Facebook conversation

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The thing is, it's easy to call something a "miracle" (or otherwise attribute divine intervention as the cause).  But unless we're going to take an extreme position with God as the puppetmaster controlling every coincidence, we have to acknowledge that sometimes stuff will just happen because it happens.  People will win the lottery.  Sometimes I'll be thinking of a song and turn the radio on they'll be playing that exact same song!  Sometimes I'll be standing in line at Disneyland and just happen to be standing next to a friend from fifth grade who I haven't seen in 20 years.

So if we're willing to accept that sometimes stuff like this happens without God's intervention, then we should probably figure out a way to tell the difference.  We could just go by our feelings, and accept everything as a coincidence unless we get a feeling that God is behind it (or attribute some meaning related to religion to it).  But that only works until everybody is doing it for their random deity or belief. Is the Mormon God who arranges for missionaries to miraculously connect with golden investigators the same God who arranges for Evangelicals to miraculously call a friend who just happens to be meeting with the Mormon missionaries and talk them out of it?

Further conversation with your friend should probably involve describing your methodology for determining between the two kinds of events (miraculous coincidences and non-miraculous coincidences). If your methodology rests mainly on your specific religious beliefs, then it may make perfect sense to you, but you'll have to be forgiving of those who don't share your same beliefs and thus see things differently.

Those conclusions are unwarranted.

There is no reason NOT to think that God intervenes sometimes, and sometimes does not.  You know like how sometimes a good parent will let the kid actually touch the stove after the 10th warning.

Telling the difference?  Why would he want to do that?

We would never figure out anything for ourselves, again just like a good parent NOT giving their child all the answers.

He acts just like a good parent would act, in teaching us how to be independent thinkers, but some still do not do so while misusing the logical tools he has provided us.

This IS a test, they say.

I would think that a just God would let us take the test and measure the results and judge who passed and who didn't according to metrics we could never comprehend, and then provide a way to make up for deficiencies with a "second chance" make up class.

You know, kind of like repentance and baptism for the dead and the gospel being preached to the souls in prison.

There is no need for a methodology or to figure out who is "right", we stopped burning witches now a few years ago.  Absent certainty we all get to figure it out for ourselves.

People need to learn that we have freedom of choice in our life styles and beliefs regardless of what their politics teach them on either the left OR the right.

Gosh I know all this is found somewhere in one place, I just forget what organization preaches it......

Edited September 10, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes it is all interpretation. I myself believe God made our planet appear to be godless with millions of years of Evolution to test our faith. Many people here don't like my interpretation that there was really no death before the Fall.   

Yes exactly. I like your philosophy that we can't really prove anything. 

OK now, in light of the second sentence, review the first sentence.

Can you prove that God MADE our planet appear Godless for millions of years of evolution to test our faith?

What if we cannot prove either way that evolution was guided or not guided or random, but get to make our own interpretations on the subject so we don't even need to make statements about it?

We can have our own interpretation, look at others, decide for ourselves, KNOWING that we cannot prove our point and they cannot do so either, and not even bother to assert our own non-provable beliefs against their non-provable beliefs, and rely on the "fruit" of the good seed we plant in our lives, and show folks this very principle, to stop arguing about it because you can't prove it either way?

Why do we all have to have the same interpretation of the words "no death before the fall" when none of us can prove what it means?

Why can't we look at it and just see silly children squabbling in the schoolyard about which color is best or some such inconsequential matter?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Those conclusions are unwarranted.

Exactly. Cinepro's probability theories can't explain when the spirit tells a missionary to turn right instead of left, then learns afterwards that he avoided a terrible accident for turning right. His probability theories can't explain when a Bishop says the right words to help someone during a crisis. His theories can't explain when a missionary is called to serve in the same city where his long lost brother is living. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We can have our own interpretation, look at others, decide for ourselves, KNOWING that we cannot prove our point and they cannot do so either, and not even bother to assert our own non-provable beliefs against their non-provable beliefs, and rely on the "fruit" of the good seed we plant in our lives, and show folks this very principle, to stop arguing about it because you can't prove it either way?

You mean we should argue about it? 

