What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?

[Search & Destroy]

Dear Search & Destroy,

I would love to understand why the signs I have given you are not compelling to you. But I want to understand from you why you feel the way you do, rather than going on a quest for months to try to prove my way of thinking incorrect. Would you please explain to me why these proofs don't seem to be evidence to you?

I have spent a lot of time writing for all of you in this thread, so would you please do me this favor? I'd appreciate it very much!

With love and respect,

Mind Over Matter

I clicked a random link from your post:

http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm

One miracle that has been identified as Padre Pio's first miracle occurred in 1908. At that time he lived in the monastery of Montefusco. One day he gathered chestnuts growing in a nearby forest into a bag and sent the bag to Pietrelcina to his aunt Daria. She always had a great affection for him. The woman received and ate the chestnuts. She saved the bag as a souvenir. A few days later she was looking for something in a drawer where her husband usually kept the gun powder. It was in the evening so she used a candle to light up the room when suddenly the drawer caught on fire, and aunt Daria’s face got burned. After a moment, she took the bag father Pio sent and put it on her face. Immediately, her pain disappeared and no wound or burn mark remained on her face.

Is this compelling evidence or not? What is the criteria for proof?

The first question that pops into my mind when I read it was - why should I believe that? Who wrote it? Where does the story come from and why should I believe that it really happened?

Perhaps Father Pio was motivated by fame and fabricated the story. Why am I to assume he should be trusted?

Maybe the woman was no expert on burns - it is quite possible she felt the heat of the fire but it was not enough to burn her. She instantly felt relief possibly because the bag was cold.

A good woman’s husband was very sick. The woman ran to the convent, but she asked herself, “How do I reach father Pio?" She had to wait for at least three days if she wanted to meet him for a confession. So during the Mass she stood-up and walked from one side of the Church to the other. Finally, she decided to tell Our Lady what her problem was and asked at the same moment for Padre Pio’s help. After the Mass, she started to move into the Church again, in order to reach Father Pio. Finally, she managed to reach the famous corridor where Father Pio had to pass. As soon as father Pio watched her, he said: “Woman with a little faith, when will you finally ask for my help? Do you think I am deaf? You have already told me it five times when you were in front of me, at my back, on my right and on my left. I understood! I understood! ...Go home! Everything is OK." She went home and found her husband was healed.

Did Father Pio cure her husband, or did the husband's immune system or the medicine finally work. It could have been good timing.

All of Father Pio's miracles are easily debatable. They do not constitute as evidence.

I think the same could be said for almost any source of evidence you posted.

Rather than refer to Wikipedia which is maybe a little lame - get the book "A Guide to Critical Thinking" I think it is around the 11th edition by now so a pleasure to read. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

AlphaNumeric gave the main reasons why your "proofs" are not compelling.
Especially

If you're going to do nothing more than provide further circular arguments about "This story says that story is true" then don't bother.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Many or all of your examples are not evidence to me. You need to understand why before continuing.

and here is the point that atheist/theist get into battles about..
just because an atheist dismisses the evidence, does not mean it is not evidence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

just because an atheist dismisses the evidence, does not mean it is not evidence.

No! No no no no. Just because a theist says it's evidence doesn't mean it actually is.

 

[NMSquirrel]

No! No no no no. Just because a theist says it's evidence doesn't mean it actually is.

it is evidence for him.
(now we are back to 'what applies to one, applies to the other')

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

I'm sure Signal will be interested in responses to this one

I am specifically aiming this question at those of you who believe that you are faithfully adhering to a specific set of beliefs and practices that will ensure your salvation*. In particular I'd like to know why you feel certain (or close to it) that the particular set of beliefs that you adhere to represent those which are necessary to achieve the desired outcome (salvation), as opposed to some other set of beliefs that may be inadequate and/or mutually exclusive.

*For the purposes of this discussion our definition of salvation need not be restricted to the avoidance of eternal damnation, but can be expanded to include any kind of spiritual reward or achievement.

I do believe in God, and I do believe God is a logical and rational being, so any doctrines regarding him must also be logical and rational. I subscribe to the denomination I do because it is one of the few I know of that are not internally inconsistent, blatantly self-contradictory, intentionally denying what we know to be true of the universe just to save face, using faith of members as a source of profit, etc. The are a lot of screwed up things in todays churches. I feel that if there is a God, such actions cannot be his way, so the churches that commit them must have strayed from the path. Many chruches nowadays are more like social clubs, political machines, or preachers fan-clubs.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Rather than refer to Wikipedia which is maybe a little lame - get the book "A Guide to Critical Thinking" I think it is around the 11th edition by now so a pleasure to read. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

If there's a section in the book, "A Guide to Critical Thinking," that shows in a logical way that miracles cannot exist or be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I'd be glad to read it, if you post it here.

I am curious. Why do you believe that all of what I have sent you is "not evidence"?

I clicked a random link from your post:

http://www.padrepio.catholicwebservices.com/ENGLISH/Miracles.htm



Is this compelling evidence or not? What is the criteria for proof?

The first question that pops into my mind when I read it was - why should I believe that? Who wrote it? Where does the story come from and why should I believe that it really happened?

Very sound, valid questions. I don't know the sources for the stories on the website. I tend to believe them because many very knowledgeable and thorough people, including both Vatican experts and non-Catholic researchers, have investigated Padre Pio's life and miracles, and have found a great deal of proof that many miracles attributed to him are genuine. Though I know there are skeptics who are incredulous of all miracles or supernatural phenomenon, and through bias, they will assume everything is false no matter what, and will cling to anything other than the supernatural or spiritual explanation, no matter how feeble their arguments are.

Perhaps Father Pio was motivated by fame and fabricated the story. Why am I to assume he should be trusted?

Because of how tremendous his love for people was. He spent twelve hours a day in the confessional, during long periods of his life. That is very painful! It is extremely hard on the body to endure day after day of sitting in one position on a wooden plank, hearing the worst things about people's lives being poured out to you for absolution, for years.

Also, Padre Pio laid down his life for others, suffering terribly in body and soul for love of other people.* You know, in the Catholic Church, we believe that suffering can be offered up as a prayer to heal others, draw them into holiness or in other ways change their lives for the better. People sometimes have flagellated themselves or fasted for long periods of time, or spent all night in prayer for people, making these sacrificial prayers out of love for others. Padre Pio lashed himself three days a week, and war the cilice. When he was a child, he slept with a rock as his pillow and deliberately deprived himself of food, even though his family had meager rations already. He did this all for love of God and souls, believing that through these sacrificial prayers made in union with the Passion of Christ, sinners would be converted. Padre Pio's quarters in his religious order also were extremely stark and austere, though huge amounts of money passed through his hands, because he was responsible for building a hospital project for the injured of World War 2, a project he started and spearheaded to completion. Padre Pio had great integrity and suffered much for love of people and of God.

