidence for evolution while assuming that his presuppositions about the subject at hand are all true. 

 

By way of clarification.... I have no way to "know" if these performers are working with supernatural forces or not.

 

 

Then why did he bother posting on this matter in the first place?

 

 They are, in fact highly skilled illusionists, not true magicians.

 

 

He's dead wrong about that as I already commented on this issue once before. But WHY is he so intent on dividing 'illusion' from 'magic'? I'll tell you that it is closely related to his belief in the 'magic' of Darwinian evolution...but again one will never see him admit that. 

 

 

[Fjuri 119]

My follow up answer to this post, since Mike the Wiz added some things.

It's a difficult question. Not one I am really qualified to answer. Someone with a deeper theological understanding might be better to answer it, as it is out of my ball-park.

 

All I will say is that I don't know to what extent demonic powers are only counterfeits. I certainly believe only God can create life. God is omnipotent and since He made all things including angels/fallen angels, then whatever power He has given to those forces would be in line with His ultimate plan to use those forces as pawns, like when He allowed Satan to test Job.

 

Imagine if there was only ever one game invented called, "conundrum" where you have to scramble a three letter anagram to find a word. So:

 

FNI = FIN.

 

If that was the limit of our knowledge, the only game we could invent, we might say that because humans can find a three letter word, and God can also only find a three letter word, that we can, "match" God.

 

To which I would say - we can only match him because the game itself is limited. God is unlimited, He could play the same game if we changed it to 14 letters, and he could give us all of the words for 14 letters that can be scrambled, in less than one tenth of a second.

 

If it seems demons can do some things, or mirror what God does in some way, that might give the illusion that they are powerful. But really all they have is a temporal power loaned to them. I believe they have that power because mankind obeyed Satan, which gives them permission to have power over mankind. Had mankind chosen to obey God, we would have power over them, IMHO. God has given us back some power, because Jesus said, "do not be rejoice because you have power over demons, but rejoice rather because your names are written in heaven". (paraphrase) So then those who are in Christ have been given His power and authority to cast out those forces.

So the only differences between a "Godly" miracle and a "Demonic" miracle is the creativity of the miracle and the creation of life?

 

Can you point out some miracles in the bible which could not have been a "Demonic" miracle?

I researched and found some (source):

- creation of the universe

- confusion of languages (?)

- supernatural conception (Sarah and Abraham)

- frog plague

- live plague

- locust plague

- aaron's rod turned into a snake

- aaron's rod created food

- a couple of resurrections

The miracles from the new testament that would more or less qualify according to the qualities you've provided are:

- Jesus' apprentices ability to speak and understand all languages. And that's debatable whether or not that falls under "creative miracle".

- a couple resurrections.

- Jesus birth

 

If we focus on the new testament alone, we notice there's an awful lot of healing, not much of the creative and life-giving kind.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Fjuri: So the only differences between a "Godly" miracle and a "Demonic" miracle is the creativity of the miracle and the creation of life?

 

No.

 

Can you give some examples in the bible of the, "demonic-miracles" that are troubling you? I am not sure why you are pursuing this issue other than to simply undermine the Lord's name in your unGodliness. 

 

We know you have no reverence for God. But we do. We know you cannot comprehend Who the Lord is because of a debased mind. (I don't say that as an insult, I say it because the human mind is only truly healthy when it is in union with it's maker). It is clear that all of your reasonings are influenced by the demonic balrogs that possess your mind.

[Fjuri 119]

No.

 

Can you give some examples in the bible of the, "demonic-miracles" that are troubling you? I am not sure why you are pursuing this issue other than to simply undermine the Lord's name in your unGodliness. 

I am asking questions in a subject I am unfamiliar with in order to learn. That's what people who don't claim to be all-knowing do. They learn. One of most useful methods to learn is to ask questions. I even did homework and posted it here in order to show you I do have an interest in learning. My source wasn't even an "atheist propaganda webpage" with "deceitful" information, but christiananswers.net.

 

We know you have no reverence for God. But we do. We know you cannot comprehend Who the Lord is because of a debased mind. (I don't say that as an insult, I say it because the human mind is only truly healthy when it is in union with it's maker). It is clear that all of your reasonings are influenced by the demonic balrogs that possess your mind. 