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Exactly. Cinepro's probability theories can't explain when the spirit tells a missionary to turn right instead of left, then learns afterwards that he avoided a terrible accident for turning right. His probability theories can't explain when a Bishop says the right words to help someone during a crisis. His theories can't explain when a missionary is called to serve in the same city where his long lost brother is living. 

I actually know of an experience like this, where a family had a story about a lost uncle who came to America and lost contact with the family who were Argentinians.The missionary prayed to be called to America

He was called to America, to Los Angeles.  He was called first to a certain ward in a Los Angeles suburb.   As a greenie, on his first day, he and his companion went over to meet the bishop, at the bishop's house.  He was so new he didn't have a blanket and was cold his first night, so borrowed one from the bishop.

They decided to then tract the bishop's street.   Well you know what is coming.  Yes, within 1 block- they found the uncle!

No the uncle still didn't join the church, but family unity was re-established.   Who knows what might happen.

True story- I was the bishop!

Coincidence?   Can't prove it- but I think not!

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You mean we should argue about it? 

No, not argue about it.   It is pointless.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I actually know of an experience like this, where a family had a story about a lost uncle who came to America and lost contact with the family who were Argentinians.The missionary prayed to be called to America

He was called to America, to Los Angeles.  He was called first to a certain ward in a Los Angeles suburb.   As a greenie, on his first day, he and his companion went over to meet the bishop, at the bishop's house.  He was so new he didn't have a blanket and was cold his first night, so borrowed one from the bishop.

They decided to then tract the bishop's street.   Well you know what is coming.  Yes, within 1 block- they found the uncle!

No the uncle still didn't join the church, but family unity was re-established.   Who knows what might happen.

True story- I was the bishop!

Coincidence?   Can't prove it- but I think not!

True. I want to see Cinepro try to explain what you said with his probability theories.

I am confident he won't be able to do it, what you describe has no rational explanation. 

Thanks for sharing. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

True. I want to see Cinepro try to explain what you said with his probability theories.

I am confident he won't be able to do it, what you describe has no rational explanation. 

Thanks for sharing. 

Whoa, hold on their cowboy.

Just because I have apparently been the first to make you aware of an entire branch of mathematics doesn't mean that it becomes "Cinepro's probability theories."  While I would love to flatter myself and accept such a designation, we would both look foolish were that to continue.

It would be like if you posted saying "I don't believe we ever went to the moon because how would it be possible to build such a rocket?" and then I told you that there are actually huge branches of science and engineering devoted to rocketry and that you could study the subject and learn, and then you replied asking for someone to explain how we went to the moon using "Cinepro's rocket theories."  Though I would be flattered for the compliment, it just wouldn't be helpful.  It would also indicate some degree of intellectual laziness on your part, but we'll set that aside for now.

Regarding mfbukowski's story, you've asked a really important question.  What are the odds?

First, if you are going to claim that there is some degree of probability for which supernatural forces must be invoked, then you should probably clarify where that limit is.  Is it 1 in a million?  Is it 1 in a trillion?  How many times would I have to flip a coin and have it come up "heads" in order to prove to you that God was influencing the outcome? Winners of big lotteries are 1 in a few hundred million, so does every lottery winner further prove the existence of God?  Your gut is probably telling you "no", but do you know why that is probably so (not counting your moral beliefs)?

And once you've done that, then you need to figure out what the actual probability is of a certain event.  But the trick is to do so without falling victim to the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy (or any of the other common fallacies in probability).

There are many cases where the odds are easier to figure out than others.  So if you find a situation where it's impossible to figure out the odds, then how can you say that the odds are so great that divine intervention must be invoked?  If the ultimate answer is that you don't know, then that's the answer.  You just don't know.  There may be other ways to determine God's intervention, but "what are the odds?" can't be one of them, because the answer is "I don't know", and basing a belief in god on your inability to comprehend or calculate something has proven dangerous throughout history.

Edited September 11, 2017 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Whoa, hold on their cowboy.

Just because I have apparently been the first to make you aware of an entire branch of mathematics doesn't mean that it becomes "Cinepro's probability theories."  While I would love to flatter myself and accept such a designation, we would both look foolish were that to continue.

