Miracles for the Masses

Question from Daniel:
Hi. I wanted to know if there is any mass revelation/miracle in The Vedas (i.e Miracles that were performed in front of many people)?

Answer by SmartLX:
I was a Christian once but I was never a Hindu, and never discussed religion with my few Hindu friends in school. Right off the bat I invite any Hindus reading this to comment right away and set us straight.

From what I can gather after some brief research is that the Vedas are not written as a history or a narrative like most books of the Bible are. The four Vedas mostly consist of hymns to the various gods (most intended to be heard in song rather than read), descriptions of rituals, and discussion of philosophy. There are bits of history woven into it all concerning the people from whom the texts emerged, but if they were ever intended to be taken as literal accounts of major events, Hindus tend not to take that view nowadays.

Your question is often used to advance an argument for the truth of Judaism, sometimes known as the Sinai argument, which claims that the supposedly uniquely mass-spectated nature of the miracles in the Torah supports their veracity. Christians sometimes argue along the same lines based on the story of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to five hundred people.

I’ll leave it to followers of other religions to make their own claims of mass revelations, but the basic problem with all of these stories is the same: accounts of witnesses are not witnesses. Each of these stories is still just one account, with only one source to believe or disbelieve regarding the number of people present. Contrast it with a big event happening in the middle of a city today; tweets and Facebook posts from hundreds of sources or more can flood the web, arguing over details but collectively leaving no doubt that something major went down. An account is an account even if it contains emojis.

6 thoughts on “Miracles for the Masses”

  1. “I’ll leave it to followers of other religions to make their own claims of mass revelations, but the basic problem with all of these stories is the same: accounts of witnesses are not witnesses.”
    Leave it to the Atheists and Evolutionists to morph the meaning of witness into something that could not be used to prove what they don’t want to accept. They can use the Universe being here and say it is by their god the “accident” But the Creationists can not claim that the Universe with all of its intricacies and marvels is evidence to prove that God is. They can claim that their god the “accident” made life, especially man. But refuse to at least admit that, that same life could be used as evidence for the possibility that an “Intelligent” being had to have created life, even though it is to complex to have been left in the hands of an accident. And now they want to change the meaning of the word witness. To mean someone who has a different testimony of different occurrences.

    1. Gerald writes: [Leave it to the Atheists and Evolutionists to morph the meaning of witness into something that could not be used to prove what they don’t want to accept.]

      Since the majority of “evolutionists” are religious and/or hold a belief in a personal deity, does this mean you think atheists and theists are morphing the meaning of witness? Also, what about the theory of evolution is pertinent to a discussion of witness claims of a mass miracle? If you wouldn’t mind clarifying these two logical disconnects for me I would be appreciative.

      [They can use the Universe being here and say it is by their god the “accident” But the Creationists can not claim that the Universe with all of its intricacies and marvels is evidence to prove that God is.]

      Gerald, you seem to still harbor some misunderstanding about what constitutes evidence scientifically, and what different segments of science investigate. Allow me to clear these up for you:
      a) The existence of the universe does not constitute evidence of how or why it came to be. The existence of the universe does not prove the existence of a god being, and it does not prove that the universe happened via quantum mechanics activity, and it does not prove any other origins concept. As has been pointed out to you many times already, existence does not prove source.
      b) No branch of science claims to know exactly how the universe got here. No one in science says it was an accident. What they say is “I don’t know”, because they don’t know. They say “I don’t know” because there isn’t enough data or empirical evidence to reach a sound conclusion about it.
      c) “Evolutionists” study the theory of evolution. That scientific theory has nothing to do with the universe or its origins. Why you would continue to think that people like biologists and geologists have anything to do with the study of the universe is beyond me. Perhaps “gravitationalists” or maybe “cosmosolgists” would assist you better. That way you can still avoid calling them scientists, which is a title that has nothing to do with their belief systems and just describes the methodology of how they study things…
      d) The universe is not intricate. It is absolutely huge, but size does not equate intricate. There are only four forces that govern the whole thing. Just four. There are just four types of chemical bonds. Just four. There are twelve elementary particles that all matter consists of. That is not “intricate” in any sense of the word.
      e) Complexity arguments are not arguments, as has been pointed out to you on a regular basis.

