Do you believe in miracles? [Archive]

Thorne

12-23-2007, 08:06 AM

The fact that the universe exists at all, and is capable of supporting any life form is a miracle. Repeated many times over on just one planet.

And maybe not just one. Scientists are finding increasing evidence of the possibility of life on other planets. They apparently found meteorites in Antarctica which have been shown to have come from Mars, and which seemed to contain bacterial fossils. I believe they've also seen video evidence from one or both rovers on Mars of erosion patterns which are consistent with biological wearing, such as from lichen growing on rocks.

The probability that Earth is the only habitat of life in the universe is so negligibly small as to be virtually impossible. Given the millions of stars in our galaxy and the thousands upon thousands of galaxies which we can see, it is almost a foregone conclusion that life of some sort exists elsewhere. And the lessons we are learning even here on Earth about extremophiles makes it that much more likely that life, and perhaps intelligent life as well, can occur almost anywhere. No miracles required.

blythe spirit

12-23-2007, 10:54 AM

Thorne

12-23-2007, 11:52 AM

It would be presumptuous of us to think that we are the only intelligent life force in this massive universe. Not only is highly likely that other beings exist, but - no doubt - they probably surpass us in all areas, including intelligence. However, that does not negate the possibility of miracles.

It is equally presumptuous to think that other intelligent life will necessarily be more intelligent than ourselves, as you imply. Chances are that we are located somewhere in the middle of the intelligence scale, with some worlds having more intelligent life and some having less intelligent life.

As for miracles, I suppose it is a subjective matter. What one person might consider a miracle another might see as a natural process of nature. Just because we may not understand the mechanism of "miracles" doesn't mean that they are a manifestation of a higher power. Knowing that a rainbow is a result of refraction of light through water droplets doesn't make it any less beautiful, but believing it is a bridge to Valhalla doesn't make it any more miraculous, except to the observer.

blythe spirit

12-23-2007, 12:43 PM

It is equally presumptuous to think that other intelligent life will necessarily be more intelligent than ourselves, as you imply. Chances are that we are located somewhere in the middle of the intelligence scale, with some worlds having more intelligent life and some having less intelligent life.

As for miracles, I suppose it is a subjective matter. What one person might consider a miracle another might see as a natural process of nature. Just because we may not understand the mechanism of "miracles" doesn't mean that they are a manifestation of a higher power. Knowing that a rainbow is a result of refraction of light through water droplets doesn't make it any less beautiful, but believing it is a bridge to Valhalla doesn't make it any more miraculous, except to the observer.

Golly, gee - I 'pose next you're gonna tell me there's not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Burst my bubble why don't you.

I don't doubt that some life forms are less intelligent than we, I just believe that there are "some" with much more intelligence, who sit on their planet viewing us and laughing their asses off at our stupidity. It's not at all impossible that the seed of life itself (as we know it) was not planted on earth by another civilization.

Nevertheless, I believe in miracles. And while science may be able to explain some miracles away, it does so in theory only. Scientists look at evidence and draw inferences. Science cannot prove everything and is only capable of disproving some things. But I think that's another thread. *winks

Thorne

12-23-2007, 07:01 PM

Golly, gee - I 'pose next you're gonna tell me there's not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Burst my bubble why don't you.
And such a cute, delicate little bubble it was!

I don't doubt that some life forms are less intelligent than we, I just believe that there are "some" with much more intelligence, who sit on their planet viewing us and laughing their asses off at our stupidity.
If they have nothing better to do with their time than watch us I have to wonder just how intelligent they can really be!

blythe spirit

12-23-2007, 09:14 PM

If they have nothing better to do with their time than watch us I have to wonder just how intelligent they can really be!

Well, our scientist watch mice, don't they? And by the way, it was a cute little bubble.

ThisYouWillDo

12-24-2007, 04:29 AM

... Bubbles for sale ...Bubbles for sale ...

Pefectly round, refracting light exquisitely, a miracle of form and tension...

Even if science can explain that a rainbow is caused by refraction, it does not tell us why, when it happens, a rainbow is so beautiful. Science might be right, but it is soul-less.

(Life on other planets would be just as miraculous as life on Earth.)

TYWD

Thorne

12-24-2007, 10:43 AM

Even if science can explain that a rainbow is caused by refraction, it does not tell us why, when it happens, a rainbow is so beautiful. Science might be right, but it is soul-less.

A rainbow is beautiful because we think it is beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you see a comet in the sky today you would, most likely, perceive it as beautiful, a "miracle" of nature. Yet in ancient, and perhaps not so ancient, times the comet was viewed with horror and fear as a harbinger of evil. The appearance of comets has not changed, only our perception of them, thanks to science!

And since the soul is an artifact of religion science must remain soul-less. That is science's purpose, to cast light on the darkness and drag us out of the depths of superstition. That does not mean it destroys beauty. On the contrary: to my mind, knowing why something is what it is or how it does what it does is just as beautiful and satisfying to me as someone else's "soulful" observations.