It would be like if you posted saying "I don't believe we ever went to the moon because how would it be possible to build such a rocket?" and then I told you that there are actually huge branches of science and engineering devoted to rocketry and that you could study the subject and learn, and then you replied asking for someone to explain how we went to the moon using "Cinepro's rocket theories."  Though I would be flattered for the compliment, it just wouldn't be helpful.  It would also indicate some degree of intellectual laziness on your part, but we'll set that aside for now.

Regarding mfbukowski's story, you've asked a really important question.  What are the odds?

First, if you are going to claim that there is some degree of probability for which supernatural forces must be invoked, then you should probably clarify where that limit is.  Is it 1 in a million?  Is it 1 in a trillion?  How many times would I have to flip a coin and have it come up "heads" in order to prove to you that God was influencing the outcome? Winners of big lotteries are 1 in a few hundred million, so does every lottery winner further prove the existence of God?  Your gut is probably telling you "no", but do you know why that is probably so (not counting your moral beliefs)?

And once you've done that, then you need to figure out what the actual probability is of a certain event.  But the trick is to do so without falling victim to the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy (or any of the other common fallacies in probability).

There are many cases where the odds are easier to figure out than others.  So if you find a situation where it's impossible to figure out the odds, then how can you say that the odds are so great that divine intervention must be invoked?  If the ultimate answer is that you don't know, then that's the answer.  You just don't know.  There may be other ways to determine God's intervention, but "what are the odds?" can't be one of them, because the answer is "I don't know", and basing a belief in god on your inability to comprehend or calculate something has proven dangerous throughout history.

So first you raise the question and then kick out the supports from your own argument.  You are messin' with us as usual.

I have no problem with what you say here.  Basing belief in God on probabilities is not only in principle impossible, but just plain manifests an ignorance of what religion is about.

My whole point was essentially that we cannot know this- as you have pointed out, at least here

On the other hand, your always coming out on the critic's side of these discussions, though looks a little fishy, as always, in determining "what side you are on".  

I have stopped trying, or frankly,  caring.  I do not advocate messing with people's beliefs for fun when you reverse yourself when it gets a little hot in the kitchen.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/8/2017 at 4:38 PM, cinepro said:

The book won't make you an atheist, but it will make you a little more skeptical of people who claim divine intervention for an event based on their estimate of improbability.

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

The thing is, it's easy to call something a "miracle" (or otherwise attribute divine intervention as the cause).  But unless we're going to take an extreme position with God as the puppetmaster controlling every coincidence, we have to acknowledge that sometimes stuff will just happen because it happens.  People will win the lottery.  Sometimes I'll be thinking of a song and turn the radio on they'll be playing that exact same song!  Sometimes I'll be standing in line at Disneyland and just happen to be standing next to a friend from fifth grade who I haven't seen in 20 years.

So if we're willing to accept that sometimes stuff like this happens without God's intervention, then we should probably figure out a way to tell the difference.  We could just go by our feelings, and accept everything as a coincidence unless we get a feeling that God is behind it (or attribute some meaning related to religion to it).  But that only works until everybody is doing it for their random deity or belief. Is the Mormon God who arranges for missionaries to miraculously connect with golden investigators the same God who arranges for Evangelicals to miraculously call a friend who just happens to be meeting with the Mormon missionaries and talk them out of it?

Further conversation with your friend should probably involve describing your methodology for determining between the two kinds of events (miraculous coincidences and non-miraculous coincidences). If your methodology rests mainly on your specific religious beliefs, then it may make perfect sense to you, but you'll have to be forgiving of those who don't share your same beliefs and thus see things differently.

I support this conclusions.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

There are many cases where the odds are easier to figure out than others.  So if you find a situation where it's impossible to figure out the odds, then how can you say that the odds are so great that divine intervention must be invoked?  If the ultimate answer is that you don't know, then that's the answer.  You just don't know.  There may be other ways to determine God's intervention, but "what are the odds?" can't be one of them, because the answer is "I don't know", and basing a belief in god on your inability to comprehend or calculate something has proven dangerous throughout history.

Well I was trying to get the two quotes in the same post, but i couldn't

Earlier Cinepro said this

Quote

The book won't make you an atheist, but it will make you a little more skeptical of people who claim divine intervention for an event based on their estimate of improbability.

