A supernatural hand mark?

[Robin]

Well, his argument is that Nader's life changed completely, he thinks that a fake is a very unlikely explanation. He thinks that even if a nonbeliever sees a miracle himself or hears testimonies of many eyewitnesses he'll still dismiss it by inventing "ridiculously unlikely" explanations such as lies, brain disorders, or mass hallucinations. He claims that although science is a powerful tool to observe the reality, it's insufficient, since there is also the supernatural and atheists are close minded and they fanatically believe only in science without being open to other possibilities.

I just don't know how to respond to this, these are somewhat emotional arguments, but even I sometimes have such thoughts.

PS: This guy is educated (computer science) and is not like most religious people. He doesn't deny evolution theory, big bang, etc. Once he said that for him Christianity is not a blind belief but a "rational conclusion".

So your friend thinks that it is 'ridiculously unlikely that the guy is fibbing but finds it perfectly plausible that a dead Saint came back to earth and somehow burned the image of a silly looking hand into his arm?

And I don't get your friend's reasoning. So Nader's life changed. Is it uncommon for someone to perpetrate a hoax and for their life to change? Seems to me that achieving some sort of life change would be the entire point of perpetrating a hoax.

 

[Robin]

S: This guy is educated (computer science) and is not like most religious people. He doesn't deny evolution theory, big bang, etc. Once he said that for him Christianity is not a blind belief but a "rational conclusion".

OK, then why don't you get him to share his reasoning for the truth of Christianity? If he has a computer science degree then he will be able to present this as a rigorous, formally valid argument.

Then we could all reach this rational conclusion.

 

[suren]

OK, then why don't you get him to share his reasoning for the truth of Christianity? If he has a computer science degree then he will be able to present this as a rigorous, formally valid argument.

Then we could all reach this rational conclusion.

I remember some of them, some of them are quite interesting but not fully convincing for me.

From my memory, his main arguments are these:

• There is something instead of nothing.
• Something cannot come from nothing.
• The reality itself is self sufficient which is for him is a mystery.
• Ordered things like the laws of physics cannot be accidental and come from chaos, they must have a purpose, even the randomness in quantum physics has some order (he said something about frequency of events/atom decay).
• Materialism (or physicalism) cannot explain the existence of subjective feelings and morality cannot be supported by a materialistic worldview, since a bunch of molecules, even as complex as humans, is not fundamentally different from inanimate objects. A fully materialistic worldview implies that we have as much moral rights as other inanimate or animate objects, but we see no such things. He claims that even most of the atheists are actually unconsciously spiritual despite of their materialism. This implies that there is a mental dimension or soul. He also talked about the hard problem of consciousness he sent me links of David Chalmers' videos.
• The existence of soul means that we are not accidental and we have a purpose.
• Randomness of quantum mechanics allows us to have free will (non-randomness means determinism which makes free will impossible).
• Christians were martyred for their beliefs. If Jesus' resurrection was a lie they wouldn't sacrifice their lives and Christianity wouldn't spread so rapidly. He argues that atheists' explanations such as hallucinations are ridiculous. Also the martyrdoms of other religions, even taken together, are far from the scale that Christianity had. He says it's because Christianity was spreading the truth and truth hurts. People don't like the truth, they only want to see the flaws of other people instead of theirs.
• Christianity gave the rise of science and medicine, by founding schools, universities and hospitals, and many many Christians were scientists. Other religions couldn't do a comparable job. Also he showed a statistics that most of the Nobel Prize laureates are Christians. He thinks that Christianity changed the world and without Christianity we wouldn't have now a modern science, institutions, hospitals, etc.
• He thinks that Christianity is unique by claiming that only God's self sacrifice can pay out our sins. He said other things like unconditional love and something like that, but I don't remember well.

 

[Pixel42]

He thinks that even if a nonbeliever sees a miracle himself or hears testimonies of many eyewitnesses he'll still dismiss it by inventing "ridiculously unlikely" explanations such as lies, brain disorders, or mass hallucinations.

