ARE HOAXES
NEED TO SEE
A
MIRACLE YOURSELF TO BELIEVE
Religion contends that God has set up laws of nature. At certain times, he will do things such as make a dead man live that seem to go against these laws. Why the change? Because he wants to use the event to say something religiously significant. In other words he uses miracle as a sign that he exists and as a teaching tool.
Christians and Muslims and Jews claim that they are systems of
faith. They claim that those who
dispute their claims are also depending on faith. Which faith then is the most
reasonable? The one that refuses to
easily believe in miracles, secularism.
Because if these are all different systems of faith then it follows
that the one that suits our experience best is the reasonable one. When nature goes on its normal way and cows
don’t give birth to pigs and statues don’t bleed it follows that we should
believe in secularism for all forms of faith cannot be equally reasonable or
good.
Catholicism has tons of miracles which are as believable as the ones it
accepts, but which it has never accepted though it could for it accepts very
very few. God will always guide a
religion to accept a sign that is real.
He will not do a miracle just for the benefit of a few witnesses but
for the Church and it would be silly to just worry about a few. He knows that it is better for you to see a
miracle yourself than to listen to somebody else testify to one for seeing it
yourself is listening to him and trusting in him rather than trusting in a person
to reveal God which is idolatrous.
Irrefutable but miracles which convey a false message are in the
majority showing that no miracles are signs.
To say that you can only believe in a miracle if you see it yourself is
not to say you should believe in the religion it allegedly verifies. A God who shows his wonders to so few could
not deserve to be called honest or reliable or sensible so the miracle would
verify nothing except his stupidity.
Keep in mind that a miracle you see yourself has more importance than one
that is just reported by others for it is more certain. For example, if you see a miracle that has
been done to prove that Jesus never rose from the dead – it might be a hoax
and it might not be but if you cannot refute it you have to believe it even more
than you would have to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus commanded that dissent from his
teaching and the authenticity of his miracles was to be forbidden. Thus it follows that the miracle of the
resurrection of Jesus forbids you to believe in what you see. Accordingly, the miracle of the
resurrection was a dishonest miracle and by no means can it be considered to
be a reliable marker of the true gospel.
It follows that if you have a friend who testifies to a miracle you
know that friend better than the apostles -
the witnesses to Jesus Christ and his powers - so the friend comes
first even if he or she contradicts them.
So even when miracles seem to point in the one direction they point in
every direction but that. They are
useless as signs. The Bible says that
God is not a God of confusion. He is a
God of confusion and division and altercation if the doctrine that he causes
miracles is right.
The idea that Jesus can appear to you and tell you that he rose again
as the apostles testified is full of problems. He is asking you to believe not because of
the vision you see but because the apostles said he rose. He is asking you to prefer an ancient
testimony to what your eyes see and what your ears hear. In fact, he may be saying the apostles were
truthful but if you think about it the fact that he is appearing in a miracle
shows that he holds that they were not!
A reliable miracle or testimony will not run down your own experience
and demote it.
The Church claiming that miracles outside the Bible are not binding for
belief while the ones in the Bible are makes no sense for if you see Our Lady
that is the miracle you have to have more faith in than the Bible miracle of
Jesus rising from the dead. The
miracle destroys your Christianity for it gives you a semblance of faith but
which is not the real thing for your faith is in what you have seen not in
what you are supposed to regard as the essential truths that God has
revealed.
In reiteration: Trickery can be used to produce a fake miracle that ends up being authenticated. Scientists have been frequently fooled because they don’t know the secrets of high-level stage magicians. God would respond by doing the miracle of exposing it fast if miracles were intended to be evidence and if he were honest. But this does not happen and when it does, not everybody is satisfied. Miracles testified to by people you know come before the likes of Lourdes and Fatima and ones you see yourself come before the ones these people report. So if they or you are deluded by the staged miracles what use are any miracles? It is faith in men and women and not in God. If I know of a million people seeing visions of Mary and somebody tricks me with a miracle done before my very eyes that says they were liars then I have to believe the miracle and deny the visions.
PROVING MYSELF RUINS SIGNS THEORY
When I can prove myself and my existence is the one thing I am most
sure of it follows that all the loving I do must be a manifestation of the
love I have for myself for what is most certain comes first. When I start with my happiness I begin to
help others better and they enjoy being with me.
Religion says the love of self and God and others go together meaning
that to be good I have to be as sure of others and God as myself even though
religion says God is all that matters meaning that I don’t really love myself
or others at all. I love God and
commit myself to him but the only sense I love myself and others is in doing
what God says is good. From this it
follows that I have to have frequent and nearly constant apparitions and
miracles to justify me loving God and they have to be so powerful that they
can nearly prove God as much as they prove me. They have to be frequent for to experience
something most or all of the time makes it more sure than something you
experienced before but don’t any more.
But these miracles would be harmful to us. But when God comes first he is in control
of that so we can’t worry about the harm.
He made us for himself and to harm ourselves if need be for his sake.