Padre Pio'ss humility was also extreme. He lived in a tough Capuchin religious order, but he humbly obeyed all the orders he was given by his superiors, without complaint. When his superiors doubted his mystical gifts, they put him in isolation from the outside world for TEN YEARS, and he remained in isolation, cut off from all the people he had been helping and many people he loved. He submitted to this ten years of isolation, out of obedience. He could have left the religious house and formed his own church, like rejected false mystics have done, out of various loyal followers. He conquered his self-will by submitting to these ten years of isolation out of obedience. During those ten years, he endured many accusations from fellow religious of having invented the phenomenon he was experiencing and pouring out to others, but he was silent when accused and criticized, and would not defend himself. All this takes great humility.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Did Father Pio cure her husband, or did the husband's immune system or the medicine finally work. It could have been good timing.

I accept that one could argue some of Padre Pio's miracles might have been merely "good timing." The same is surely true with some of the miracles of other saints, as well. Some miracles could be very clearly only understood as miraculous whereas others could be interpreted as having natural explanations.

Originally Posted by michaeljournal.org
The “flying monk”
It is impossible to do justice to the entire array of miracles worked by Padre Pio. They are endless, and they have transcended his death. One day, recounts Ruffin, a priest named Padre Constantino "entered Pio's room and was struck by what he saw. 'His countenance was shining with a rosy flame of light such as I had never seen before and shall, I think, never see again. It was but for an instant, but I shall never forget it.' This phenomenon was observed in Moses when he came down from Sinai with the two tables of the Law in his hands."
As for the sky phenomenon: “There are many stories concerning allied pilots who attempted to bomb San Giovanni but were stopped by an apparition of a 'monk' standing in the air with his arms outstretched,” says Ruffin. “There are fliers who swore that they had sighted a figure in the sky, sometimes normal size, sometimes gigantic, usually in the form of a monk or priest. The sightings were too frequent and the reports came from too many sources to be totally discounted. Several people from Foggia, where thousands were killed in the air raids, said that a bomb, falling into a room where they had huddled, landed near a photograph of Padre Pio. They claimed that when it exploded, it 'burst like a soap bubble.' Others reported that while bombs were raining down upon the city, they cried, 'Padre Pio, you have to save us!' While they were speaking, a bomb fell into their midst, but did not explode.”
Bernardo Rosini, a general of the Italian Air Force, told a story: “At Bari was located the general command of the U.S. Air Force. I know several officers who told me of having been saved by Padre Pio during air missions.
“One day,” General Rosini continued, “an American commander wanted to lead a squadron of bombers himself to destroy the German arms depository of war material that was located at San Giovanni Rotondo. The commander related that as he approached the target, he and his pilots saw rising in the sky the figure of a friar with his hands held outward. The bombs released of their own accord, falling in the woods, and the planes completely reversed course without any intervention by the pilots.”
Someone told the commanding general that in a convent at this little town of San Giovanni Rotondo, there lived a saintly man, a friar in the odor of sanctity. At war's end, the general wanted to go meet this person. “He was accompanied by several pilots,” Rosini continued. “He went to the convent of the Capuchins. As soon as he crossed the threshold of the sacrisity, he found himself in front of several friars, among whom he immediately recognized the one who had 'stopped' his planes. Padre Pio went forward to meet him, and putting his hand on his shoulder, he said, `So, you're the one who wanted to get rid of us all!'”



Of all of Padre Pio's healings, one of the most remarkable may have been a blind girl from the Palermo area named Gemma DiGiorgio. (See pictures above, the day of her First Communion.) “I had no pupils in my eyes,” said Gemma in 1971, several years after Padre Pio's death. “I had no sight at all. When I was three months old, my mother took me to a very famous eye doctor in Palermo. He told her that, without pupils, I would never be able to see.”
In 1946, when the girl was seven, a nun took it upon herself to write Padre Pio on her behalf, and received a note saying that the girl should be brought to Padre Pio in San Giovanni Rotundo. That's exactly what Gemma's grandmother did: brought the girl to see the famous monk, who heard the child's First Confession and gave her her First Communion — then made the Sign of the Cross on her eyes. After the blessing, Gemma was able to see.

The eye reappears
More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamite mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo San- guinetti, a physican, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man's side, “all three men noted that among Savino's numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that 'the socket was empty',” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin. Other doctors confirmed that the eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged.
It looked like Savino was also going to be totally blind. For three days, the worker lay on a hospital bed with his head and face bandaged. When a surgeon entered the room three days later, Savino reported that Padre Pio had visited him — something Savino recognized because he had detected the beautiful aroma so often reported around the priest. A week later, at about one a.m. on February 25, 1949, Savino felt a slap on the right side of his face — the side where the eye was completely gone. “I asked, 'Who touched me?'” testified Savino. “There was nobody. Again I smelled the aroma of Padre Pio. It was beautiful.”
When later the ophthalmologist — an atheist — came to examine the remaining eye, there was a shock. “To their amazement,” writes Ruffin, “the doctors found that his shattered face was fully healed and covered with new skin. Savino, however, was most delighted at the fact that he could see. 'I can see you!' he said excitedly to the eye specialist.”
And indeed, as is medically documented, the doctor saw, to his “utter astonishment”, that Savino had his right eye back. Somehow, the eye had materialized. (“Now I believe too,” exclaimed the doctor, “because of what my own hands have touched!”) As Ruffin notes, it's one thing when diseases disappear; this is exciting. It's tremendous to hear of diabetes or arthritis or even cancer leaving a person. “For a missing part of the body to be restored, however, is another matter,” noted the expert biographer.

It is not rational to say that all Padre Pio's miracles "do not constitute evidence." For even if a situation arose where one could make a strong case against one of them, one would still be debating against evidence. Perhaps the evidence is "weak," "poor," or even "completely flawed," but to say it is not evidence at all is not true. If there wasn't any evidence whatsoever, there would be nothing to debate about. The question is how good the evidence is, not whether or not it exists. For it is indisputable that vast numbers of people claim Padre Pio performed real miracles. They bring up testimonies of people who experienced the miracles, as well as medical proofs of supernatural healings and of the stigmata Padre Pio experienced, and eyewitnesses to various other phenomenon like bilocation or levitation involving Padre Pio. It would be close-minded to say that all of this is simply "not evidence," because one doesn't believe in such things.