Ah, the forever useful "if you don't already believe it, you'll not understand it" cope-out.

 

Thanks for your attempt at answering anyway.  You said you were no expert and I didn't expect answers that would clear it up in 1-2-3.

Do you think that cope-outs are a good way to progress a conversation if you have reached your limit of knowledge on a subject? 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Fjuri: I am asking questions in a subject I am unfamiliar with in order to learn. That's what people who don't claim to be all-knowing do. They learn. One of most useful methods to learn is to ask questions. I even did homework and posted it here in order to show you I do have an interest in learning. My source wasn't even an "atheist propaganda webpage" with "deceitful" information, but christiananswers.net.

 

But it seems a bit of a pretence, that you come across sometimes as being inquisitive only to quickly use the information you receive to try and attack me later on. That is your style. Like when you TRY to use fallacies I tell you about, against me at some later stage. 

 

 

 

 

Fjuri: Ah, the forever useful "if you don't already believe it, you'll not understand it" cope-out.

 

The scripture says the natural man cannot know the things of God or understand them because they are, "spiritually discerned". You only have human-reason to go on. Human-reason is different to, "reason". Human reason is really just opinionism, forming opinions and conclusions from limited data, and then being dogmatic about those opinions. 

 

That's all you have to go on. How can you understand the things of God when you only exist to poke fun at Him like your Pal, the Gervais-idiot?

 

I don't have much time for mockers like him.

[Mike Summers 448]

Furi

 

The Wizard's Sixth Rule (Sword of Truth) - "The most important rule there is, the Wizard's Sixth Rule: the only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

Guess you didn't use reason to figure out what was wrong with the logic in the above statements. Firstly, its author is personifying reason implying that "it" can be "allowed" to rule you! Wrong! Only you can rule you! Same for me and everyone else on ths planet.

Code represents information. Reason is a code name for an intelligent being driven process to determine cause-and-effect relationships. Thru the use of reason we can repeat or avoid repeating things. Sometimes we call tis science.

Antecedent to reason is the human being with intelligence to use the process f reasonining! It is intelligent beings that can use reasoning to determine cause and effect relationship--not the other way around. Get that straight.

God calls it idolotry when we claim something non living like an idea or a piece of matter can do things "it" can't do. Another name for "it" is a lie or a deception.

 

The first law of reason is this: what exists, exists, what is, is and from this irreducible bedrock principle, all knowledge is built.

Too bad you don't believe this yourself. Furthermore are we to believe that we can be all-knowing?

One problem I have with the statement you quote is its author does not allow for the action of creativity. What may not exist now could always be created. And then there's the thing called revealed information. I know several people that you don't know. Will they cease to exist because you don't know them? You can't possibly know all the people I know because you can't read my mind.

 

It is the foundation from which life is embraced. Thinking is a choice.

Not if we are concious it's not! lol

 

Wishes and whims are not facts nor are they a means to discover them.

No? They are the seeds we use to bring things that do not now exist into existence! They sound pretty immportant to me!

 

Reason is our only way of grasping reality; it is our basic tool of survival. We are free to evade the effort of thinking, to reject reason, but we are not free to avoid the penalty of the abyss that we refuse to see.

I can go along wth this to a point. We have to think so I agree in that we can think about our thinking and reject faulty reasoning (thinking)--wrong cause and effect assignment.

 

Faith and feelings are the darkness to reasons light. In rejecting reason, refusing to think, one embraces death."

One of the most affirming emotons one can feel is affection (love a feeling or emmotion) for self and other beings. Did you mary your wife because you had no feelings for her? Faith, well we would be addled emotional wrecks without it. Money would have no function without faith (hope)!


 

[Fjuri 119]

But it seems a bit of a pretence, that you come across sometimes as being inquisitive only to quickly use the information you receive to try and attack me later on. That is your style. Like when you TRY to use fallacies I tell you about, against me at some later stage. 