      [They can claim that their god the “accident” made life, especially man.]

      “Especially man”? Sorry, but man isn’t any more special than any other life form. All life evolved from the first simple protobiots. Life is chemically possible within the laws of the universe. Nothing “made” life. Life is just possible, and therefore could happen.

      [But refuse to at least admit that, that same life could be used as evidence for the possibility that an “Intelligent” being had to have created life, even though it is to complex to have been left in the hands of an accident.]

      Please see a) and e) above, which cover your second attempt in the same post to make existence and complexity arguments that you already know are erroneous.

      [And now they want to change the meaning of the word witness. To mean someone who has a different testimony of different occurrences.]

      LX is not changing the meaning of the word, but he does explain the specifics of its use. One writer in one book of the Bible claimed that there were many witnesses to an event. That is an unverified statement. In a court of law it would be considered heresay and not allowed into testimony, because there is no way to verify that the person making the claim actually knows or talked to all these people about that specific event. In other words, they could be lying, which as you already know Gerald is why personal revelation, experience, and other unverifiable claims are NOT evidence, because it cannot be validated. It is not an empirical claim.

      1. Tim you write, ” The concept of the theory of evolution did NOT come before evidence. Let me write that again, the concept of the theory of evolution did NOT come before evolution. Naturalists and scientists noted similarities between animals, and saw that geographical proximity tended to mirror how close those similarities were. Taxidermists noted how some creatures had very similar internal structures (like skeletal features). From all those facts arose the theory of evolution. ”

        I would like to thank you for helping me to understand just where you folk have gone wrong. Are you saying that just because four animals with four legs, and four paws, you all imagine that the same microbe, or one celled organism, couldn’t make up its mind, from where to go after it got to the last part of the legs, and so it made some of its babies look like lions, and others look like tigers, and others look like elephants, and others look like dogs, and others look like rhinos, and others look like horses, and others look like, wolves, and others look like panthers, and others look like cats? Did I add enough?

        Now, I thought it was hilarious enough for you all to even consider it at all possible that some mindless one celled something or other, somehow was able to aspire to become more, now, you are suggesting that, that mindless, something, couldn’t make up its mind and just went crazy.

        Guys, I’m sorry, but your deductive reasoning needs to be upgraded. Answer me this. If the inventor of the stagecoach, finding that the four wheels that he invented to use on that stagecoach, decided later to use that same design on the automobile, does that mean that they are the same, or that the inventor knew a good thing when he saw it? Now, one could argue that the stagecoach evolved into the automobile. And I would not have any problem accepting this. As long as you Evolutionists wouldn’t have any problem recognizing the fact that it took an “intelligence guiding the evolution.

        That is the rub. You are hung up trying to prove that something so complex could ever have come from something so mindless. Something that didn’t even have any kind of innate, innate. Don’t you see, if a whatever came to life, say it did. anything on the simple simple basic module of whatever life it could have been, would not even have had the most simplest of the most basic form of innate action, that it would have needed just to live. Forget about the necessity of the right kind of substance to give it life. Or the maintenance of an environment that it would have needed to keep it alive. As any very astute Scientist would be able to tell you, someone needs to maintain the environment to keep the subject alive. So if that one celled whatever came to life it would have needed a ready made incubator, to keep it alive. But now let’s talk about it being alive. How? As it is today, we have to go some to keep something alive in the best of circumstances. But, in what had to have been one of the most hostile of environments, something came to life. Ok, lets just say that that accident worked. But now lets deal with the mindless life, is just that mindless. But even worse, it is innateless. No programming whatever to speak of. Now, how is it suppose to know to eat? How is it suppose to know how to function. For that matter what would its function be? Come on. I’m not as bright as you folk, and yet I see the insurmountable impossibilities that you all seem to have overlooked in your race to prove that God is not.