I think the same could be said for almost any source of evidence you posted.

I hope you are not the sort of person that will judge every article I've sent you without having even read them. Though I admit that several of them aren't written to persuade skeptics. I wasn't aware that that was your attitude, when I sent them to you.

I definitely recommend you read this article on Zeitoun, and the watch the following youtube presentation on the Eucharistic Miracle in Buennos Aires, at any rate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.ht

The Archbishop's statement about the apparitions of Betania, which I sent you above in an earlier post, and the Catholic Encyclopedia article on stigmatists, are also written in a thorough fashion, covering these phenomenon.

 

[Search & Destroy]

I'd be glad to read it, if you post it here.

It is most beneficial if you go through the entire book, as it is has university-level tasks that guide the reader to understanding. Homework and so forth. It is not only relevant to religion and I think it costs under $20. It's the best book I ever bought, and I read it something like 5 times before I was 20. If you don't want to read it, so be it. But by reading it you will understand my thoughts on your thoughts 100%.

I am curious. Why do you believe that all of what I have sent you is "not evidence"?

Sorry you are right I should have been more careful. It is evidence, just not evidence that convinces me. I bite my tongue.

I hope you are not the sort of person that will judge every article I've sent you without having even read them.

No judgement. And you're right I did not read everything you linked to me. I said 'I think' because I have read near all the evidence there is for miracles and so forth as I was born a Christian, and am no longer one. I am no longer one due to thorough research. I don't feel the need to go detail by detail so much, as one's views on the quality of evidence will be near isomorphic across the board.

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitoun1.ht

I read through it, and as a business-minded person, I can see how a hired magician could create loads of money for years to come with an act like this. There is a defined motive, and plausible scenarios like bright rooftop lights with an actor, and all-too-willing-to-believe observers.

The photos could have been themselves doctored. But I think what I first said was true.
---

Why can't God create miracles that are 'strong evidence' to an atheist? If he wants us to believe, he should do something about it.

 

[Search & Destroy]

In summary,

I apologize that my responses to you are lackluster. I am demotived when discussing religious evidence. Religious evidence is hocus pocus. Not because of the 'weak vs poor evidence' debate, but because it is not important to the purpose of religion - living a happy life.

Is Father Pio a fraud, is the Buddha real? The one who asks these questions is like the man shot with an arrow. He asks where it came from, and what material it is, before letting anyone pull it out.

edit: And that youtube link / Can't watch here in China as we have a nationwide firewall on youtube. I am willing to debate a few evidences further if you wish, but note that it is not important.

 

[NMSquirrel]

first off i wanna thank mindovermatter for his links, it appears you have done your research,and know where to get the documentation..

Why can't God create miracles that are 'strong evidence' to an atheist? If he wants us to believe, he should do something about it.

think about it..
if there were absolute,undeniable Proof of Gods existence..
i think..ppl would feel they have lost their free will..

If i were God and i wanted ppl to have the freedom to choose for themselves,i would not want any Proof of my existence to undo that freedom..

think of it like this, how do you treat your boss? when he tells you to do something, do you do it because you respect him and acknowledge that he knows best, or do you do it just because he is the boss and to go against him would be to ask for punishment..

it would be the same If God was proven, we would submit to him without question, we would ask him for instructions for everything (God do you want me to wear my blue shirt or green shirt?) we would become needy..look how many 'christians' feel that way now, or better yet, look how many atheist argue against God because of this concept (belief=obedience=no free will)

for God to prove himself would de-evolve us as a species..

and
belief in the context you have used is slightly off..
God does do things to help us to believe,
you do not need to believe the fire is hot and you will burn yourself if you touch it, you know that will happen.
believe does not equal know.
'know' in the context of belief equals; God has provided overwhelming evidence to convince one that it is True.
this does not mean the same in the context of science, in science,to know means every time you measure it, it will always be the same, for every one.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

It is most beneficial if you go through the entire book, as it is has university-level tasks that guide the reader to understanding. Homework and so forth. It is not only relevant to religion and I think it costs under $20. It's the best book I ever bought, and I read it something like 5 times before I was 20. If you don't want to read it, so be it. But by reading it you will understand my thoughts on your thoughts 100%.

I'm sure it's a good book, but you're right, I don't want to read it. However, would you do me a favor?

I've taken a good deal of time to write up for you some of the reasons I believe as I do. You seem to believe that critical thinking and logical reasoning rule out the possibility of miracles. Would you do me the favor of explaining why you think the way you do, on this?

Is there a quote in the book, which you could post here, that explains in a clearly logical way why there cannot be miracles? I am curious why you believe what you do on this. Requiring that I buy a book on a subject I've already studied, a book that I don't believe will prove me wrong, in order to try to prove myself wrong, isn't very useful to me, though I know you respect the book very much. Would you answer my question directly, instead?

Sorry you are right I should have been more careful. It is evidence, just not evidence that convinces me. I bite my tongue.

No judgement. And you're right I did not read everything you linked to me. I said 'I think' because I have read near all the evidence there is for miracles and so forth as I was born a Christian, and am no longer one. I am no longer one due to thorough research. I don't feel the need to go detail by detail so much, as one's views on the quality of evidence will be near isomorphic across the board.

What books did you read, in your research?

I read through it, and as a business-minded person, I can see how a hired magician could create loads of money for years to come with an act like this. There is a defined motive, and plausible scenarios like bright rooftop lights with an actor, and all-too-willing-to-believe observers.

You haven't looked into this phenomenon at all. Scientific studies have been done on the Eucharistic Hosts. All Eucharistic Hosts have blood type AB, and are human flesh taken from a human heart with surgical precision. Some experts have been able to trace from signs of stress on the heart and such that the man the heart belonged to was tortured severely. The surgical precision with which the heart was cut did not exist in the centuries many of these Hosts date from. In the case of the Eucharist of Lanciano, they found that the globs of flesh weigh the same amount if one of them is on the scale as if all of them were on the scale together -- a mystery that defies physics. The Eucharistic Host from Buennos Aires was found to be a living heart that was still alive while it was being examined. This stunned the scientist studying it (who was not aware he was studying a Eucharist, at the time).

