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

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

It’s like Stalin said, quantity is quality. If enough people make enough claims, redefine words and reality, then usage is correct for a start. Mob rule. It works in politics and religion above all.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Don’t forget red herrings and straw men.

[EDC1]

But many simply dont want to believe. Their mind-set is that miracles cant happen, therefore if one is claimed they explain it through natural means, eg spontaneous remission of a disease. The fact that the ‘healing’ happened after prayer is just coincidence, they say.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

It is also an objective fact that objective meaning can be simply denied.

Or they are subjective claims and subjective meanings, which are you are simply denying.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

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?

I don’t think I am the one in denial.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

I don’t think I am the one in denial.

Flat earthers don’t think the Earth is round.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@EDC1

But many simply dont want to believe.

And I’m not talking about miracles where natural laws are broken.
 

@Dale

Yes, someone who presupposes that a certain kind of meaning cannot exist will not allow that meaning, even if it is true and evident to others. (That rather defines denialism, doesn’t it.) And some presuppositions are disingenuous and subjective.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@T_aquaticus

Flat earthers don’t think the Earth is round.

They don’t think it’s spherical either. ; - ) But I am not the one who is the flat earther in this scenario.

 
Maybe you should reread (read for the first time?) Glenn Morton’s account:

My Turkish translator experience

I have alluded to an event that helped me make it through my crisis of faith. I spent 10-12 years struggling with whether or not Christianity was true or false. At one time while living in Aberdeen Scotland, I called my wife from work and said I needed to talk to her about something important. She said, “You are going to tell me you are an atheist.” My reply was 'Not yet". I did call my preacher son that I was really struggling and I might give Christianity up. The issues that bothered me durin…

[heymike3]

@Dale

They don’t think it’s spherical either. ; - ) But I am not the one who is the flat earther in this scenario.

In a sense, by the way they describe the pacman effect, it could be said they see it as omnipresent.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Maybe you should reread (read for the first time?) Glenn Morton’s account:

Which pieces of evidence are verifiable?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Dale

Yes, someone who presupposes that a certain kind of meaning cannot exist will not allow that meaning, even if it is true and evident to others. (That rather defines denialism, doesn’t it.) And some presuppositions are disingenuous and subjective.

I do not presuppose that providential meaning in events cannot exist. I nevertheless do not find the examples offered as objective evidence for providential meaning unpersuasive. Providing a rational argument for your claims would be more productive than suggesting that there’s something defective about anyone who doesn’t share your intuitions.

@heymike3

That may be the only way a person can look at the objective facts in these individual cases and not intuit the providence of God.

Same comment for you.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

In Rich Stearns’ account, all the meetings and phone calls, newspaper clipping, persons involved, etc.

But we are also talking about ingenuousness. Sure, you can simply deny the facts as related. But that is on you, not the reality of the evidence.
 

@glipsnort – Same comment for you. ; - )

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

In Rich Stearns’ account, all the meetings and phone calls, newspaper clipping, persons involved, etc.

What about Glenn Morton’s account?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

It is self-explanatory.

@Dale

But we are also talking about ingenuousness. Sure, you can simply deny the facts as related. But that is on you, not the reality of the evidence.

[heymike3]

@glipsnort

rational argument

You said that can’t be done when it was about the cosmological argument. Can’t, shouldn’t, or not what I want. I’d have to go back and look at the specific comment.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

It is self-explanatory.

That’s not an answer to my question. You claimed to have verifiable evidence and then cited Glenn Morton’s account. So what evidence in that account do you think is verifiable?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

What is verifiable in a crime scene that gets washed out after the CSI has recorded the facts in his notebook? But we have an M.O.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

What is verifiable in a crime scene that gets washed out after the CSI has recorded the facts in his notebook?

Nothing is verifiable in such an example. In fact, if forensic evidence can not be assessed by the defense then the forensic evidence can not be used in a court of law. DNA evidence has been thrown out of court because not enough DNA was available for testing by the defense.

You still haven’t answered the question. What in Glenn Morton’s account is verifiable? Or are you admitting that it isn’t objective, verifiable evidence?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@T_aquaticus

Or are you admitting that it isn’t objective, verifiable evidence?

You are failing to make the distinction between objective and verifiable. Something can still be absolutely objective and true without being verifiable.
 

@Dale

Yes, someone who presupposes that a certain kind of meaning cannot exist will not allow that meaning, even if it is true and evident to others. (That rather defines denialism, doesn’t it.) And some presuppositions are disingenuous and subjective.

It seems pretty objectively true that you are one of those someones.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Something can still be absolutely objective and true without being verifiable.

Then how do you differentiate between subjective and objective evidence? How do you determine if a story is true?