Moonraker

12-31-2007, 05:04 AM

I am an ignoramus in terms of God but would imagine the answer lies in the purpose of miracles. I suggest that miracles were intended to demonstrate to a pagan world God's existence and power in order they believe in him. They did believe and the therefore it's a case of mission accomplished. God does not performs miracles today.

ThisYouWillDo

01-07-2008, 06:10 PM

A rainbow is beautiful because we think it is beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you see a comet in the sky today you would, most likely, perceive it as beautiful, a "miracle" of nature. Yet in ancient, and perhaps not so ancient, times the comet was viewed with horror and fear as a harbinger of evil. The appearance of comets has not changed, only our perception of them, thanks to science!

And since the soul is an artifact of religion science must remain soul-less. That is science's purpose, to cast light on the darkness and drag us out of the depths of superstition. That does not mean it destroys beauty. On the contrary: to my mind, knowing why something is what it is or how it does what it does is just as beautiful and satisfying to me as someone else's "soulful" observations.

I shall wait for science to tell me why refraction happens (not just what happens when light is refracted). I shall also wait for science to discover what the uncaused cause was and why it is/was the uncaused cause. Finally, I shall wait for science to tell me why I think a rainbow is beautiful while Thorne (possibly) does not.

I shall not hold my breath.

TYWD.

Flaming_Redhead

01-07-2008, 07:04 PM

Simply put, I believe that God still performs miracles today. However, He is finished performing magic tricks for the masses as was done for the Israelites. I think most of the miracles that occur now are answered prayers, like when I prayed for a painless pregnancy and delivery. *smiles* I was only sick once and received an epidural just as my labor pains were beginning, so I really never had any discomfort to speak of. During my first pregnancy, which wasn't carried to term, I puked every single day, several times a day. Ask any woman who's given birth, and they'll tell you I had it exceptionally easy. Some people might not find that miraculous. *shrugs* They could say I was just lucky.

As far as questioning why God doesn't help everyone all the time, I don't really have an answer for that. I don't know why my aunt's breast cancer wasn't cured, and she died at only 40 years old after 3 years of treatment, leaving behind a loving husband and 3 young children. The only thing I can think of is that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were banished from a life of ease in the Garden of Eden, they weren't promised that life would be fair. In fact, they were promised that life would be hard. They had to work for their food instead of simply foraging in the lush garden, and the ground wasn't going to cooperate. There were now weeds and such to deal with. Then, tragedy struck when Cain killed Abel. I suppose God could have prevented Cain from bashing in his brother's skull. I also think He could have prevented Eve from eating the forbidden fruit. Why even put the tree in the garden to start with? Should we blame God for giving us free will? Maybe my aunt shouldn't have smoked cigarettes. Maybe she should've gone to the doctor sooner when she noticed a lump and demanded that it be excised. Some things are brought upon ourselves. Some things are unexplainable. We could drive ourselves crazy with "what ifs." I choose to believe that a rainbow is a miracle, a promise from God that he won't destroy the entire world with water again.

Next time, it'll be with fire. *eg*

Thorne

01-07-2008, 08:16 PM

Thorne

01-07-2008, 08:30 PM

Euryleia

01-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Flaming_Redhead

01-07-2008, 09:41 PM

Voodoo_Child
A beautiful and thoughtful statement of your beliefs. I applaud you for your sincerity, and my sympathies for your aunt.
Yet within your post lies the central reasons for my lack of faith. I cannot permit myself to believe in a God who would take the life of a young mother and wife while allowing evil people to live, and to live in relative luxury. I cannot tolerate a God who would force millions of people who love and fear him to labor in poverty and filth while hypocritical thieves rob them of what little they can salvage and live lives of privilege and wealth. What God deserving of that love could allow innocent children to be raped, abuse, murdered, while those who perform that abuse go unpunished. And how can any God force all of humanity to pay for the sin of just two people. This is not a God who is worthy of my love. If he truly does exist he is worthy only of contempt.

Thank you for the kind words. There seems to be no end to the evil that people are capable of, but it is my belief that the wicked will not go unpunished. I think torment in hell for eternity is worse than any prison sentence we could impose, though I'm not opposed to hurrying wrongdoers on their merry way. *eg* If I chose not to believe in God, then I would also have to believe that there would be no justice in the end. It's a miserable thought. Anyway, your view point reminds me of an old song, which still doesn't explain why bad things happen to good people....

"Farther Along"

Tempted and tried we're oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long
While there are others living about us
Never molested though in the wrong

[Chorus]
Farther along we'll know all about it
Farther along we'll understand why
Cheer up my brother live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all by and by

When death has come and taken our loved ones
It leaves our home so lonely and drear
And then do we wonder why others prosper
Living so wicked year after year

[Repeat Chorus]

When we see Jesus coming in glory
When he comes down from his home in the sky
Then we shall meet him in that bright mansion
We'll understand it all by and by

[Repeat Chorus]
Yeah we'll understand it all by and by

ThisYouWillDo

01-08-2008, 05:20 PM

.

Refraction happens because light travels at different speeds through different media. If you want to know why THAT is then I suggest you take a course in optics.

I think that's how it happens, not why.