Also, what you say requires a massive conspiracy theory and impinges on the characters of a great many priests without evidence.

What you just said reminds me of the atheists' conspiracy theories about the Miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem. Each Easter, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, around the tomb of Jesus Christ, the patriarch of Jerusalem goes into the church with unlit candles. A luminous flame, sometimes shaped like a dove, appears out of nowhere, floats over to the candles and lights them for him. The candles of other people, including many onlookers, spontaneously light also. Sometimes the luminous dove or hovering flame flies out and lights the unlit torches or candles of many other people who are present.

This miracle has been occurring regularly in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Easter for 2,000 years. The first written record of it is in the 4th century, describing how this miracle started happening in the 1st century with the Apostle Peter. There are many records of this miracle from the 4th century to the present. The enormity of the conspiracy theory required to explain this phenomenon is immense. All the patriarchs of Jerusalem for 2,000 years, including some extremely holy and virtuous men, would have to have been liars. Also, candles have been being catching aflame spontaneously since the early days of the miracle, long before the existence of trick candles, matches or lighters. There have always been large numbers of witnesses of these phenomenon. So the kinds of atheistic conspiracy theories surrounding the Miracle of the Holy Fire have to be very outlandish. So much so I considered for a while writing a fiction book to make fun of them, a book that has a premise that the conspiracy theories are true, and then goes on to show the ludicrous extremes the Orthodox Church had to go to in order to keep the miracle's cover and keep it going.

The photos could have been themselves doctored. But I think what I first said was true.

Many of these Eucharistic Miracles are visible to all. All you have to do is go to the local church where the Eucharist is kept and it's kept out where the public can see it, or paraded out for veneration from time to time. So doctoring the photos would be pointless. Besides, why doctor the photos if you're going to allow scientists to do studies on the Hosts? The Church has allowed numerous scientific studies on the Hosts, as it is interested in examining these phenomenon.

Why can't God create miracles that are 'strong evidence' to an atheist? If he wants us to believe, he should do something about it.

God has provided compelling enough evidence to convert countless atheists over the course of history. Sometimes He gives this evidence in the form of a personal supernatural encounter, sometimes in the form of philosophical proof, and sometimes an objective experience or proof that they cannot explain away. He reaches out to atheists in many ways and proves His reality to them. Many atheists eventually convert to Christianity or Catholicism.

However, you are right that God could do MORE. He could provide such impressive wonders that everyone on Earth would have no choice whatsoever but to believe. But He doesn't behave in that way.

The reason is that He wants us to have freedom. He doesn't want to force us to worship Him or choose Him. He wants us to choose to love Him freely. If He proved Himself in such ways that everyone was forced to believe, whether they wanted to or not, then they would not have truly given their hearts to Him and they would have no choice in whether or not to give themselves to Him (even as He gave Himself to them, on the Cross). Many would conclude, "well, that's it, God exists, so I guess I have to believe in Him and do what He wants."

God wants everyone to desire Him and come to Him with love, freely. So whenever someone really wants God, they seek Him, and they find Him. He gives them enough evidence, or He speaks to them directly -- He reveals Himself in some sufficient way to inspire faith in their hearts. But when people don't want to know God, He gives them the freedom in this life to choose not to come to Him, live in His Life or love Him. He gives sufficient evidence to reach out to those that really want Him, while He hides Himself enough that those who don't want Him have the freedom to continue to reject Him.

And among those who seek God, there are false seekers of God and true seekers of God. There are people who claim to be seeking God, but will only accept a God who fits into a certain pre-conceived description, and thus these people sometimes rule out the real God because they are more attached to their current beliefs about Him, and aren't willing to humbly seek the reality, even if it differs from what they now believe. They are more attached to mistaken beliefs about God than they are to the search for truth, so they wouldn't let go of their errors even if the truth was presented in a highly compelling way. To a large extent, you know, people believe what they desire in their hearts to believe.

Also, there are people who think of themselves as seeking God, but who prefer themselves, their own lifestyles, their own way of doing things, sinful habits or possessions to any truth or reality that might require sacrifice of them, or might require them to put God ahead of these things. So these people also may be seeking God, but they shut Him out of their lives by preferring other things and not being willing to seriously consider a reality or truth that contradicts what they have or want right now.

Then there are seekers after God who are really willing to put Him before everything and seek Him first, and He is most important to them. These people are humble. God gives these people whatever they need to convince them of the truth, and if they don't have enough evidence given them in this life, they will nonetheless be saved because they put Truth first in their lives and sought it first. Christ is Truth, so when they sought truth so sincerely and faithfully, even if they did not find it in this life because it was not well presented to them or they never came in contact with Catholicism, by putting truth first, they were putting Christ first in their lives. He said not only, "I am the Omega," but also, "I am the Way," so these people seeking truth are already on the way of truth, living for Christ. So they inherit Him.

He said in the Gospels that everyone who seeks finds. Everyone who really is interested in truth and willing to conform themselves to it even if they don't like it will be saved. They are the real seekers. But those that aren't seeking it don't really want it, and they won't join God when they die because they never actually wanted to be with Him.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

In summary,

I apologize that my responses to you are lackluster. I am demotived when discussing religious evidence. Religious evidence is hocus pocus. Not because of the 'weak vs poor evidence' debate, but because it is not important to the purpose of religion - living a happy life.

I don't understand what you said here. Could you clarify it for me?

Is Father Pio a fraud, is the Buddha real? The one who asks these questions is like the man shot with an arrow. He asks where it came from, and what material it is, before letting anyone pull it out.

edit: And that youtube link / Can't watch here in China as we have a nationwide firewall on youtube. I am willing to debate a few evidences further if you wish, but note that it is not important.

Dr. Ricardo Castañón, P.H.D., gave this presentation at a Faith and Science Conference. The actual presentation is an hour long. What was provided in the link I gave you is only a clip from it.

The man was an atheistic scientist, but he converted to Catholicism after spending years studying the human brain, Eucharistic Miracles and some of the seers of the Catholic Church. This helped him to find the relationship between faith and reason.

 

[Rav]

think about it..
if there were absolute,undeniable Proof of Gods existence..
i think..ppl would feel they have lost their free will..

The Biblical account of God's dealings with mankind has him performing miracles, that many people were witness to, right from the beginning. Jesus certainly wasn't afraid to perform them in front of people, and they were of a much higher caliber than any of the ultimately unverifiable ones we hear about today. Probably the most impressive ones of course were walking on water, raising the dead and the resurrection of Jesus himself. Obviously, then, it is not Biblically consistent to argue that witnessing a bona-fide miracle would somehow compromise a persons freedom to choose to embrace God, or not.