I notice he's left out what is usually the most likely explanation, which is that the eyewitness is just honestly mistaken. Woo believers always do. It's almost as if they are completely unaware of how fallible their perceptions and memories are, despite that information having been freely available to them all their lives.

He claims that although science is a powerful tool to observe the reality, it's insufficient, since there is also the supernatural and atheists are close minded and they fanatically believe only in science without being open to other possibilities.

Whereas I'd say it's him and people like him who are close minded, who fanatically believe only in the supernatural without being open to other possibilities.

The scientific method was invented specifically to compensate for the cognitive biases, and the fallibility of perception and memory, which led people to mistakenly believe in the supernatural in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

Well, his argument is that Nader's life changed completely, he thinks that a fake is a very unlikely explanation. He thinks that even if a nonbeliever sees a miracle himself or hears testimonies of many eyewitnesses he'll still dismiss it by inventing "ridiculously unlikely" explanations such as lies, brain disorders, or mass hallucinations. He claims that although science is a powerful tool to observe the reality, it's insufficient, since there is also the supernatural and atheists are close minded and they fanatically believe only in science without being open to other possibilities.

I just don't know how to respond to this, these are somewhat emotional arguments, but even I sometimes have such thoughts.

PS: This guy is educated (computer science) and is not like most religious people. He doesn't deny evolution theory, big bang, etc. Once he said that for him Christianity is not a blind belief but a "rational conclusion".

This sounds like a personal problem.

If you have no response to ""ridiculously unlikely" explanations such as lies", then there's not much we can do to help you.

I mean, he had you at begging the question and reversing the burden of proof. As long as you let him get away with that, you've already lost.

But debating this guy by proxy is annoying anyway. Do you really want to be carrying water for him like this?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I remember some of them, some of them are quite interesting but not fully convincing for me.

From my memory, his main arguments are these:

• There is something instead of nothing.
• Something cannot come from nothing.
• The reality itself is self sufficient which is for him is a mystery.
• Ordered things like the laws of physics cannot be accidental and come from chaos, they must have a purpose, even the randomness in quantum physics has some order (he said something about frequency of events/atom decay).
• Materialism (or physicalism) cannot explain the existence of subjective feelings and morality cannot be supported by a materialistic worldview, since a bunch of molecules, even as complex as humans, is not fundamentally different from inanimate objects. A fully materialistic worldview implies that we have as much moral rights as other inanimate or animate objects, but we see no such things. He claims that even most of the atheists are actually unconsciously spiritual despite of their materialism. This implies that there is a mental dimension or soul. He also talked about the hard problem of consciousness he sent me links of David Chalmers' videos.
• The existence of soul means that we are not accidental and we have a purpose.
• Randomness of quantum mechanics allows us to have free will (non-randomness means determinism which makes free will impossible).
• Christians were martyred for their beliefs. If Jesus' resurrection was a lie they wouldn't sacrifice their lives and Christianity wouldn't spread so rapidly. He argues that atheists' explanations such as hallucinations are ridiculous. Also the martyrdoms of other religions, even taken together, are far from the scale that Christianity had. He says it's because Christianity was spreading the truth and truth hurts. People don't like the truth, they only want to see the flaws of other people instead of theirs.
• Christianity gave the rise of science and medicine, by founding schools, universities and hospitals, and many many Christians were scientists. Other religions couldn't do a comparable job. Also he showed a statistics that most of the Nobel Prize laureates are Christians. He thinks that Christianity changed the world and without Christianity we wouldn't have now a modern science, institutions, hospitals, etc.
• He thinks that Christianity is unique by claiming that only God's self sacrifice can pay out our sins. He said other things like unconditional love and something like that, but I don't remember well.

What a string of non-arguments, assertions, inaccuracies, special pleading and hand waving.

Ignores the role that Islam and the like played in the development of science.

That manure of the bovine about atheists really being spritual is the standard rubbish of calling atheism a religion, which just shows he's arguing in bad faith or doesn't understand atheism.

Morality is a purely human invention and does NOT require any sky fairy to justify it.

Existence of the soul? Oh please. Some evidence would be a good start and yet in all the thopusands of years of human history none has been provided.