Please, tell me. How did I attack you in this topic? (prior to your cope-out, and not with regard to MikeS's earlier deviation)

 

Why do you make this a personal issue? Are you trying to turn this conversation into a personal attack so you can claim I always attack when the conversation turns sour?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Mike, that signature only purports a philosophy that hijacks the term, "reason", IMHO.

 

That is to say, the signature appeals to reason but also implies something that, "reason" shows us is not true, which is that faith mutually excludes reasons. In fact that is only inductive, meaning that only some of the time can there be a choice between then two (a true logical disjunction), and sometimes as you know, atheists choose to believe-by-faith in none-existent processes such as abiogenesis, when reason dictates there is no reason to believe such a thing.

 

So his sig implies grouping people into two false groups. Life is not like that - atheists themselves take things on faith and ignore reason when it favours a theist argument. But I have known agnostics that can admit there are reasonable theistic arguments such as intelligent design.

 

His signature is a false ASSOCIATION. Since the beginning of time, Mike, atheists have associated themselves with "reason" they even name themselves, "rationalists".  Ironically, it is REASON that tells us that this is a rhetorical device called, question-begging-epithets.

 

Strictly speaking, if you really do have reason as your god, you would have to be agnostic, showing that atheists are full of it when they associate themselves with reason. I have debated hundreds of atheists in my time and not many them were all that knowledgeable about reason, even though they associate themselves with it.

 

It is propaganda really, they make out there is a false dichotomy, that there are either people of reason (atheists) or people of religion that reject reason.

 

It's codswallop. Some Christians were famous for employing reason, Newton and Lewis for starters. C.S.Lewis would always make sure his arguments were sound syllogisms. 

 

It's ironic Mike that they usually aren't all that adept at reasoning, and are unaware that they promoting something that reason itself would say is fallacious.

[Fjuri 119]

Guess you didn't use reason to figure out what was wrong with the logic in the above statements. Firstly, its author is personifying reason implying that "it" can be "allowed" to rule you! Wrong! Only you can rule you! Same for me and everyone else on ths planet.

Code represents information. Reason is a code name for an intelligent being driven process to determine cause-and-effect relationships. Thru the use of reason we can repeat or avoid repeating things. Sometimes we call tis science.

Antecedent to reason is the human being with intelligence to use the process f reasonining! It is intelligent beings that can use reasoning to determine cause and effect relationship--not the other way around. Get that straight.

God calls it idolotry when we claim something non living like an idea or a piece of matter can do things "it" can't do. Another name for "it" is a lie or a deception.

Too bad you don't believe this yourself. Furthermore are we to believe that we can be all-knowing?

One problem I have with the statement you quote is its author does not allow for the action of creativity. What may not exist now could always be created. And then there's the thing called revealed information. I know several people that you don't know. Will they cease to exist because you don't know them? You can't possibly know all the people I know because you can't read my mind.

Not if we are concious it's not! lol

No? They are the seeds we use to bring things that do not now exist into existence! They sound pretty immportant to me!

I can go along wth this to a point. We have to think so I agree in that we can think about our thinking and reject faulty reasoning (thinking)--wrong cause and effect assignment.

One of the most affirming emotons one can feel is affection (love a feeling or emmotion) for self and other beings. Did you mary your wife because you had no feelings for her? Faith, well we would be addled emotional wrecks without it. Money would have no function without faith (hope)! 

Later, when I have time, I will create a separate topic discussion the wizard's rules. Despite the title of this topic and the title of the 'rules', they have nothing to do with each other.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Fjuri: Please, tell me. How did I attack you in this topic? 

 

It was a general observation of your posting style. 

[Fjuri 119]

It was a general observation of your posting style. 

So it had nothing to do with you and me in this topic... Just a lash out when you can't respond with knowledge anymore. Too bad.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Fjuri, you seem to be SEEKING an argumen.

 

For example I said I didn't have much knowledge about that issue of the theology of miracles and then you imply I am saying I have all knowledge? 

 

 

 

Fjuri: Just a lash out when you can't respond with knowledge anymore. Too bad.

[Mike Summers 448]

Fjuri

Later, when I have time, I will create a separate topic discussion the wizard's rules. Despite the title of this topic and the title of the 'rules', they have nothing to do with each other.