 

[Search & Destroy]

You seem to believe that critical thinking and logical reasoning rule out the possibility of miracles.

No, critical thinking does not rule out the possibility of miracles. Anything is possible. However CT shows the examples thus far to be unconvincing. This is due to weak evidence.

Is there a quote in the book,

Sorry the book is not with me. I ditched all my books to lighten my load as I pedaled through Laos a few months ago.

Again, miracles are possible. However the evidence for them is unconvincing.

What books did you read, in your research?

A guide to Critical Thinking helped me the most. I never read a book on miracles - my research was done on the Internet over a span of a few years in my early teens.

Eucharistic Host

Please show me the evidence for transubstantiation. You may have seen some flesh - but have you actually seen the bread *poof* into a heart?

Millions go to Vegas to be fooled by magicians.

This stunned the scientist studying it

Give me a name and their credentials. First show me evidence the scientist is achieved in something scientific. Then let me read his words on religion.

Many of these Eucharistic Miracles are visible to all.

And no I don't believe they are doctored photos. I believe it was a show comparable to a magician's.

Also, what you say requires a massive conspiracy theory and impinges on the characters of a great many priests without evidence.

But my theory is more likely. Because there is a clear motive, and a method to carry it out. I don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain it. I don't intend to impinge on character - the Catholic church does this themselves. Most recently with worldwide child abuse scandals. Surely not everyone in the Catholic church are true Catholics.

his miracle has been occurring regularly in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Easter for 2,000 years.

Have you witnessed this first-hand? I might be persuaded if I did, otherwise not.

He wants us to have freedom

He doesn't want to force us to worship Him

He wants us to choose to love Him freely

God wants everyone to desire Him and come to Him with love, freely

He gives sufficient evidence

He speaks to them directly

He reveals Himself in some sufficient way to inspire faith in their hearts.

He hides Himself enough

He draws a subtle line in the sand, revealing just enough (weak evidence) to encourage those true seekers, and discourage the rest (because the rest seek strong evidence.) It is that simple.

I don't understand what you said here. Could you clarify it for me?

My replies are in haste. They are not thoroughly thought out word by word. This is because I am not motivated to do so. I apologize my posts are not more convincing to you or elegant or however one may put it.

---

The bottom line is whether one believes in miracles or not is unimportant. What is important is leading a happy life. The belief in miracles does not in any way effect one's happiness. Religion should be about living a happy life - not about believing in miracles.

The Swami says it better than I:

“Feel like Christ and you will be a Christ; feel like Buddha and you will be a Buddha. It is feeling that is the life, the strength, the vitality, without which no amount of intellectual activity can reach God."

-Vivekananda

If you meet Christ, kill him. If you meet Buddha, kill him. If you see a miracle, kill it. Don't attach to anything, and live life as it is. The question of miracles is unimportant. If a miracle happens in your life, in a first-hand experiential way, embrace it! And then move on.

To the question of miracles - provide me with strong evidence or give up says my rational mind.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

and here is the point that atheist/theist get into battles about..
just because an atheist dismisses the evidence, does not mean it is not evidence.

The issue is whether what you provide is even evidence at all.

Ask yourself this, if you change the stories about Pedro Pio to some Muslim cleric in the 1800s living in Pakistan and healing people in the name of Allah would you believe it? Would you just accept the word of a bunch of uneducated Muslims who don't know anything about medicine and who provide nothing but their say so? I doubt it. In the eyes of an atheist, actually in the eyes of a rational sceptic who may even be a theist, there's no reason to think of the claims as evidence at all.

If you say your name is Bob then I'll take you at your word because it is a small claim and even if you aren't called Bob ultimately that has no ramifications of any importance. If you claim you've got supernatural powers then I am not going to take you at your word. In my experience no one has supernatural powers and thus if someone outside of my experience is claiming to have them I will require more evidence because it flies in the face of every single bit of knowledge I have. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence saying "You're dismissing this evidence" is not true, as you haven't given evidence, only a claim.

it is evidence for him.
(now we are back to 'what applies to one, applies to the other')

If you have a level of evidence whereby you accept things, no matter how grand or world altering. just on people's say so then you'd be believing all kinds of contradictory things. You'd be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Scientologist, everything. Obviously you're not so you're dismissing the claims of say Scientology. Why? If all you need is someone's say so then why dismiss one religion over another? Because you already have a conclusion and you're looking for things to justify it, even if the justification is so pathetic a rational person would dismiss it.

If there's a section in the book, "A Guide to Critical Thinking," that shows in a logical way that miracles cannot exist or be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I'd be glad to read it, if you post it here.

You have it backwards. It isn't that you accept something until proven wrong but that you should not accept something until proven true. Do you believe in elves, unicorns, Big foot, the tooth fairy, Santa, the gods of Norse mythology, the greek gods etc? I doubt it. Can you provide evidence they don't exist anywhere in the universe? Nope. So you aren't following your own logic.

In every single other aspect of our lives we dismiss fantastical claims unless someone can justify them with evidence. If I said I could fly and shoot lasers from my eyes you'd say "Oh yeah? Prove it!", you'd want to see me to do as it's a pretty fantastic claim. You would disbelieve it until it is supported by evidence. You're making a special case for your god because you already know what you want to believe and you want to find anything to support that. There are plenty of stories is Islam of people with special healing powers, with plenty of eye witnesses. Why don't you believe them, they have the same level of 'evidence' as your stories? Because you've got a predetermined conclusion and so you're just picking and choosing what to accept to try to convince yourself you've justified your faith. You haven't.

Also, Padre Pio laid down his life for others, suffering terribly in body and soul for love of other people.* You know, in the Catholic Church, we believe that suffering can be offered up as a prayer to heal others, draw them into holiness or in other ways change their lives for the better.

I've already been over this with you. By your logic suicide bombers are evidence Islam is right.

The actions of people isn't evidence because people can be 100% committed and convinced and still be wrong.

All this takes great humility.

None of which is evidence.

Come on, you can't seriously be so stupid as to think that counts? There are Hindus who'll spend years doing some arduous and stupid task like pushing a rock with their nose for 1000 miles to please some god or other. Are they proof Hinduism is right? Cutting the skin off your penis is a pretty extreme thing, are Jews proving Judaism is right? People being humble and kind doesn't prove their claims are true. Buddhists and Janes are humble and kind, does that prove their religions are true?