On one hand he says probability will make you "more skeptical" and on the other he says "you just don't know"

So which is it?  Does probability have any relevance to belief in God or not?

Obviously not.

No more than you choose any ethical question by probabilities.  Is a fetus a baby?  How do you use probability for that?  It's a yes or no based on your "gut" or as we say in church, "The Light of Christ".

Edited September 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I support this conclusions.

Better yet, don't start arguing personal beliefs about your attitude toward the world and what is right or wrong by probabilities whatsoever.

Who cares about what the probabilities of killing babies being "wrong" are?  It's just a stupid use of probability 

We are not talking about a scientific question here of an invisible being "existing" whatever that means anyway.

We are talking about if it is beneficial for our lives to have BELIEFS about something irrelevant to science in the first place.  Big difference.

Science is deliberately dispassionate.

Religion IS passion.  Nothing dispassionate about it.

Ridiculously huge difference anyone should see in a second.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Exactly. Cinepro's probability theories can't explain when the spirit tells a missionary to turn right instead of left, then learns afterwards that he avoided a terrible accident for turning right. His probability theories can't explain when a Bishop says the right words to help someone during a crisis. His theories can't explain when a missionary is called to serve in the same city where his long lost brother is living. 

Cinepro's probability post explains things very well.  You cannot just call out one example as proof that probability is flawed.  For every faith promoting story, there are many others support the coincidence.  A lot of people pray for the safety of missionaries. What about the missionaries that are killed in auto accidents?  Did they take a wrong turn?  What about the General Authority that prayed for directions, and then took the wrong road?  

It is often the case when people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views one would like to be true.  We all need to guard against this.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Cinepro's probability post explains things very well.  You cannot just call out one example as proof that probability is flawed.  For every faith promoting story, there are many others support the coincidence.  A lot of people pray for the safety of missionaries. What about the missionaries that are killed in auto accidents?  Did they take a wrong turn?  What about the General Authority that prayed for directions, and then took the wrong road?  

It is often the case when people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views one would like to be true.  We all need to guard against this.

 

 

This is a perfect example of what happens when you confuse the scientific view of the correspondence theory of truth with a pragmatic or deflationary theory of truth.

Nonsense.

God cannot be discovered though science.

I thought we figured that out in the 15th century with Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo but I guess not.

Sigh.  It's Scopes all over again but now science has the upper hand culturally so we get to do it all over again from the other side.  

It used to be science was wrong because it did not agree with religion, now it's religion must be wrong because it doesn't agree with science.   Same argument, different sides!

Science and religion have nothing to do with each other.

The belief that science and religion discuss the same topic always leads to this nonsense but we never learn.  We repeat this again and again.

Our great grandchildren will know philosophy better, maybe in the 22nd century perhaps they will learn two hundred year old twentieth century philosophy and be rid of this nonsense.

Edited September 11, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

And once you've done that, then you need to figure out what the actual probability is of a certain event.  But the trick is to do so without falling victim to the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy (or any of the other common fallacies in probability).

There are many cases where the odds are easier to figure out than others.  So if you find a situation where it's impossible to figure out the odds, then how can you say that the odds are so great that divine intervention must be invoked?  If the ultimate answer is that you don't know, then that's the answer.  You just don't know.  There may be other ways to determine God's intervention, but "what are the odds?" can't be one of them, because the answer is "I don't know", and basing a belief in god on your inability to comprehend or calculate something has proven dangerous throughout history.

So how do you explain mfbukowski story? How could it be a coincidence? I don't see how coincidence is possible.
 

22 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

It is often the case when people would like a certain idea or concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views one would like to be true.  We all need to guard against this.

Okay, what is the other possibility? Can Littlewood's law and Ramsey theory apply?

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My whole point was essentially that we cannot know this- as you have pointed out, at least here

We know it was a miracle by God, it is not necessary to make a case for agnosticism.  It is impossible for your story of the missionary finding his uncle to be a coincidence. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

We know it was a miracle by God, it is not necessary to make a case for agnosticism.  It is impossible for your story of the missionary finding his uncle to be a coincidence. 