        And yet you want to push pass the objections, as if they are meaningless, and still look at your end result of today, and say this is how this and we got here. Still ignoring the fact that as of today, there has never ever come out of nowhere another organism that came after that first mindless organism. We still don’t have any kind of new specie morphing from any of the first morphed one celled organism. We have the same one celled organisms today as there was a long time ago, and yet they only produce copies of themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

        Now, lets return to that first simple organism that came into life “by accident” since it was devoid of any kind of understanding. No mind. Mindless, and innateless.
        And since it would have needed time to develop the simple innateness, that it would have needed in order to automatically perform the most of the simplest rudimentary actions in order to live, how did it survive all those years until it was able to know to eat. Know to reproduce, “honk” another millions of millions of years that would have needed to pass, in order for it to be able to automatically reproduce. To stay in its correct environment, that is if it has had sufficient innate programming to be able to move. Guys, stop. You are killing me, with your lack of deductive reasoning. All you have to say for yourselves is that “it was all due to an accident” Well this one one celled whatever, has had more than its share of accidents, in its favor. Its time to lay it to rest and never resurrect it.

        Your best bet is to dig out your Bibles and dust them off. Because it is the only thing that can help you and me. I’ll be praying for you. For that matter pray for me. I’m not feeling to hot.

  2. Tim you said “Gerald, you seem to still harbor some misunderstanding about what constitutes evidence scientifically, and what different segments of science investigate.”
    I don’t. You and every other Atheist have a problem with knowing what scientific evidence is. You want to have an already thought of assumption, and bend and twist whatever evidence you find to fit that preconceived assumption. In other it doesn’t matter what the factors are, you already say that it equals to Evolution. And even though those factors scream on their own “Intelligent Design” you want to muffle that cry and cover it with cotton and scream ” Evolution is vindicated” But I ask you. Look at the theory of gravity. It is as plain as the nose on your face. “what goes up, must come down” no one is saying “no, not so” It is as accepted as the fact that mothers love their babies. The effects are seen every day. The same with aerodynamics. Sure there was some “not going to happen” but today, must everyone struts onto a plane, without a second thought. The same with spaceflight. But, now look at the theory of a flat earth, it always had those who, had their doubts, even though they, like the Creationists of today, were ridiculed, by others who just went along with the flow. Until someone pointed out that it just wasn’t’ true. So, why, if the theory of Evolution is so what you are suggesting that Evolution is, are there so many saying “liar, liar pants on fire”. Why hasn’t Evolution been placed along with the theory of Gravity, and such? It is because there is just no proof. And what you and all the other undisciplined thinkers don’t realize is that it does not make sense. It is stupid and ludicrous, to even try to imagine that all life had its beginning in one simple one celled organism or microbe of some kind. And that it was able to at will transform itself into all other kind of species. And then the Evolutionist, want to hide the question that they hope no one evers ask, ” why isn’t it happening today?”

  3. Gerald writes: [Tim you said “Gerald, you seem to still harbor some misunderstanding about what constitutes evidence scientifically, and what different segments of science investigate.”
    I don’t. You and every other Atheist have a problem with knowing what scientific evidence is. You want to have an already thought of assumption, and bend and twist whatever evidence you find to fit that preconceived assumption.]

    Gerald, please take the time to read and understand what I am writing to you. The concept of the theory of evolution did NOT come before evidence. Let me write that again, the concept of the theory of evolution did NOT come before evolution. Naturalists and scientists noted similarities between animals, and saw that geographical proximity tended to mirror how close those similarities were. Taxidermists noted how some creatures had very similar internal structures (like skeletal features). From all those facts arose the theory of evolution. The facts came first. The theory was derived to explain THOSE facts. As further information was gathered, such as more and more fossils, those facts CONTINUED to support the theory of evolution. As radioactivity became understood, and radioactive materials in geological layers were discovered, and the ability to determine the parent to daughter ratio in those samples was achieved, the radiometric dating of rocks also CONTINUED to support the theory of evolution. When DNA was discovered and unraveled, and the field of genetics was created, all of the findings there have CONTINUED to support the theory of evolution. It is the facts that created the theory of evolution, and it is the facts that have confirmed the theory of evolution over and over. None of the facts show the theory of evolution to be inaccurate. None of them.