This tells us that miracles are not the signs believers say they
are. They are actually signs that God
should NOT come first or be loved for they ask something that is immoral for
me to give. They are like mad wacky
tricks for there would be less devotion for God without them. Whatever does them is not able to do them
for us all and that is strange and betrays that those who authenticate them
are lying if God exists for he would not be doing them.
I should not believe in miracles as signs telling me what to believe
when I can only prove myself unless I see them myself. To inconvenience myself to love a God more
than myself and a religion more than myself when I am most sure I exist would
be degrading if I do it just because of the miracle testimony of others. What I see and hear comes before the
testimony of others. My experience of
life may give me the wrong perception but it is my perception and I have
nothing else to go by so if my perception is that miracles do not happen then
I degrade myself by accepting the testimony of others that they do
happen.
If I see a miracle myself I will have some level of certainty about
it. I may be very certain or totally
certain about it. There are many
degrees of certainty. But God could
make me wholly certain. He has the
power to make me see mystically and rationally that the miracle was real and
totally convincing just like he makes me totally sure that I exist which he
should do if he wants me to love him with all my heart.
I have to believe what the evidence says about normal non-miraculous
things for I need to. It is because I
am so sure of my own existence that I have to do this in order to be as safe
as I can be. I have to accept reliable
testimony in ordinary things. But with
miracles it is different because they are so unnatural and difficult to
believe. There isn’t a miracle yet
that might not be a hoax and to start saying that the laws of nature or the
supernatural can interfere with nature is making my world less certain and is
therefore undermining my need to be totally sure. To disbelieve in the testimony in order to
be more sure of nature is right and does not mean I’m being arbitrary and
guilty of rejecting human testimony just because I do not like it. I cannot accept human testimony that
everybody is a liar. Neither can I
accept human testimony when it speaks of miracle. How do I know that my
memory of people testifying to a miracle wasn’t a miracle itself? Perhaps it was a false memory planted in
me. Once I admit miracles I cannot be
sure what the miracle was!
Miracle believers say you are denying the worth of human testimony if
you refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet they are the ones that reject human testimony
when it is testimony to fairies or something that contradicts their
dogmas.
I am fully entitled to refuse to listen to any testimony about miracles
for God could make me know that he is there and that whatever religion the
miracle supposedly supported is true.
He could do it by increasing my liking for theology and my
understanding. Many of our desires are
implanted in us anyway. The desire of the homosexual cannot be changed.
Therefore to believe in a miracle is degrading unless it can be proved
and not just proved but proved so that no needless doubt is possible.
The God of miracle and the miracle and its witness degrade me by asking
for my faith so all three are evil and are hucksters and I am evil too if I
listen to them.
Belief in miracles is not just a matter of belief but also of decency and virtue. We have to forbid and condemn them like we condemn somebody’s derogatory remarks. If God expects you to degrade yourself by accepting somebody’s miraculous testimony then why go as far as to believe that miracles indicate the existence of God? Why not just think they indicate the existence of some psychic disorder that causes a miraculous hallucination?
The Catholic Church claims that some visionaries who have seen Mary appear though nobody else could see her or touch here were telling the truth. But if we think carefully, there is no justification for holding that it makes sense for God to make Mary appear when only the visionaries can see anything.
When Mary allegedly appeared at Guadalupe in
If the relation of miracles to alleged divine revelation is an
apologetic one as these sources imply then God would do worldwide miracles
that all see so that all may believe.
This argument is right if we have free will. The following is disproves the apologetic
role of miracles if we don’t possess free will. When we have no free will no God would be
doing miracles to help us believe for then it wouldn’t matter if we believe
or not as long as he programs us to be perfectly good! If a person such as a personal God is
behind miracles and does them to enable us to believe, he is a liar for he is
implying that we are free.
Also, it is better to have us see the miracle and believe in it because
of God than to believe in it because of some alleged witness. It is letting a person tell us what God is
instead of letting God tell us. God
would never confine a miracle experience to just a few if he is good.
Christians have dubious answers against the idea that God should do
miracles to draw all to belief.
One, this would be in contravention of our right to free agency.
Giving a person a reason to believe is not forcing that person if that
person is free.
No matter how strong a proof we have for something we can still find an
excuse for denying it. We can see the
evidence that Bill Clinton is the president of the
Beliefs are forced on us all the time anyway. And belief is not faith but can lead to
faith. Faith is believing
in God and availing of his promises by changing your character for the
better. There is no reason why we
cannot be forced to believe even if we can’t be forced to have faith. And giving us reasons to believe is not forcing
us if we are free. Faith is supposed
to be what saves us along with hope and charity so it is independent of mere
belief for it is belief that is held because God is loved and the heart is
given to God to serve him and is supposed to be an unnatural gift of God
according to the Bible. When it is
unnatural then who cares if we have belief that we cannot help for is that
not God forcing himself on us? He has
to make some kind of alteration to us so that we can believe. Our inability to believe right without him
implies that he has to supply us with some spare part so that we can
believe. This doctrine destroys the
alleged importance of freedom in faith.