Don't do it for me. I am not interested in what any wizard has to say. I thought it was a work of fiction not your version of the Bible.

[cheeseburger 24]

I'm missing the miracle here.So people were fishing. They caught a lot of fish and attributed it to their god. Its not like its completely unexpected to find fish in a lake, right?

How do any of us know about such a miracle? - through the account in scripture. So miracles are more than just an event that could have influenced a finite number of eyewitnesses but also material for scripture: scripture that also includes parables with symbolic importance. Luke's miraculous catch is related to the depiction of Jesus as fisher of men; John's catch seemingly related to Peter's commission in John 21.

 

The relationship between miracles and parables is sometimes neglected. Some miracles only make sense symbolically (eg cursing the fig tree). Some miracles only found in John share similarities with details from parables in the (probably) earlier Luke: water into wine shares features with Luke's presentation of new wine into old winseskins (Luke 5) and the raising of Lazarus shares features with Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. There are no parables in John.

[Mike Summers 448]

 

Cheeseburger: How do any of us know about such a miracle? - through the account in scripture. So miracles are more than just an event that could have influenced a finite number of eyewitnesses but also material for scripture: scripture that also includes parables with symbolic importance. Luke's miraculous catch is related to the depiction of Jesus as fisher of men; John's catch seemingly related to Peter's commission in John 21.

I'm missing the miracle here.So people were fishing. They caught a lot of fish and attributed it to their god. Its not like its completely unexpected to find fish in a lake, right?

Yours is feighned naivety. Just like your attempt to disrespect our belief in God by using a lower case "g" for God. This is a game alot of alleged Atheists play. All it does is communicate how insincere you may be when you ask other questions. LOL

 

It takes faith to believe in something no one personally observed. It's just like evo's have faith in macro evolution they have never observed.

[Fjuri 119]

Fjuri, you seem to be SEEKING an argumen.

 

For example I said I didn't have much knowledge about that issue of the theology of miracles and then you imply I am saying I have all knowledge? 

I have a problem with your BS cop-out. Not with your lack of knowledge.

 

Don't do it for me. I am not interested in what any wizard has to say. I thought it was a work of fiction not your version of the Bible.

It is a work of fiction. Fiction cannot contain anything useful to discuss?

 

Yours is feighned naivety. Just like your attempt to disrespect our belief in God by using a lower case "g" for God. This is a game alot of alleged Atheists play. All it does is communicate how insincere you may be when you ask other questions. 

Using a lower case "g" is already disrespecting your belief in God? LOL

Don't get so emotional Mike Summers.

 

It takes faith to believe in something no one personally observed.

I know it does..

 

How do any of us know about such a miracle? - through the account in scripture. So miracles are more than just an event that could have influenced a finite number of eyewitnesses but also material for scripture: scripture that also includes parables with symbolic importance. Luke's miraculous catch is related to the depiction of Jesus as fisher of men; John's catch seemingly related to Peter's commission in John 21.

 

The relationship between miracles and parables is sometimes neglected. Some miracles only make sense symbolically (eg cursing the fig tree). Some miracles only found in John share similarities with details from parables in the (probably) earlier Luke: water into wine shares features with Luke's presentation of new wine into old winseskins (Luke 5) and the raising of Lazarus shares features with Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man. There are no parables in John.

Thanks!

[Goku 298]

I see this as an interesting discussion because on these type of issues I can agree with quite a fair bit of things the sceptics offer. I think we have to remember though, that there are skeptics that can sometimes basically even argue against a very strong case of something brilliant that has happened.

 

I am not accusing you of that Goku. I think you are honest in assessing whether something is an extraordinary event. But I remember at EvC forum, the anti-theists there would basically just make out that because of human error, and "nobody thinks it can happen to them", basically those ant-theists would turn the whole discussion into an indirect personal attack. to the point we were no longer discussing the events that had happened to me, and I was left defending myself against human errors I know I had not even technically made.

 

When I explained my experiences in asking God to reveal specific scriptures to me, it seemed they would just elephant hurl things science says about human error, at me. It didn't seem to matter to them whether or not I actually was committing the specific error, it seemed to be that they simply thought that as long as the error existed, that it could be assumed that I made it.

 

But some people are able to know when they are making errors. For example, most people would randomly open the bible and let's say they picked Psalm 1. Let's say there were 1200 pages in their particular bible. They would probably say that if they landed on psalm 1 it was a 1 in 1200 chance.

 

But what if you are smart enough to detect your own errors? For example, I would argue that in fact the bible can only open on two pages, not one, so the chance must be halved to 1 in 600. I am not saying that is the be all and end all of that issue, but my point it, the anti-theists had not spotted this, I was the one to spot it. They tend to ASSOCIATE themselves with scientific findings in order to give the impression they are on the side of science and objectivity, but a lot of the time the atheists that use scientific-findings against people that claim to have had an experience, aren't really intellectually rational themselves.

 

For example they don't seem to be aware of the fact that sometimes such findings can't be applied to certain situations. For example confirmation-bias can't apply in some situations. Imagine you were a casino-owner, and somebody came in and played four games and won nothing, then they played eight games and won every game and won big money. Imagine if I was chief of security and you said to me, "something is wrong, investigate this guy who is winning." And imagine if I said to you; " you are indulging in confirmation-bias because you are not counting the four games that he lost".

 

That's a logical example of how confirmation-bias, does not apply in a situation. If I asked God to heal me on Monday and He didn't and Tuesday and He didn't - what the heck would it matter if He healed me on Wednesday, that He didn't on the first two days? Perhaps on Wednesday He I had learnt something by that day that I would not have learnt had He healed me on Monday. Did you think of that?

 

Life is complicated. Sometimes human-error itself is not consequential because of the magnitude of an event. For example, if I have cancer and pray for Christ to heal me and I am miraculously healed, rationally you could say that it was post-hoc reasoning. (post hoc ergo propter hoc). But let's face it, any person in that situation would be right to believe that the belief God answered their prayer was more reasonable than the belief He didn't, especially if the doctors admit that it just couldn't happen, yet it did happen.

 

Are anti-theistic skeptics really as smart as they think they are? (perhaps a new thread?)

 

I try to be objective, but as it's been stated before any claim of the supernatural is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. As a general rule I would say that you should look for natural explanations first, and I think if you do this diligently a lot of supernatural claims can be dismissed as most likely natural.

 

What is especially hard about verifying supernatural claims is that 1) we don't know or understand every natural phenomena out there, 2) we often do not have all the information for a given supernatural claim, 3) most supernatural claims fall in the category of anecdotal which is fraught with human error even when we don't suspect dishonesty.

 

That said if someone has an interesting experience that cannot easily be explained through nature, while I may disagree that it is a supernatural occurrence, I don't have any real problem if you attribute that experience to the supernatural, especially if you have seriously contemplated that the experience may have been natural.

 

As for 'miraculous' cancer recoveries there is more than one possibility. People are misdiagnosed with cancer more often than you might think; I saw an article that stated according to a study done by John Hopkins Hospital more than 1% of tissue samples diagnosed as cancer were not actually cancerous. Given that millions of people are diagnosed with cancer, that means statically there are thousands of people out there who have been diagnosed with cancer who don't have cancer. How many of those people 'prayed' to have the cancer removed, and went in to their next check up to find no trace of cancer in their body? In addition people can and do recover from cancer without modern medicine. While not well understood, a significant minority of people appear to be able to naturally reduce and eliminate cancerous tumors with either a hormonal or immune response. No supernatural intervention is necessary to explain cancer remission from a theoretical standpoint. Cancer remission happens to both believers and non-believers alike.

 

I am probably more skeptical than you give me credit for, but I'll leave you with this anecdotal gem from my childhood which is probably the best personal testimony I have of the supernatural - although once I recounted a different story to another Christian and her response was that a demon had tried to possess me.