WE know that, yes, but for the agnostic/atheist, they will NOT see it that way at all and still insist it is a coincidence.

It is the old analogy of seeing the glass half empty or half full.   Remember the Gift of the Holy Ghost changes the way we see everything!

I speak as an agnostic sometimes to teach them. otherwise they will not understand.   Perhaps it is a little like Paul on Mars Hill speaking of the "Unknown God" to the philosophers of his time, in Greek, which he knew.

He was speaking their language to them so he could teach them.  But how successful was he?  We have no knowledge of how well that worked.

 

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:07 AM, mfbukowski said:

Very ironic you used LDS language there which perfectly describes my path INTO the church.

It was the only one I could find which made secular humanism (my former religion) into a religion I could believe based on evolving man into a god.

If man is the measure of all things, and man is the creator of god, all one has to do is make that small "g" a capital "G" and suddenly you have the notion that The Man of Holiness is the measure of all things and the Man of Holiness and the Creator of an endless stream in the Council of the Gods.

All one has to do is make secular humanism into an Archetype for Humanity- living as the Ideal Human- and what do you have??  The Church!

If the church actually understood this, we could be, and can yet be, the stone cut from the mountain filling the earth.

We have no clue what we have, just as you have no clue what you had.

But yes, that Archetype of Humanity includes all of humanity- not just half.   We need to "know" (Hebrew "yada"- look it up) all of humanity intimately to affirm humanity in all its glory.

I'm always a wary when someone advocating religion tells me that I "have no clue" what I have, or could have within Mormonism, or that it's rewards are SO great that I won't even be able to imagine how great life would be, followed by... "you don't want to miss out/give up/lose this opportunity" for something that's so unimaginably great that I better not give up on this chance....

Sales tactics based on fear (in this case, of not wanting to miss out on what I could have had) aren't effective (at best) and emotionally manipulative (at worst).

"But, if I'm RIGHT, and you WILL end up with ALL of this--EVERTYHING the universe has to OFFER!  Worlds without NUMBER!  Unlimited POWERS to CREATE and PROCREATE!  You wouldn't wanna miss you on this, right?!"  to "But just trust me.... you won't FEEL like you do NOW... You'll be CHANGED/HEALED/HETEROSEXUALIZED... You won't love your husband in the same way you do now--you'll both want women in the afterlife---you don't wanna miss out on that, right?!"  are all manifestations of appealing to fear.  Perhaps my least favorite (and the most insulting) is "But, you're SELLING your birthright for a MESS OF POTTAGE?"

If fear is what motivates someone to allegedly follow God, that just isn't a god that would interest me.  If 'god' cannot appreciate or recognize the intrinsic value and guiding purpose of the love my spouse and I share together, that just isn't a god that would interest me.  And appeals to all the
"but, you're giving up EVERYTHING for the WRONG thing!" doesn't motivate me to fearfully abandon the love of my life.  In fact, that kind of romance---sacrificing the chance at godhood to be with the man I love--is the type of grand romance that I've always been a fan of...

Also, for what it's worth.... If there were a god, and if that god really was wanting to test his children to see who was the most worthy of receiving his godlike powers to create and govern new worlds in an afterlife, I'd share with him my observation that usually the people who seek out and WANT absolute power (especially ones that are willing to sacrifice/cut off their own family members  <cough>Abraham<cough>) are the ones who usually deserve it least, demostrate the least ability to work out what's truly moral, and are the least trustworthy.... while those that are happy to 'give up' absolute power due to loyalty to their loved ones are usually the ones demonstrating the kind of moral prioritization and personal integrity that should be given the power to rule.  Just sayin'...

D

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Daniel2

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

WE know that, yes, but for the agnostic/atheist, they will NOT see it that way at all and still insist it is a coincidence.

I hope you don't mind that I shared your story to my facebook friend. My friend told me that every two years the church has seventy thousand new missionaries, so according to him it is obvious that some are going to find lost family members. He tells me it is common sense. I admit his response makes sense, now I don't know what to tell him.   

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cinepro]

On 9/10/2017 at 9:49 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So how do you explain mfbukowski story? How could it be a coincidence? I don't see how coincidence is possible.
 