The Catholic Church claims to be able to prove the existence of
God. They don’t really believe the
reason, reason one, when they do that for such proof would actually be more
compulsive than a miracle. If
Catholics think they have proved God and are wrong then it is still more
compulsive and meant to be. It is not
right that the Church should be allowed to say things it does not believe in
order in order to impress unbelievers.
If God accepts those who feel forced by things like the Turin Shroud
and Fatima to believe in the Catholic Church then he may as well force
everybody to believe. When he allows
people to be scared into belief by these things and the threat of Hell for
those who do not believe we can safely take it that he is not adverse to
forcing people to believe. He is as
good as doing it himself. I felt
forced by misinformation and selective evidence to believe by these
things. The Church says that creation
is an undeniable miracle. Many
Christians argue that when God can do that one and we can all see it, it is
plain that it is madness to believe God does not want to force us by doing
miracles in front of us all.
Two, it is better to believe without seeing. Jesus said that those who have not seen but
yet believe are more blessed than those who have seen and believed.
He did not. He blessed those who
had not seen but he did not say that a lesser blessing was for those who had
seen. To be able to spring from
goodwill, faith has to be based on sensible and sound evidence.
It is impossible for it to be the case that the less
evidence you have the more sensible you are for believing.
You can love your child and know it exists or you can love yourself
though you are totally certain you exist so you can love God. God, according to Jesus, wants us to love
him with all our hearts and minds which can only be done if you are totally sure
that God exists. The weaker the belief
the less the love for you have a degree of uncertainty that hinders the love
from being any stronger than the belief.
The idea that it is more altruistic to follow beliefs that are not
that persuasive is terrible for you should only act on things you are certain
as you can be of.
Three, God could try to convert the world but he is right not to bother
for most people would still resist faith.
If he did a big sign in the sky the sceptics would think of some excuse
for not believing because of it.
But God cannot know this when he hasn’t tried it! It is absurd to proclaim that God knows
what would happen in a future that does not exist. And that absurdity is sanctioned by the
argument. God should try. Even if he knows it is not likely to work
he should do it just in case. You
should offer to help a person who might refuse that help when they are very
ill so God should try. At least, they
admit that Answer One is right, that forcing belief is not doing away with
free will.
Four, we don’t know why God won’t do a miracle to convert all people.
In other words, there is an answer but we don’t know what it is. Beliefs like that are only permissible when
they are not assumptions. God is an
assumption so they are merely presuming that there is an answer for the
miracles problem. One has as much
right to assume that a tyrant is right to exercise a cruel and murderous
reign for though nobody can find an excuse for him there is one. The answer is evil for it makes evil
right. If you want to believe that
miracles infer where the true faith is to be found then you cannot believe
this answer for it attributes miracles to a shady source.
Reason One is the only one that might be called an effort but it is
very way off so if you refute it you don’t need to do any more refuting. Restricted miracles are saying that it is
wrong so they are lying to us.
There is no universal sign so there is no God and miracles are not for raking in converts to holiness and the truth. If an evil force did miracles it could do one to convert the world so miracles don’t happen. It is idolatry to believe in God because of somebody’s miracle story because it is really believing in that person not in God. For us to be able to believe in God he would have to do a miracle for each and every one of us to see and prove for ourselves. If he does not want us to believe then there is no God for if there is a God he deserves to be known and loved.
If somebody tells you they see Mary down the garden and you see nothing, do not believe them.
If a God does a miracle as sign, he will want you to believe the message it gives because of him not because of other people. You will see the miracle yourself. Basing your concept of God on other people means you are devising a God based on the word of man. It is looking at God through the distorted and faulty vision of others instead of looking for the real God.
Further
A Christian Faith
for Today, W Montgomery Watt, Routledge,
Answers to Tough
Questions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks, 1980
Apparitions,
Healings and Weeping Madonnas, Lisa J Schwebel, Paulist Press,
A Summary of
Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust,
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas,
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
Enchiridion Symbolorum Et Definitionum, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger,
Edited by A Schonmetzer,
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books,
Miracles, Rev Ronald A Knox, Catholic Truth Society,
Miracles in Dispute, Ernst and Marie-Luise Keller, SCM Press Ltd,
Medjugorje, David Baldwin, Catholic Truth Society,
Miraculous Divine Healing, Connie W Adams, Guardian of Truth
Publications, KY, undated
New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Raised From the Dead, Father Albert J Hebert SM, TAN,
Science and the
Paranormal, Edited by George O Abell and Barry Singer, Junction Books,
The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan, Headline,
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline,
The Case for
Faith, Lee Strobel, Zondervan,
The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief Volume 1, Gordon Stein, Editor,
Prometheus Books,
The Hidden Power, Brian
Inglis,
The Sceptical
Occultist, Terry White, Century,
The Stigmata and Modern Science, Rev Charles Carty, TAN,
Twenty Questions About Medjugorje, Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. Pangaeus
Press, Dallas, 1999
Why People Believe
Weird Things, Michael Shermer,
THE WEB
The Problem of Competing Claims by Richard Carrier
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4c.html
Saturday, 26 January 2008