 

One afternoon I was home alone. Nothing out of the ordinary, but I had to use the bathroom. When I went in I got a strong urge to lock the door, which I thought was strange since no one but me was in the house, but I locked it anyway. I did my business, and as I was walking towards the door to get out the doorknob starts to shake violently. Being a normal kid I stopped dead in my tracks, about two steps away from the door. It shook every which way, up, down, side to side, and even rotationally. I could loudly and clearly hear it, the metal doorknob frantically moving about as far as its design would allow, as if someone on the other side was desperately trying to get in. Over the next few seconds the noise got louder until the handle became more steady as I heard unusually loud clicks as if the door was being methodically/rhythmically unlocked from within, and the handle rotated all the way to one side and the door flung open; the breeze from the door opening hit my body as I stared at the doorway to see that no one was on the other side. And there I was, in the middle of the bathroom all alone as I watched a door unlock and open itself. I did not feel threatened or in danger, but perplexed I was.

 

There is one possible natural explanation I know of: I hallucinated the whole thing. I have read various literature about childhood hallucinations, and to my surprise they are somewhat common and can be part of normal development free of any mental illness. Which is all well and good, but a hallucination doesn't explain why the door was physically unlocked and opened without me ever touching it. In the end I am inclined to disregard the hallucination explanation. Was it a supernatural experience? - I don't really know. It happened more than a decade ago, and since then no such incidents have occurred.

[piasan 657]

I've had piasan on ignore for quite awhile but whenever I see his posts following mine I can usually count on it that he's taking another pot shot at yours truly. I was right. He just can't resist. Oh, well. 

My comments weren't intended as a "pot shot."  Merely an explanation why a healthy dose of skepticism is justified.

 

 

Hopefully, everyone will agree that the vast majority of supernatural activity claims are fraudulent in one way or another.

How does he know that? And what prejudice would lead him to even HOPE that this is true? Answer: He doesn't know and his attitude about it is pure prejudice. He doesn't believe the Word of God because he can't wrap his unbelieving mind around the supernatural occurrences that are found in scripture...the six day creation, creation of Adam and Eve, the temptation and fall of man by the serpent, and the miracle of Noah's flood. He believes in none of it.

 

But the fact is that all such supernatural claims are to be judged on a case by case examination. No one knows without such a careful examination. But about what I have posted about the supernatural acts of so called 'illusionists' is accurate and true. I am in a position to know because I have acquaintances who have seen those very artists privately, in action, up close.

How do I know the vast majority of supernatural activity claims are fraudulent in one way or another?  Seriously?  Let's start with the number of fortune tellers, "mediums" and psychics.  Then there are things like "bleeding statues."  Finally, there is the large number of illusionist "magic" tricks that have been exposed .... often by other illusionists. 

 

We agree that all supernatural claims should be accepted only after a careful case-by-case examination.  Our difference here seems to be mostly how careful that examination should be.  I am simply much more cautious about what evidence of supernatural activity I accept as convincing.  This is especially true when the claim of supernatural forces is based on a performance by one of these "artists."

 

I do not dispute that those Calypsis knows people who saw the acts and were unable to detect how it was done.  We draw very different conclusions from that (undisputed) fact.

 

Calypsis says he is in a position to be certain these acts are supernatural because he knows people "who have seen those very artists privately, in action, up close."  This reminds me of the time there was a NASCAR crash involving Dale Earnhart and Jeff Gordon.  I was in an AOL chat room discussing it and one of the participants said: "How do you know what caused the accident? I saw it in person... did you?"  My response: "Right.  You saw it once in real time.  I watched multiple replays including slow motion from both the car in front of and behind the accident as well as overhead.  But YOU saw what really happened."  By way of comparison ... in this case, Calypsis wasn't even at the track, but he knows someone who was.

 

We each set our own standards for the level of evidence we consider satisfactory.  When it comes to claims of supernatural activity in the act of a professional "magician," I want to see the replays .... many of them.... before I agree.  Based on the history of the craft of the likes of David Copperfield, Chris Angel, and Dynamo I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

 

 

We (edit: "we" means those Calypsis calls "skeptics".) merely take the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  A youtube video is far short of extraordinary proof.  As I've pointed out before, it's difficult to catch these guys even with frame-by-frame ability.

He doesn't care about proof. Just look at the way he treats the so-called 'evolution of the species'. Has anyone ever observed life develop from non-living matter? No. But he believes it happened naturally anyway...by the blind forces of nature. Talk about 'magic'. Oh, he will never call it that. He believes that nature did it of its own accord but he doesn't believe that Adam was supernaturally created by God...even though Moses AND Jesus told us that He did.

