Factual evidence for Christians to rejoice in, remember and recount, and for true seekers to ponder

Do you not see what you’re doing? You say you’re offering objective evidence, but the only standard you’ve provided for judging whether it is actually evidence for providence, as opposed to simply a series of random events, is subjective: how Stearns felt about it, or how you feel, or how I’m supposed to feel. No objective measure for determining what should be considered surprising. That means that as evidence, it’s subjective, however objective the events are. It also means you’re stuck with the fact that lots of other people are not finding it to be objective evidence for God’s providential actions.


I like how Dale is pulling at this thread of objectivity from another side.

These remarkable events often do occur for people. As do miraculous healings.

Something is disingenuous in the soul that interprets it as there being no God. And there may well not be, but it ain’t atheism.

Not so. There is objective meaning infused between and among the otherwise separate and disconnected events in the series, easily discernible to the outsider. And each series also performs a function. Neither of those is characteristic of randomness!

Is it subjective that there is a one to one correspondence between the needs Maggie enumerated in her prayer and that they were each met? Is the fact that their sequences matched identically subjective too?

Used car salesman are good at making stories sound more believable.

That gets us to the religious solipsism you were talking about before. I could just claim that hitting a home run is impossible, so every home run ever was due to supernatural intervention. Where do you draw the line?

1 Like

Keener talks about the challenge of drawing lines like this. It’s like trying to draw a line between long and short hair. There’s a real fuzzy boundary in the middle. Similar maybe to what kind of person you’re willing to trust. Sad thing is that people are so untrustworthy. Imagine what it would be like for a person who is troubled by solipsism. Experiences remarkable coincidences and then people are so contradictory. Saying the oddest things and betraying your trust. Yeah. Then Jesus makes his presence known to you. Is it still your imagination or God making his love known to you?


I wouldn’t take it that far. It’s just that sometimes people (including myself) are wrong, honestly or otherwise.

Perhaps a different way to put it is that we all have bovine excrement detectors, but they all have different settings. When I hear, “It’s a miracle because it’s impossible,” my detector starts beeping. Why is it impossible? What research have you done to demonstrate that it’s impossible? How can you say that something is impossible if it has been observed to happen?

I’m not even going to try to determine what is going on in people’s heads or what they have experienced for themselves. That seems like a fool’s errand. I am also not the type of person that discounts all religions as something people imagine.

What I think I can do is figure out what is happening in the world external to our thoughts. That would include the probability of someone surviving a cardiac event. If someone says that it is impossible to survive after your heart stops beating for 45 minutes when there are many instances where people have survived such an ordeal, I just don’t buy it.


That’s what the OP is about, and indirectly, ingenuousness.

It’s unfortunate that you still don’t understand what objective means.


(I guess I could have left both posts up that I deleted – the first was an attempt at levity where what’s fuzzy in hair length is when it is really short and next to the scalp. ; - )

The second was about Carl Jung. He made the wrong choice with his synchronicities by not recognizing God’s involvement in ‘chance’ and cut him out, maybe because of a subjective prejudice. With his Reformed background, he was certainly aware of doctrine about God’s sovereignty and providence, even if his father had issues, and of course he was familiar with this:

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33

1 Like

I think you are mischaracterizing Dr. George’s testimony. One survey showed that 75% of doctors today believe miracles happen. It doesn’t happen often, but it does occasionally. Or maybe the miracle is caused by a remarkable coincidence of quantum mechanics. A perfectly natural explanation if you prefer.

It’s unfortunate that you still don’t understand that something can be objective and true without it being scientific.

I don’t think I am.

What evidence demonstrates that they are right?

Or maybe people can naturally survive situations where their heart has been stopped for long periods of time. That would seem to be the case.

1 Like

That fuzzy hair is way too long. I don’t know what else to say, and besides I’m just a guy that can be easily persuaded by a good story.

Just a distinction to make of which most are already probably aware, but @heymike3 and I are arguing two different things.

It’s not that I am a cessationist and disbelieve in present-day miracles, but I am not claiming supernatural events, just preternatural timing and placing of multiple* ‘natural’ ones that pretty obviously imply the supernatural, “the Christian God’s providential interventions into the lives of his children.”

*Not just one-off ‘coincidences’ or a singular highly unusual event, although God is sovereign over them as well.

And then there is the disingenuous naysayer (maybe more than one) amongst us that pretends that the problem of evil is the invincible trump card and that there are no valid arguments for theodicy, neglecting all the while God’s inscrutability and daydreaming that we should be able to envelope God’s mind with our own.

@T_aquaticus you are more generous than I. I find I have no patience to carry on a conversation with people who insist I justify my lack of agreement with what they hold in the highest regard. I find it very easy to respect points of view other than my own but will not waste my time on those who will not even try to do the same.


How about patience with those who disallow the possibility of an idea because of an expressly subjective reason while at the same time pretending objectivity and openness?

I hold out the possibility that others may find some value in my posts.


I will not waste time putting water in my gas tank no matter what anyone else’s conjectures are, especially if there is history of disingenuousness.