I accept that one could argue some of Padre Pio's miracles might have been merely "good timing."

You've already skipped over the critical point which is to question whether the 'miracles' happened at all! You seem to lack any kind of critical thinking.

Perhaps the evidence is "weak," "poor," or even "completely flawed," but to say it is not evidence at all is not true.

Oh come on, seriously? You admit the 'evidence' could be completely flawed and yet think it is still evidence? Evidence which is completely flawed ISN'T EVIDENCE. It's bullshit.

first off i wanna thank mindovermatter for his links, it appears you have done your research,and know where to get the documentation..

No, he's just spouting out logical fallacies and nonsense. He hasn't shown he has any capacity to rationally evaluate the things he's saying are evidence.

for God to prove himself would de-evolve us as a species..

Just because you can't imagine life without the crutch of your faith doesn't mean the rest of us have your short comings. And you misuse the notion of 'evolve', which wouldn't be the first time a religious person has done that....

it would be the same If God was proven, we would submit to him without question

I would accept he believes but I wouldn't 'submit' to him in the sense of worship. I can't think of any instance where I'd unconditionally worship someone or something. I'd give reverence if earnt but if the Christian god exists and the bible is an accurate account of his past deeds he doesn't deserve worship. He's an egomaniacal psycho.

you do not need to believe the fire is hot and you will burn yourself if you touch it, you know that will happen.

But if I want I can put my hand in a fire and test the claim "The fire is hot". I cannot test god and whenever a person of faith proclaims a manner to do it their claims fall on their face. For instance, this Saturday is supposed to be the end of the world according to the Family Radio Christian group. When Sunday rolls around they'll get laughed at, as it demonstrates their current beliefs false in some regards.

Also, what you say requires a massive conspiracy theory and impinges on the characters of a great many priests without evidence.

That's what they said a decade ago about the child abuse cases in the Catholic church and now look at it.....

 

[NMSquirrel]

The Biblical account of God's dealings with mankind has him performing miracles, that many people were witness to, right from the beginning. Jesus certainly wasn't afraid to perform them in front of people, and they were of a much higher caliber than any of the ultimately unverifiable ones we hear about today. Probably the most impressive ones of course were walking on water, raising the dead and the resurrection of Jesus himself. Obviously, then, it is not Biblically consistent to argue that witnessing a bona-fide miracle would somehow compromise a persons freedom to choose to embrace God, or not.

very true but only because of highlighted underlined words..
i was talking in the context of the majority of ppl who do not study the bible (theist and atheist alike) (IMO)
they only see 'obey or goto hell'..
not saying ALL ppl who do not study the bible are 'obey or goto hell' ppl.
AND
was in the context of a miracle not being direct proof of God.

to me a miracle would be strong evidence of God, but not necessarily proof of God, Satan can do miracles also.

if ppl were to see a person disappear before their eyes some would assume a miracle,until we discover there is such a thing as
UFO's and they have teleportation..then the miracle would be explained..
(if you have a prob with UFO's then substitute technological advances)

-----

Ask yourself this, if you change the stories about Pedro Pio to some Muslim cleric in the 1800s living in Pakistan and healing people in the name of Allah would you believe it?

i can believe in alternate realities. that very thing could be happening (have happened?) right now..
the point of the prophet is to communicate..
IMO if the message is valid, then it matters not who spoke it.

Would you just accept the word of a bunch of uneducated Muslims who don't know anything about medicine and who provide nothing but their say so? I doubt it.

um..1; there are highly educated ppl who believe in God..
2; i have heard lots of good arguments about how the bible had medicinal value (cleanliness is the more obvious one)
and if enough of them believe then at least one must wonder that there must be something to this God-thing..

In the eyes of an atheist, actually in the eyes of a rational sceptic who may even be a theist, there's no reason to think of the claims as evidence at all.

think of the claims as testimonies, the more the various testimonies line up, the more evidence you have.
(a testimony is not a predefined script)

If you claim you've got supernatural powers then I am not going to take you at your word.

Good..
<concentrates real hard and imagines Alphanumerics spouse giving him a beer as he reads this..>
(thought about goosing you, but beer is more probable..)

In my experience no one has supernatural powers and thus if someone outside of my experience is claiming to have them I will require more evidence because it flies in the face of every single bit of knowledge I have.

test all things hold on to what is good.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence saying "You're dismissing this evidence" is not true, as you haven't given evidence, only a claim.

everyone values according to their own..
what you value as evidence is not the same as what others (or I) value as evidence.
this is human nature..we judge everything..(some may substitute 'scrutinize' for 'judge')
so my statement of "You're dismissing this evidence" still stands..

If you have a level of evidence whereby you accept things, no matter how grand or world altering. just on people's say so then you'd be believing all kinds of contradictory things.

bold is the only point i will argue with..
this says you have to 'do as your told' when you believe in God.
I believe God is a 'think for yourself' God.
other than that see above about testing all things..

You'd be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Scientologist, everything.

what i believe lines up with all those..or at least it should, to be true.

Obviously you're not so you're dismissing the claims of say Scientology. Why?

i read the book Dianetics, very thought provoking..i didn't think it was worthy of a religion, but insightful anyways..dunno how they turned it into a religion..

If all you need is someone's say so then why dismiss one religion over another?

its not about taking one mans word for it..this is 'do as your told'.

Because you already have a conclusion and you're looking for things to justify it,

can't argue with that, because it is true.
that justifications comes in the form of acceptance for me.
(we know your screwed up, but we like ya anyway..)

even if the justification is so pathetic a rational person would dismiss it.

it is good to not believe a pathetic excuse, you will find your own excuses, some may even think of them as pathetic..but they will be yours.
---

You have it backwards. It isn't that you accept something until proven wrong but that you should not accept something until proven true.

that statement breaks down under definition of things that one accepts.
i will accept ppl till they wrong me (ignoring the forgiveness part to make the point)
i will not invest money into things that aren't proven (again susceptible to own humanity..IE; i believed what they said..)

You're making a special case for your god because you already know what you want to believe and you want to find anything to support that.

human nature..irrelevant point..

LOL..you do not realized how many times in this post that i was responding to your comments to MindoverMatter, thinking you were talking to me..got very confusing after a bit..(IE..where did i say that?..)