    If the facts didn’t support the theory of evolution, it wouldn’t still be a scientific theory.

    Gerald writes: [In other it doesn’t matter what the factors are, you already say that it equals to Evolution.]

    The facts say evolution, Gerald. The data fits the theory that all living things came from a common ancestor and changed over time.

    Gerald writes: [And even though those factors scream on their own “Intelligent Design” you want to muffle that cry and cover it with cotton and scream ” Evolution is vindicated”]

    Please tell me specifically how the age of the Earth based on radiometric dating screams ID. Please tell me how hundreds of millions of years worth of fossils, with various animal groups starting up and going extinct, screams “ID”. Please tell me how retrovirus markers in the DNA of various apes screams “ID”. Please tell me any data or evidence you have for the existence of an ID being. Where’s your all encompassing explanation for the sum total of facts in existence (most of which directly contradict the biblical claims)…

    Gerald writes: [But I ask you. Look at the theory of gravity. It is as plain as the nose on your face. “what goes up, must come down” no one is saying “no, not so”]

    Did Newton think of the theory of gravity, and then the apple hit him on the head? No, the apple hit him first. The fact of the apple being attracted to the Earth (the FACTS) came first. The facts were noticed, and then the theory came afterwords to EXPLAIN the facts. Just like evolution.

    Gravity is a simpler phenomena, but I suspect it is not as plain as the nose on your face. Why do astronauts on the space station float? If the sun were to disappear suddenly, how would the Earth react? What elementary particle is linked to gravity? What are gravity waves? If gravity is as plain as the nose on your face then why don’t you answer those questions for me…

    Gerald writes: [The same with aerodynamics. Sure there was some “not going to happen” but today, must everyone struts onto a plane, without a second thought.]

    Aerodynamics is actually a part of a field known as fluid dynamics. Air is a fluid. Regardless, the reason people strut on a plane without a second thought is because people get on planes all the time, and people know they work. Can every person that gets on a plane explain why they can fly? Nope. That’s also why people get flu shots every year, because people get them all the time and people know the work. The theory of evolution predicts why flu shots need to be different every year. Can everyone that gets a flu shot explain why they work? Nope. But they do, and that is predicted by the theory of evolution…go figure!

    Gerald writes: [ But, now look at the theory of a flat earth, it always had those who, had their doubts, even though they, like the Creationists of today, were ridiculed, by others who just went along with the flow. Until someone pointed out that it just wasn’t true. So, why, if the theory of Evolution is so what you are suggesting that Evolution is, are there so many saying “liar, liar pants on fire”.]

    “So many”? What “so many”? Less than 1% of the scientific community ? That’s your “so many”? There is no massive number of people that doubt the theory of evolution. One of the creationist sites tried to make some kind of list of scientists that don’t agree with the theory of evolution. In response (as a joke) someone came up with the Steve Project, where just scientists named Steve could sign a list saying they do agree with the theory of evolution. To date there are more Steves on the pro-evolution list than there are on the creationist anti-evolution list. Your “so many” is a lie and nothing more, Gerald…

    Gerald writes: [Why hasn’t Evolution been placed along with the theory of Gravity, and such?]

    It has, Gerald. They are both called “theory”, which is the highest order of confidence in the scientific nomenclature.

    Gerald writes: [And what you and all the other undisciplined thinkers don’t realize is that it does not make sense. It is stupid and ludicrous, to even try to imagine that all life had its beginning in one simple one celled organism or microbe of some kind. And that it was able to at will transform itself into all other kind of species. And then the Evolutionist, want to hide the question that they hope no one evers ask, ” why isn’t it happening today?”]

    “at will transform itself into all other kind of species”…Thanks for the additional evidence that shows you don’t have the first damn clue about evolution or how it works. If you are still making moronic statements like that about the theory of evolution, then it’s no wonder why you still can’t grasp anything…

  4. “at will transform itself into all other kind of species”…Thanks for the additional evidence that shows you don’t have the first damn clue about evolution or how it works. If you are still making moronic statements like that about the theory of evolution, then it’s no wonder why you still can’t grasp anything…”
    Please tell me how this proves my lack of understanding?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *