Did it ever occur to you that there was always the possibility that he overheard his parents discussing it at some point? There are many, many possibilities and reasons for why this boy says he saw heaven, whether it be true, or fictional, or an embellishment on his parents part for the purpose of writing a book and making money off of it. So long as there are all these possibilities and so long as none of us were actually there and don't really know there will in fact be skepticism. It's only natural. Aaaand, the reason no 'third party' has come forward to claim that what they are saying is untrue is another fairly easy to explain situation. If in fact the parents made most of it, or all of it up and coached their child and didn't tell anyone else about it, what reason would they have to come forward? If it was just between the three of them then there really is no third party now is there?
Do you know how many pregnancies end in miscarriage? Odds are, he simply said something like "I saw my sister in heaven" and the parents made the connection. 10-25% of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. That's a whole lot. Kids talk about stuff like that all the time. My son, when he was around the same age, insisted in the present tense that he was the one who ran to the tomb of Jesus ahead of his friend and found the tomb empty. So...am I to believe my son is the reincarnation of the Beloved disciple John? No--it's stuff he heard, and then plays with in his mind. Another one of my kids was pretending he was talking and playing with his sister, and I was only just barely pregnant. Kids do that stuff.
Nobody sais that they're lying (i.e. willfully telling something that's untrue) - that does not mean one has to draw their conclusions. And as your own source admits "it will of course strike skeptics as laughable". I'm afraid if you want to convince Atheists or yourself of your faith by providing 'evidence' you're fighting pretty much on lost ground. And my point is that we probably should not even look for evidence. Christ says to Thomas in John 20:29: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Or as the wise theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer has said A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol. What's more: Personally I sincerely hope that the kids description of heaven isn't accurate. Because I kind of have to agree with a friend of mine who is into garage punk and who said: "If heaven is like they describe it I don't want to go there. All this tacky harp music would drive me mad!"
Yep, it is specifically addressed in the story - the parents state they never mentioned it. Again, how many people do you know that walk around talking about miscarried babies? It is equally possible that they are telling the truth. Again, if you are in a hospital with staff and you make spectacular claims with loads of apparent witnesses, you would think someone would come forward to contradict the story. Again, the abscence of evidence is not conclusive - but the abscence of such contradiction is indicative that the doubt is, at best, purely speculative in nature. In short, the denial of teh veracity of the story has no factual basis. Let me put it to you this way. If met President Obama for a private meeting in the White House, and then later published details of the meeting that would be pretty far fetched. Why would President Obama have a private meeting with some bloke? And yet if no one on the white house staff came forward to deny the account after it was published - does mean that I would have most likely have made up the story or that the meeting did not occur? There are always reasons to deny rather than affirm. It does indeed come down to faith, but one has to wonder why faith to some is always the denial of reports based on totally untestable and purely speculative alternatives that are really, in the end, meant as little more than a salve for their belief system. Once again, religious people will look at this story and affirm - it confirms there belief in a manner that the belief predicted. Makes sense does it not? Atheists, as we see, will deny, because the story contradicts their beliefs so there MUST be a different explanation - even if the explanation is quite literally made up. And so it comes back to that critical portion, how does a four year old know that he had a sister that was miscarried when he was never told (and it is very unlikely that he would have been - its not like she died after birth)?
What you said was that he was simply projecting what he saw from Sunday School classes. A dead miscarried sister is not something I have ever seen taught to youngsters in a Sunday School class. Additionally, the miscarriage happened before the child was concieved. There is no way, short of the parents telling him (assuming the baby was far enough along that they knew the gender), and that they claim - in a very believeable manner (most parents do not talk about miscarried babies) - is not something they told him. So, yes, they made the connection. The timing, of crossing the veil, and the revelation that he had a sister isn't likely the result of play when he is near and crossing over in death. It the specific circumstances that make that tidbit of information so tantalizing. Again, this story is not the only one of its kind. The denial of the documented stories like this all basically resemble the same logic of the Jesus Myth where one standard is used to to deny one piece of evidence, and other standard a different piece of evidence, and eventually you are left with a confusing cacaphony of denial and contradictory standards to deny what is essentially the proof right before ones face. Tell me, given the nature of God as you know it, would God not select a four year for the information shared? Or would he seek out an investment banker of no faith, but stooped in mangerial and scientific expertise?
I generally don't believe stories from people who make money off from their supposed religious experiences--even less when they make money off from their children's supposed near death experience. Maybe it's just me, though. I don't need such tales--they are fun to consider, but if one's faith is grounded in such airy stories, that one is prime pickin's for snake oil salesmen.
Well, the thing with publishing is: #1 - it reaches a wider audience. #2 - it opens the claim to actual scrutinization. Again, posters are pouring over this story and finding up reasins to reject it, yet, without exception, none of the excuses to reject it are given anywhere near the same level of scrutinization. "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (I Corinthians 13:11) That this story came out should not come as a shock in the slightest.