Martyrdom...And...People die for all sorts of reasons and causes (or none), Christianity is not special in that way.

He's not putting forward any arguments for anything.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Well, his argument is that Nader's life changed completely, he thinks that a fake is a very unlikely explanation. He thinks that even if a nonbeliever sees a miracle himself or hears testimonies of many eyewitnesses he'll still dismiss it by inventing "ridiculously unlikely" explanations such as lies, brain disorders, or mass hallucinations. He claims that although science is a powerful tool to observe the reality, it's insufficient, since there is also the supernatural and atheists are close minded and they fanatically believe only in science without being open to other possibilities.

I just don't know how to respond to this, these are somewhat emotional arguments, but even I sometimes have such thoughts.

PS: This guy is educated (computer science) and is not like most religious people. He doesn't deny evolution theory, big bang, etc. Once he said that for him Christianity is not a blind belief but a "rational conclusion".

His "education" clearly did not equip him with rationality nor familiarity with the scientific process. Or else he's using a definition of rational which is not the same as everyone else's.

Oh looky: claims about the supernatural (which is what exactly?) and how scientists are closed minded...What? Because we don't automatically believe unsupported guff like any religious claims, but need some evidence?

But, then, I won't count as I have scientific training and worked for years in mental health, so I know fine well what kinds of things folk can believe in or hallucinate or misperceive.

 

[The Atheist]

I just thought of a plausible explanation.

Maybe some long dead religious guy came briefly back to life in order to burn the image of a bizarrely shaped hand onto someone's arm using some sort of flamey spirity stuff, for some reason.

As I've already noted, in this or the other "miracle" thread - if a god does cheapo parlour tricks to convince the gullible while ignoring thousands of sick and dying children, then the god behind it is actually a disgustingly reprehensible scumbag.

It works to get good christian boys and girls wins at sport, makes pointless marks on people, but lets the little ******* die of starvation.

That kind of pathetic wanna-prove-the-sky-fairy nonsense makes me sick.

And angry.

But atheists are immoral.

 

[Robin]

I remember some of them, some of them are quite interesting but not fully convincing for me.

From my memory, his main arguments are these:

• There is something instead of nothing.
• Something cannot come from nothing.
• The reality itself is self sufficient which is for him is a mystery.
• Ordered things like the laws of physics cannot be accidental and come from chaos, they must have a purpose, even the randomness in quantum physics has some order (he said something about frequency of events/atom decay).
• Materialism (or physicalism) cannot explain the existence of subjective feelings and morality cannot be supported by a materialistic worldview, since a bunch of molecules, even as complex as humans, is not fundamentally different from inanimate objects. A fully materialistic worldview implies that we have as much moral rights as other inanimate or animate objects, but we see no such things. He claims that even most of the atheists are actually unconsciously spiritual despite of their materialism. This implies that there is a mental dimension or soul. He also talked about the hard problem of consciousness he sent me links of David Chalmers' videos.
• The existence of soul means that we are not accidental and we have a purpose.
• Randomness of quantum mechanics allows us to have free will (non-randomness means determinism which makes free will impossible).
• Christians were martyred for their beliefs. If Jesus' resurrection was a lie they wouldn't sacrifice their lives and Christianity wouldn't spread so rapidly. He argues that atheists' explanations such as hallucinations are ridiculous. Also the martyrdoms of other religions, even taken together, are far from the scale that Christianity had. He says it's because Christianity was spreading the truth and truth hurts. People don't like the truth, they only want to see the flaws of other people instead of theirs.
• Christianity gave the rise of science and medicine, by founding schools, universities and hospitals, and many many Christians were scientists. Other religions couldn't do a comparable job. Also he showed a statistics that most of the Nobel Prize laureates are Christians. He thinks that Christianity changed the world and without Christianity we wouldn't have now a modern science, institutions, hospitals, etc.
• He thinks that Christianity is unique by claiming that only God's self sacrifice can pay out our sins. He said other things like unconditional love and something like that, but I don't remember well.

I see, the usual stuff.