 

[Mind Over Matter]

No, critical thinking does not rule out the possibility of miracles. Anything is possible. However CT shows the examples thus far to be unconvincing. This is due to weak evidence.

Then why were so many of the world's most brilliant minds, including St. Paul of Tarsus, St. Augustine, the Venerable Bede, Roger Bacon (who devised the scientific method), St. Albert the Great, Saints Cyril and Methodius, St. Thomas Aquinas (who explained cause and effect relationships), Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei (in spite of his trial), Blessed Nicolas Steno, Johann Gutenberg, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, Gregor Mendel, "the father of modern genetics," Louis Pasteur, James Prescott Joule, Antoine Henri Becquerel, etc. etc. etc., devout Catholics?

These people examined their beliefs carefully and had compelling reasons for believing as they did. They didn't merely "flirt" with religion, by any means. A vast number of other, less brilliant, believers, also have strong reasons for believing as they do.

I've listed for you some of the grand miracles of Church history. Zeitoun, Fatima, Betania, Lourdes, the Eucharistic Miracles, the stigmatists, as well as a handful of the great wonderworkers of Catholic history. Padre Pio and the Curé d'Ars are particularly good examples here, because they are so modern and so exhaustively studied, but there are dozens of other great miracle workers whose lives are strong reasons for belief. Nobel Prize winning author and Medieval historian Sigrid Undset converted to Catholicism because of her extensive studies on the lives of the Medieval mystics, for example.

Miracles such as these are well studied and verified, and can convince true reason. But it is possible for people to cling to skepticism as though it's a religion, and not believe what all the evidence points to, in spite of a miracle being obviously the most logical interpretation of the evidence. Skeptics are many times very unreasonable, even though they think themselves the most reasonable and enlightened. Often, if they can come up with any far-fetched means of ditching the miraculous explanation, they will hold to that, no matter how unlikely, and as if this "miracle" was the only such reported and well supported event of its kind in Earth history. And if they can't come up with any explanation of the evidence, they'll just say, "it's a mystery," and go on believing that miracles don't happen. I've seen both these attitudes, and the irrationality of it is very frustrating.

Sorry the book is not with me. I ditched all my books to lighten my load as I pedaled through Laos a few months ago.

Okay.

Again, miracles are possible. However the evidence for them is unconvincing.

What you mean is that what you've read so far has not been sufficient to convince you (which hasn't included any books, but only Internet searches). What many of the world's most brilliant minds have seen, studied or experienced has been sufficient to convince them, though. What many less brilliant people, like me, have seen, studied and experienced (some firsthand and some through people I know are trustworthy) has been enough to convince us. We aren't all hanging on weak evidence or unreasonable faith. But a truth doesn't have to be proven in a test tube to be credible and reasonably believed. Who can prove their parents' or children's love for them? There are many things about life, some of which are the most important aspects of life, and we trust in them daily, without scientific proof. There is very good and strong reason to believe in these truths, though our evidence in these cases is not scientific. Even so, there is a lot of evidence supporting Catholicism, such as eyewitness testimony of various supernatural events (and we can examine the eyewitnesses for credibility) that doesn't require science to be credible.

Though Eucharistic fasts, Eucharistic miracles, stigmata and the like are scientifically verifiable and have been scientifically studied, and sometimes discredited by science, and other times authenticated by it.

A guide to Critical Thinking helped me the most. I never read a book on miracles - my research was done on the Internet over a span of a few years in my early teens.

That's fine, and a fair start, but hardly sufficient for you to make the kinds of sweeping claims you've made about all miracles, including many big ones that I've presented to you, and which you haven't researched at all.

Please show me the evidence for transubstantiation. You may have seen some flesh - but have you actually seen the bread *poof* into a heart?

Millions go to Vegas to be fooled by magicians.

The articles I've presented to you have given names and dates for studies, and have outlined the conclusions they've been able to make about the Eucharistic Miracles

 

[Mind Over Matter]

He draws a subtle line in the sand, revealing just enough (weak evidence) to encourage those true seekers,

That's not what I said. It's overwhelmingly sufficient evidence for me. For many others, too! But we are "open" to the possibility of the supernatural, whereas you presume everything you hear about the supernatural is false, and are willing to assume the truth of any skeptical theory you hear rather than seriously consider the possibility that God is intervening. That's prejudice masquerading as reason.

and discourage the rest (because the rest seek strong evidence.) It is that simple.

He gives plentiful evidence to those who desire Him and seek Him. To those that are closed to Him, though, He allows them sufficient wiggle room to irrationally deny and reject Him.

My replies are in haste. They are not thoroughly thought out word by word. This is because I am not motivated to do so. I apologize my posts are not more convincing to you or elegant or however one may put it.

That's completely okay; I have no issues with it

The bottom line is whether one believes in miracles or not is unimportant. What is important is leading a happy life.

No, what is important is living a truly loving life, a truly holy life. Happiness is secondary to doing what is right and being a good person. Many of the best people have suffered and died for their beliefs (like Martin Luther King Jr.), because they were so actively good, and they didn't make their own happiness the ideal of their religion.

Religion is not just a set of rules, though. True religion is a relationship with a Person, and He infuses His Life into us to draw us into this holiness and deeper and deeper union with Him. That is the journey of sanctification, the way of the cross, the mystical road into the Heart of Christ. He infuses us with grace and supernatural help, as we pray, fast, do good works and seek Him, and through this special help He provides, we become increasingly holy.

Jesus proved His identity through one incredible miracle: His Resurrection. His other miracles proved His identity in a secondary way. He uses miracles to reach us, as well as philosophy, and for other people, science, etc. He reaches out to us through many different means to prove the truth of the Catholic faith to us, so that we can know Him in His fullness, in the Eucharist.

The belief in miracles does not in any way effect one's happiness. Religion should be about living a happy life - not about believing in miracles.

Belief in miracles does affect our happiness massively. Because we believe in the Resurrection of Christ, we believe that we will be raised if we follow Him. So we follow Him and we find deeper and deeper union with Him in this life, and this relationship spills overwhelming joy into the lives of many! Without faith in His Resurrection, we would not come to Him in the Eucharist and receive His fullness. The Eucharist is the gem of all delights

Give me a name

Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gomez, P.H.D., gave the following presentation at a Faith and Science Conference in Mexico City. The man was an atheistic scientist, but he converted to Catholicism after spending years studying the human brain, Eucharistic Miracles and some of the seers of the Catholic Church. This helped him to find the relationship between faith and reason, which I believe he describes in the presentation.