I'll go with family on the make. The child mentioned two things. The description of heaven, which sounds exactly what one might expect in a story book or a coloring book or a cartoon or some other source the child might remember, not to mention, as stated elsewhere in this thread, the possible coaching of his parents. The other thing was about the sister that died before he was born, which this appears to hinge on mainly. Where could he have possibly heard that? How about on the way to the hospital? Parents who have already lost a child might happen to mention that child they lost if the one born after that one appears to be in danger as well, and that is not taking into account the possibility of the living child overhearing the parents having what they think is a private discussion in a less stressful moment, like maybe one of the parents was praying about the miscarried child or an equally tense moment like one of the parents blames the other for the loss and it got brought up in an argument. I'm hard pressed as well to buy their story, since the goal is apparently to have the story purchased in the first place.
I haven't said it is false, but I do think it is quite suspicious. If it is suspicious, I don't bother with it. God knows. And, I think God doesn't need suspicious claims to get his message out. I mean, if a person is going to believe, there are plenty of very plain miracles to consider. If this boy received a great grace, good for him. God doesn't really need to be proved to effect his plan.
They have two older kids too--if the miscarriage was just before the youngest was born, the other kids know about it.
If I had, is your doubt any more real than my meeting? And the actor who plays Harry Potter is quite real, and has indeed met people. Not in the world of denial at any cost. I mean it could happen to you as well, but, of course, even if it did and you thus knew it was real, none of teh doubters would believe you anyway. Therein lies the point. To doubt and deny take a LOT of faith.
Since DBM agrees that if the boy said it, then it must be true. If the boy stated that Evolution was 100% fact, would you still say the same thing? <<waiting for the back pedeling to begin>>
Nope he doesn't. However, God will use things teach us and to expose things. When a miracles occurs, and they do, you can doubt that it occured and deny the people that it helped, or you can accept it as probable. If we look at it from a evidential standpoint, it is no different than the problem of God himself. Dozens, hundreds of reported and recorded miracles, and the collective lot are all simply dismissed without a second critical thought. So what would it take? THe question for those who doubt is, why? Why let the first thing be - that ain't true no matter what - as opposed to, lets look at this critically and weight the possible causes in light of reports and verifiable facts. Loads of hypothesi to doubt, not a single one tested against the facts as reported.
Do you have any examples of what you would call miracles? Are you suggesting it's better to accept them without a second critical thought? Radical skepticism is actually worse than unfaltering gullibility to you? It could sound fake or flaky. Those are good reasons to doubt. Claims that can't be backed up are good too. So are claims of the impossible occurring. When those instances happen, people doubting them should be the first thing expected. This shouldn't surprise you one bit. Dismissing these claims however, isn't usually done outright from the beginning; most people would love to see an actual miracle or actual magic so the first tendency beyond doubt should be curiosity and all you have to do to satisfy that curiosity is share why you're making your claim. If your argument or evidence is compelling enough, they should come around. Believers, on the other hand, shouldn't get bitter when others don't just follow along because they did. Terrific. When and if you list off some of those hundreds of recorded or reported miracles, be sure to include those verifiable facts and I'll be glad to take a crack at them, critically and fairly and with an open mind and I'm sure many others would be very glad to do the same as well. Looking forward to your response.
Yep, provided this many times. http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html Is that what I said, or did I say to treat ALL possible explanation with the same amount of skepticism. Its not skepticism to just dismiss something as a lie because that seem more probable ... based on ... nothing. Eye witness accounts of nothing can be trusted then. And yet, we convict people and send them to jail based on such accounts. Yes it is - take a look at the reasons that people have dismissed the claim - the publiched claims, offering on possibility after another without critical application to the subject. ANYTHING possible is apaprently a better alternative than what is reported. That is not exactly a critical exploration is it? Shouldn't get bitter when people do the same to your interpretations either? Try google. Again, this only proves the point. Without even taking the time to examine the recorded miracles, without even taking the time to seek them, you have already dismissed them - declared that you can find any old reason at all to dismiss them. Remember, you have already started this by saying that eye witness and even documented accounts are not acceptable, and I see this again degenerating into what I call atheist baseball. Ergo, it is a look at what is most probable based on what is reported. We can all find reasons to deny anything - and often do. You got it.
A blog entry about a book praising the work of a faith healer named Kathryn Kuhlman, whose actions and their effects or lack thereof took place between the 40's and the 70's. 10 examples, and the first one is enough to stop a person in their tracks and make them doubt. The woman's confined to a wheelchair because of a great deal of pain in her pelvis, she had no idea she had cancer, yet, when the faith healer says there's someone that needs healing from cancer she just got right up out of that chair, climbed the stage without pain and then received the healing, and FURTHER, she didn't receive her next set of X-rays until a few days after the healing, when there was no mention of a first set of X-rays. Keep in mind also that your blogger here, says all of those cases were people who were totally healed of incurable or terminal states and in their very first entry states oddly that this woman was never fully healed. Just for chuckles, let's have a look at the Wiki entry for Mrs Kuhlman. If this is what you have making the case for miracles, you don't have a case. Actually what you said was that hundreds of recorded miracles were simply dismissed without a second critical thought, when we haven't even gotten to what those hundreds of recorded miracles are or were. You point now to faith healing, which there is no rational reason to accept with a grain of salt or without a shred of evidence, especially in light of what we now believe about such things as the placebo effect; even hypnotic suggestion has better public relations than faith healing. It is skepticism to acknowledge there is no evidence of a phenomenon occurring or one having occurred that we can attribute effects to when someone claims otherwise. A single eyewitness account isn't the slightest bit reliable. You need several to corroborate before you can even consider them admissible. Actually, you have that reversed. You seem to have accepted these claims, at least in the case of that one blog post, based on a book I have no reason to believe you even read, based on a faith healer that has elsewhere already been shown as a fraud, without hardly any bit of critical thought on your behalf. I promise I won't. I don't waste my time seeking out stories of faith healers in blogs so I can attempt to believe in them. Guilty as charged. Now explain why you do this activity. By the way, I said the first reaction to claims of the impossible or things that sound flaky or fake or ones that are presented without evidence is to doubt them. We don't just jump to dismissal from there either. We stop at curiosity first and want to be shown whatever it is such a claim is based on. If there is no evidence or the testimony isn't compelling or it can't be corroborated, the only right thing to do is dismiss those claims until evidence or corroboration comes forward. So, nowhere did I say we could find any reason at all to dismiss them, and let's be clear about something, and I know you've heard this before, but I'm going to say it here just in case. It is the responsibility of the person making a positive claim to back up that claim. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove it and anything claimed without evidence can in fact be dismissed just as readily without any evidence. You got a faith healer that can do what they claim? Send them to the James Randi Education Foundation to collect their million dollar prize immediately. I never stated anything about eyewitness accounts or whether they'd be acceptable until this post here now, and what I said, just to be unmistakably clear, is that they are not the slightest bit reliable without some sort of corroboration from others; I never said they were 'not acceptable'. If there's any degeneration here at all, it's by you making things up as you go along instead of tending to what was actually said. Let's keep it simple then. We live in the natural world. Claims for events we can't explain can be attributed to natural causes or supernatural ones. As it turns out, in EVERY SINGLE CASE, where we find out the actual cause of an event, it has been due to a natural cause. Ergo, a natural cause is always more probable than a supernatural one. Well, I did get a response, so thank you for that, but all I got for examples of miracles is that link to the blog post by the confused blogger, about a book playing up the adventures of a faith healer that has elsewhere been debunked, so that was a bit of a disappointment actually.
What is testable about the observations of Darwin? Darwin allegedly observed a new specie of birds. Did he observe a new specie, or did he simply observe a specie that already was existing and had not been seen by the modern man prior to his time? In other words, did Darwin actually observe the "new specie" evolve (morph) from a former specie to that of the alleged 'new specie'?
From an early age I also knew that me and my brothers were only half-siblings without my parents ever having spoken to us about it. It's not rocket science to pick up on such things regardlessly. And certainly not evidence of a divine providence. Nor is it rocket science to understand how a young boy gets to hallucinate about stuff that has filled his entire life. Now, if he had dreamt he was in Midgaard and talking to Ahura Mazda while riding Ganesh with Hermes and Enkil by his side then it would be slightly more of a challenge to figure out. But only slightly.
True...but really, have you looked at this story? The reviews of the book by genuine people who wanted it to be true? Sorry...I simply don't believe it. I'm a Catholic--I LOVE this miracle stuff--I'm totally sold on the Fatima miracles; I have had miraculous occurrences in my very own life...this story, however, I think is exploitative parents aiming to be special in their church and the Christian community as they know it, and make some bucks off their near-tragedy. No--it's not that false dichotomy. One can say..."oh, that's nice" and move on. Again, what I take issue with is the exploitation of the child for personal gain. As I said--I'm open to belief in miracles--I have personal experience with them. In fact--I had a very sick boy with a near death experience that occurred over good Friday to Easter a few years ago. The symbolism of what was occurring connected directly to the story of Jesus' passion death and Resurrection. It was soooooo obvious to me God's hand in the whole thing--so obvious to my family, and even to my little boy. But this miracle is for OUR growth in faith, not the growth of our bank account. Trust me, I could write a fantastic account if I thought it was appropriate. It's not. I respect our miracle too much to cheapen it. I'll tell people about it, sure, but exploit it--no.