Well, I think "evolution of the species" is a bit off topic, but it's your subject so ......

 

Calypsis says I believe "it happened naturally anyway.... by the blind forces of nature."   I guess he doesn't understand what "theistic evolution" means.  Hint:  We disagree about how and when, not Who.

 

Like our moderator, Bonedigger suggested, piasan posts his physics equations as evidence for evolution while assuming that his presuppositions about the subject at hand are all true. 

Again a bit off topic but ..... 

Actually, the physics isn't evidence for evolution.  It's evidence against a young universe/Earth and a recent global flood.  As such, it speaks against Genesis literalism.  The "presupposition" has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.  I know it as the "Newtonian Synthesis."

 

 

By way of clarification.... I have no way to "know" if these performers are working with supernatural forces or not.  However, given the history of their profession, I'm inclined to go with the odds ....

Then why did he bother posting on this matter in the first place?

Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear.

 

Given the evidence presented, I am unable to determine whether or not these artists are working with supernatural forces.  That is, of course a possibility, so it can't be completely ruled out.  However, there is a long history of these performers being exposed as illusionists rather than magicians.  In fact, many of their tricks have been revealed ..... often by other illusionists. 

 

Given that history and the absence of the documentation needed to perform what I would call the "careful examination" of the claim that Calypsis has said should be done when supernatural activity is alleged, my conclusion is that these guys are illusionists, not magicians.

 

They are, in fact highly skilled illusionists, not true magicians.

He's dead wrong about that as I already commented on this issue once before. But WHY is he so intent on dividing 'illusion' from 'magic'? I'll tell you that it is closely related to his belief in the 'magic' of Darwinian evolution...but again one will never see him admit that. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether these guys are illusionists or magicians.   Just add it to the list.

 

Why divide "illusion" from "magic?"  Well, words mean things.  Simply stated: "Illusion" uses entirely natural processes and methods while "magic" involves supernatural activity.

 

When we evaluate the performances of these "artists," we should keep in mind that they began their careers doing sleight-of-hand tricks and they are now the best in the world at their profession.  Hint:  David Copperfield did not really make Niagara Falls or the Statue of Liberty disappear.

 

It is always amusing to me when creationists, whose entire foundation is a whole series of supernatural acts, accuse those endorsing science of "belief in magic."  It's almost like when AIG's(?) creationist journal was named "Creation ex Nihilo" (Creation from nothing).  Creationists would criticize science as supporting creation from nothing then refer me to an article in a journal by that very name.  Inconsistent at best. 

 

Anyway.....

Calypsis and I agree "the fact is that all such supernatural claims are to be judged on a case by case examination. No one knows without such a careful examination."

 

He clearly feels, based on his experience that the eyewitness accounts and youtube videos are conclusive.  On the other hand, I feel that evidence does not constitute a "careful examination" and is inadequate due to the extremely high skill level of these artists (again, his term).  For that reason, high speed (at least 100 frames per second) videos from multiple angles... at least 5 or 6 .... would be necessary to establish these performers are not simply demonstrating their mastery of illusion.

 

I think we have each stated our positions pretty clearly so I see little need for further comment.

[Mike Summers 448]

Gokku said:

I try to be objective, but as it's been stated before any claim of the supernatural is an extraordinary

You are so creative and don't realize it! How can we determne what an extraordinary claim is? It's arbitrary!

claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence.

Evidence is evidence. Who is to say what extraordinary evidence is? This statemen is nonsense.

As a general rule I would say that you should look for natural explanations first, and I think if you do this diligently a lot of supernatural claims can be dismissed as most likely natural.

Anti supernatural bias! What ever caused it caused it and there is no neccesity to claim otherwise . Causation is over and is now historical.
 

What is especially hard about verifying supernatural claims is that 1) we don't know or understand every natural phenomena out there,

That's right and so you can't say exactly what if any natural cause caused it either. Again bias. You are making assumptions!

2) we often do not have all the information for a given supernatural claim,

Nor do we have it all for natural claims. More assumptions and bias.