 

Can you explain why it couldn't be a "coincidence" (meaning, I assume, an encounter that was the result of seemingly random chance and not the result of divine intervention)?  What part is difficult for you to understand?

There are a lot of ways people make mistakes in probability, and I think you may be interested to think about two of them.

First, it's easy to think that every day is "normal."  Meaning, we should only expect "frequent" events.  But that isn't the case.  While we usually experience normal, expected events, we should also expect extremely rare and coincidental events to occur.  It would be unusual if they didn't.  If you only expect normal events to occur, then it's easy to give unexpected events extra (and possibly undeserved) meaning.

Second, it's misleading to only consider the probability of events after they occur (i.e. the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy).  What if I told you that a woman named Kate Bradley won a lottery with odds of 350 million to 1.  That's pretty slim odds, and it may sound like a miraculous event.  But what if the day before the lottery drawing, I told you that over 50 million people had purchased over 200 million tickets for the lottery.  What would you say the chances of someone winning the lottery would be?  It's not unreasonable to assume that someone might.  But it would be amazing to name the specific person the day before.  But that's not what happened; we only cared about Kate Bradley after she won.

So think about stories about LDS missionaries.  Finding a long-lost relative or golden contact is like winning the missionary lottery.  And certainly after it happens, the odds of two specific people meeting in that specific time and place are astronomical.  But that's only after the story happens.

But look at it the way we looked at the lottery before the drawing.  There are 70,000+ missionaries in the world.  Each day, they go out and spend 12 hours doing everything they can to meet people.  They knock on doors.  They talk to people on buses.  They street contact.  Let's say the average missionary is meeting 10 people a day.  That would be 700,000 contacts each day.  Over the course of a year, that would be over 250 million "contact" points between missionaries and people on the street.  So now you can ask "Out of 250 million contacts each year, what are the odds that a missionary is going to run into a long-lost family member or golden contact?"  

I don't know what the actual odds are, but I would be more surprised if it didn't happen every once in a while.  Even if God has nothing to do with it, if you send that many people out and have them make every possible effort to talk to everyone they see, eventually you're going to make a connection.

Whether or not that makes sense to you, hopefully you can see why someone might respond to a story you consider miraculous with a response of "Yeah, that's what we would expect."

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by cinepro

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

So think about stories about LDS missionaries.  Finding a long-lost relative or golden contact is like winning the missionary lottery.  And certainly after it happens, the odds of two specific people meeting in that specific time and place are astronomical.  But that's only after the story happens.

But look at it the way we looked at the lottery before the drawing.  There are 70,000+ missionaries in the world.  Each day, they go out and spend 12 hours doing everything they can to meet people.  They knock on doors.  They talk to people on buses.  They street contact.  Let's say the average missionary is meeting 10 people a day.  That would be 700,000 contacts each day.  Over the course of a year, that would be over 250 million "contact" points between missionaries and people on the street.  So now you can ask "Out of 250 million contacts each year, what are the odds that a missionary is going to run into a long-lost family member or golden contact?"  

I don't know what the actual odds are, but I would be more surprised if it didn't happen every once in a while.  Even if God has nothing to do with it, if you send that many people out and have them make every possible effort to talk to everyone they see, eventually you're going to make a connection.

Whether or not that makes sense to you, hopefully you can see why someone might respond toa story you consider miraculous with a response of "Yeah, that's what we would expect."

 

Yes my friend told me something very similar. You are making a lot of sense and I honestly don't know what to think right now. 

Have you ever heard of a miracle during Testimony meeting that doesn't have a rational explanation?  I am sure there are many, but I can't think of one right now.  

My goodness 

Edited September 12, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Can someone please share a powerful story? After having a long conversation with my friend I really need to hear some faith promoting stories.   

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Please 

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Yes my friend told me something very similar. You are making a lot of sense and I honestly don't know what to think right now. 

Have you ever heard of a miracle during Testimony meeting that doesn't have a rational explanation?  I am sure there are many, but I can't think of one right now.  

My goodness 

Earlier you were boldly saying that it is all about your interpretation and now you are blowing around with no sense of what YOU believe and stand for.

OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS!  Welcome to FAITH

Doubt your doubts and hang in there.