 

[theprestige]

The usual guff.

 

[The Atheist]

And I don't get your friend's reasoning.

Follow the money train.

YouTube views, DVDs/books for sale - I have yet to see one of these loony claims without a money trail leading to the person whose "miracle" is being discussed.

God needs cash!

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You can search Testimony Of Raymond Nader for more sources.

It is most probably a fake religious devotion sign to raise money for his ministry.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...nd-of-providence-in-mystical-experience-91640

Nader also started a prayer ministry called the Saint Charbel Family....... Charbel has devotees around the world, and the shrine at the monastery in Annaya, Lebanon, where he is buried, receives a large number of international visitors every year.

One of these nights, Nov. 10, 1994, as he was praying.......After returning to his car, the man noticed his sweater was sticking to his arm, so he pulled up his sleeve and, he says, he discovered five fingers...

Nader, ... is now the president of the Liban Message Movement, ..and the executive director of the Middle Eastern Catholic television station Noursat TV.

////////////////////////

Dr. Nabil Hokayem, a Beirut plastic surgeon, examined the mark on Nader’s arm three times: first in 1994, soon after its appearance, and subsequently in the spring of 1995 and the summer of 1996.

He told CNA that in his professional opinion, the mark is a third-degree burn, in the shape of what appeared “like five fingers, as if someone is holding [Nader] from behind.”

..complete crap. humans grab with their palm and fingers, and there is no palm print as Nadler can't reach the inside of his own arm when making the markings. Additionally thumbs go the other way and we shouldn't see any thumb marking at all.

 

[CORed]

A man had a pinkish-red mark on his arm which was said to resemble 5 fingers. It didn't hurt and went away in a few days.

There's not much to debunk.

I'm pretty sure I could achieve a similar effect by cutting holes in a shirtsleeve in the shape of whatever mark I wanted and wearing it in the sun for an hour or two.

 

[steenkh]

Looks like burns to me. Has he stamped himself with acid or something similar?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Looks like burns to me. Has he stamped himself with acid or something similar?

A Lebanese "plastic surgeon" claims the marking lasted from 1994 to 1996, however the same plastic surgeon claimed it looked like a hand holding him from behind, although the palm is missing and the thumb is in the wrong spot.

I suggest the palm is missing, as it is a self inflicted marking and Nader could not reach behind his inner arm.

I also note the mark is on his left arm as he is right handed.

 

[shemp]

Hi again. I found this miracle story where a man claimed that God or a Lebanese saint left a hand print mark on his arm. According to some sources he was examined by many doctors and they couldn't explain this burn.
http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping361.htm


This isn't a new story but unfortunately I couldn't find many discussions about this in skeptical circles. I don't know how much is this credible. Although this is similar to stigmata and many stigmatas can be faked, I'm not sure about this one.

Any ideas on how such marks could be formed? You can search Testimony Of Raymond Nader for more sources.

Are these the same doctors who were amazed by Donald Trump "acing" his cognition test?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Any ideas on how such marks could be formed?

I'm guessing modified White phosphorous burns,on his upper arm, when Nader was in the Lebanese Christian militia in the Lebanese civil war. That's why he saw a burns expert, plastic surgeon, in 1994 who said the marks look as though he was grabbed from behind.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As I've already noted, in this or the other "miracle" thread - if a god does cheapo parlour tricks to convince the gullible while ignoring thousands of sick and dying children, then the god behind it is actually a disgustingly reprehensible scumbag.

It works to get good christian boys and girls wins at sport, makes pointless marks on people, but lets the little ******* die of starvation.

That kind of pathetic wanna-prove-the-sky-fairy nonsense makes me sick.

And angry.

But atheists are immoral.

Double

 

[steenkh]

A Lebanese "plastic surgeon" claims the marking lasted from 1994 to 1996

He could have maintained it, like stigmata have often been maintained for years.

 

[alfaniner]

I remember reading about a hazing ritual at some military academy where a symbol would get painted with a chemical, shoe glaze or brass polish or something, which turned the skin black. I'd be curious to see the palm side of this guy's right hand.