3) most supernatural claims fall in the category of anecdotal which is fraught with human error even when we don't suspect dishonesty.

Same for natural claims (such as evolution)

That said if someone has an interesting experience that cannot easily be explained through nature, while I may disagree that it is a supernatural occurrence, I don't have any real problem if you attribute that experience to the supernatural, especially if you have seriously contemplated that the experience may have been natural.

Thank you Landrau.

As for 'miraculous' cancer recoveries there is more than one possibility. People are misdiagnosed with cancer more often than you might think; I saw an article that stated according to a study done by John Hopkins Hospital more than 1% of tissue samples diagnosed as cancer were not actually cancerous. Given that millions of people are diagnosed with cancer, that means statically there are thousands of people out there who have been diagnosed with cancer who don't have cancer. How many of those people 'prayed' to have the cancer removed, and went in to their next check up to find no trace of cancer in their body? In addition people can and do recover from cancer without modern medicine. While not well understood, a significant minority of people appear to be able to naturally reduce and eliminate cancerous tumors with either a hormonal or immune response. No supernatural intervention is necessary to explain cancer remission from a theoretical standpoint. Cancer remission happens to both believers and non-believers alike.

None of us is all knowing. I do not know is a valid answer. Even though Its not used very often.


I am probably more skeptical than you give me credit for, but I'll leave you with this anecdotal gem from my childhood which is probably the best personal testimony I have of the supernatural - although once I recounted a different story to another Christian and her response was that a demon had tried to possess me.

One afternoon I was home alone. Nothing out of the ordinary, but I had to use the bathroom. When I went in I got a strong urge to lock the door, which I thought was strange since no one but me was in the house, but I locked it anyway. I did my business, and as I was walking towards the door to get out the doorknob starts to shake violently. Being a normal kid I stopped dead in my tracks, about two steps away from the door. It shook every which way, up, down, side to side, and even rotationally. I could loudly and clearly hear it, the metal doorknob frantically moving about as far as its design would allow, as if someone on the other side was desperately trying to get in. Over the next few seconds the noise got louder until the handle became more steady as I heard unusually loud clicks as if the door was being methodically/rhythmically unlocked from within, and the handle rotated all the way to one side and the door flung open; the breeze from the door opening hit my body as I stared at the doorway to see that no one was on the other side. And there I was, in the middle of the bathroom all alone as I watched a door unlock and open itself. I did not feel threatened or in danger, but perplexed I was.



There is one possible natural explanation I know of: I hallucinated the whole thing. I have read various literature about childhood hallucinations, and to my surprise they are somewhat common and can be part of normal development free of any mental illness. Which is all well and good, but a hallucination doesn't explain why the door was physically unlocked and opened without me ever touching it. In the end I am inclined to disregard the hallucination explanation. Was it a supernatural experience? - I don't really know. It happened more than a decade ago, and since then no such incidents have occurred.

How can you trust your mind then if you know it can hallucinate? But you suure seeem to trust i when it comes to certanty about evolution! LOL

[keysi 31]

Pi said

 

Based on the history of the craft of the likes of David Copperfield, Chris Angel, and Dynamo I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

 

 

Another good case study would be British illusionist Darren Brown.

He has performed some of the best tricks I've ever seen (and is probably my favourite entertainer) and openly admits it's all a trick based on showmanship and often debunks his own routines afterwards.

 

I'd particularly recommend looking into the time he went to America and convinced many top psychics and mediums he also had those abilities then admitted it was all a trick. Very incredible.

[Calypsis4 639]

Mike Summers:

 

You quoted him, "most supernatural claims fall in the category of anecdotal which is fraught with human error even when we don't suspect dishonesty."

 

How does he know? Once again we see the attitude of the atheist (& some agnostics):

 

1. If I didn't see it, it didn't happen.

2. If I did see it, it's not what you think it is.

3. If I never experienced it it doesn't exist.

 

The skeptic has never seen evolution of the species, never saw life generate from non-living matter, and never observed matter being created...yet he defends it all as factual. As I have been saying for years here on EFF: they don't care about the truth. They care about their prejudices.