The following is Part 2 of his presentation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9179467206976930820# It's about an hour long. It starts discussing Eucharistic miracles about 23 minutes in. The prior 23 minutes are about effusions of human blood, and crystal clear water and olive oil from statues and images, scientific studies done to verify these things, and such. After that, he discusses Eucharistic Miracles.

Here are a few books he's published, which are sold on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ARicardo%20Castañon&page=1

and their credentials. First show me evidence the scientist is achieved in something scientific. Then let me read his words on religion.

Here's a short Wikipedia article about him:

Ricardo Castañón Gómez (25 de agosto de 1948) es un Neuropsicofisiólogo boliviano. Es Doctor en Psicología Clínica, realizó estudios universitarios en Alemania e Italia. Es especializado en Medicina psicosomática, Neuropsicofísiología cognitiva.
Asimismo, realizó estudios de especialidad de Psicoterapia en Londres, Patologías en Lyon-Francia, Toxicodependencias en Berkeley-California, Bioquímica en Wheil - Alemania, Psicología aplicada en Lovaina-Bélgica. Es autor de 13 libros y más de 400 artículos de ciencia y divulgación.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Castañón_Gómez

Just google his name and you'll find lots of websites talking about him and his work.

His Facebook page describes his expertise and accomplishments at greater length:

Es Doctor en Psicología Clínica, realizó estudios universitarios en
Alemania e Italia. Es especializado en Medicina psicosomática,
Neuropsicofísiología cognitiva.
Asimismo, realizó estudios de especialidad de Psicoterapia en Londres,
Patologías en Lyon-Francia, Toxicodependencias en Berkeley-California,
Bioquímica en Wheil - Alemania, Psicología aplicada en Lovaina-Bélgica.
Es autor de 13 libros y más de 400 artículos de ciencia y divulgación. Ha
dictado conferencias en la Universidad de Georgetown en Washington, en
la Universidad de Austin, en el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidad de Valladolid, Saint
Joseph College de Sydney.Australia. Con el mismo motivo ha visitado,
Corea, Egipto, Israel, EEUU, Europa y las Américas realizando hasta el
presente más de 1000 conferencias.
Por su aporte científico ha sido distinguido con el Esculapio de Plata por el
Comité de Defensa Civil de las Naciones Unidas y es Académico de la
Legión de Oro, correspondiente a la Academia Tiberina de Roma.
Actualmente es Presidente e investigador del "Grupo Internacional para la
Paz", con sede en Madrid, una organización privada, sin fines de lucro,
interesada en promover la relación existente entre la ciencia y los valores
interiores del hombre.
El Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez, psicólogo clínico con conocimiento especializado en la relación entre el cerebro y el comportamiento humano, ha llevado adelante una investigación acerca de las hostias que han sangrado en 1996 en Buenos Aires - Argentina; luego de más de cinco años de estudio e investigación se ha llegado a la conclusión que las muestras de las hostias son músculo de corazón.

I don't have English translations for the Spanish.

And no I don't believe they are doctored photos. I believe it was a show comparable to a magician's.

Judging before examining is not scientific or rational. Many scientists have examined these phenomenon in depth, like the science expert in the link I've provided, and have found fascinating and inexplicable results. Prejudice can close people from finding truth and from discovering what can give them the most joy. Be careful with these matters, and not so cavalier.

But my theory is more likely. Because there is a clear motive, and a method to carry it out. I don't need to rely on the supernatural to explain it.

I'll wait till you've listened to the youtube link I provided you earlier, or watched the longer presentation above, before responding.

Have you witnessed this first-hand? I might be persuaded if I did, otherwise not.

I haven't witnessed this miracle firsthand, but I think the recorded experiences of crowds of people for 2,000 years should be strong enough to convince any rational person.

I've witnessed other things firsthand, though, and there are lots of close friends of mine, as well as less close acquaintances, who have experienced other extraordinary things firsthand.

 

[Rav]

to me a miracle would be strong evidence of God, but not necessarily proof of God,

Once upon a time we lived in a world where belief in God was an almost universal phenomenon, and it's easy to understand why. If there's no-one to provide a naturalistic explanation for seemingly miraculous phenomena (thunder, lightning, the sun, the moon, the stars etc) then it's natural to invoke some kind of supernatural agency to account for them (Zeus, Helios, Artemis, Astraios, or even just a single supremely powerful god). In those days, God (or gods) was/were everywhere and in everything. The average person hardly had an excuse not to believe. Yet as if that wasn't enough, biblical accounts tell us that God had a penchant for directly communicating with mankind and interacting with the world in an obvious physically tangible way, which culminated in him taking human form for 30 something years at the end of which he performed a series of absolutely spectacular miracles, which included causing an earthquake that busted open a bunch of tombs, and then raising a bunch of holy people from the dead who then wandered around the city of Jerusalem "appearing" to people. Many found this stuff so incredible that they had no choice but to exclaim “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt 27:54).

If I had been witness to all that, my skepticism would have surely taken a critical hit as well, no matter how much of an atheist I was. And let's not forget that even after Jesus gave up his earthly residence, he imparted to his disciples the ability to perform many other miracles in his name, for the purposes of confirming God's word (Mark 16:15-19).

So tell me, what was so special about the people of ancient times that in addition to the existence of God being all but "obvious" (due to a distinct lack of naturalistic explanations for seemingly incredible phenomena), God was happy to further confirm his existence to them by either directly or indirectly performing absolutely spectacular miracles?

Of course I am aware of the argument that such miracles served as a testimony in lieu of the canonization of the complete written word (which then took over the role), but honestly, that just sounds like a bunch of convenient bullshit to me. God is a lot less "obvious" in the world today, since we now have naturalistic explanations for seemingly incredible phenomena. Additionally, we have also been overwhelmed with an abundance of religious scripture that is not consistent with what we find in the Bible, yet at the same time seems to be equally significant with regard to the quality of it's insight into the human condition. In other words, it is easy to demonstrate that one can achieve similar benefits by embracing a different set of "revelations", some of which don't even advocate for the worship of a supreme being. So if anyone, at any time throughout human history, was in legitimate need of a spectacular miraculous intervention or two, not for the purposes of providing absolute proof but rather to give us a fighting chance, then it is us.

Realize however that I am not demanding such, I am simply responding to the suggestion that any provision for such by God wouldn't make sense, or be ultimately useful. Of course it would, as supported by precedent.