As for the uncaused cause, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Can science explain what caused the Big Bang: the uncaused cause (supposing there was one)? Or why?

Come to that, can science even explain what an atom, the fundamental building-block of matter is (supposing there are any)?

And I never said I don't think a rainbow is beautiful. On the contrary, I think they are quite amazing. As for why you think they are beautiful, it's probably because you were taught that they are. Beauty is a subjective matter, primarily.

Not if I was taught what beauty is, as you presume.

And it changes all the time. What we find beautiful today may be viewed as vulgar 10 or 20 years from now.

True, some beauty lasts for a long time. Music especially is enduring. Yet even that is subjective. Many people find opera to be exquisite, food for the soul. To me it is no better than fingernails scraping across a chalkboard. I enjoy the music! But you can keep the singing.

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dfbZ6S6DU4&feature=related That is singing at its most sublime - although the recording quality's not great.

And the same can hold true for belief systems. Most people tend to believe what they were taught to believe. And they hold to those beliefs because they are comfortable, uncomplicated. Questioning them requires an effort which many people are not willing to put forth. Yes, some turn to other belief systems, some turn away from all of them completely. It is all subjective, different for everyone. And in that diversity there is true beauty.

You are confusing me where you say beauty is taught, but is subjective. Care to elaborate for me?

Thorne

01-08-2008, 09:02 PM

Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dfbZ...eature=related That is singing at its most sublime - although the recording quality's not great.

Nope, sorry, I just don't appreciate it. The underlying music seems lovely, no question, when I can hear it through the vocalization. The singing just seems to grate on my nerves. Not all singing, though. I grew up listening to Julie Andrews (my mother loved her voice) so I "learned" to enjoy it. I'm not a big fan, but I can listen without wincing, usually. And choral works are generally enjoyable. The Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah, especially when performed by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, is outstanding. And as I said previously, some operatic music is enjoyable to me. Wagner's Overture to Tannhäuser is a particular favorite.

You are confusing me where you say beauty is taught, but is subjective. Care to elaborate for me?

By subjective I mean that it is entirely dependent upon the viewer, or listener. There is no hard and fast rule about what is or is not beautiful. There may be things that are commonly thought of as beautiful, especially in a cultural sense. But these things may not be considered beautiful in a different culture.
That being said, you can be taught to appreciate something which someone else believes is beautiful, and even come to believe it yourself. When I was growing up in the 60's the Beatles, the Stones, Bob Dylan and many others were very popular among my peers. Classical music was generally frowned upon, even ridiculed by some. But I grew up listening to classical music, and I still enjoy it to this day. Beethoven, Liszt, Chopin, most of the great composers, are always enjoyable. Even some of the modern composers: Williams, Zimmer, those who write orchestral pieces. This is basically a "learned" appreciation. But it is still subjective.

ThisYouWillDo

01-09-2008, 01:32 AM

Wagner's Overture to Tannhäuser is a particular favorite.

Even you have redeeming qualities! ;)

I suppose listening to a piece of music like that is a bit like reading a chapter from a book in isolation: while it might be brilliant prose, it is out of context. Likewise, I think sometimes operatic pieces suffer when not heard in a full performance. (I, personally, could listen to this one over and over without seeing the whole performance, however).

I think can agree with you that, while the ability to appreciate beauty might have to be taught, the act of appreciating it is a subjective one. So, while I might think my wife is ugly, and you consider her beautiful, there is a quality of "beauty" out there somewhere that we both subscribe to: an idea of what beauty is. Science cannot explain what that is.

TYWD

TomOfSweden

01-09-2008, 01:59 AM

Logic1

01-09-2008, 04:28 AM

No, I dont believe that. That is a simple enough answer for me :)

Ozme52

01-09-2008, 11:03 AM

I shall wait for science to tell me why refraction happens (not just what happens when light is refracted). I shall also wait for science to discover what the uncaused cause was and why it is/was the uncaused cause. Finally, I shall wait for science to tell me why I think a rainbow is beautiful while Thorne (possibly) does not.

I shall not hold my breath.

TYWD.

Science does tell us why refraction happens. That 'white' light is a combination of many wavelengths. That each wave length refracts (bends) as it passes through boundaries between different media by different amounts and thereby gets separated.

I too wonder what you mean by uncaused cause? Whatever you mean, you obfuscate it by choosing to used this entirely uninspired oxymoron.

You think the rainbow is beautiful because you have been taught by all who come before you saying it is beautiful. And because we like color. And if you ask why we like color, it's because food comes in colors. Sex has colors, (red lips, pink skin, brown, blue, green eyes, etc.) Animal furs, which keep us warm come in colors. Flowers which have attractant odors come in colors.

Any argument between religion and science is going to send us to our respective corners. Even those of us who believe in God but that God set the world in motion with some pretty nifty mechanisms so he wouldn't have to micromanage it all (like evolution!!! on no!!! gasp!!! ;) ) are going to line up on the side of science and argue against those who would rather leave it to God than understand the world he actually did create for us. (Not naming names here, just describing the attitude that befuddles me.)

---------------------------------------------

Now... as far as the actual question of miracles is concerned... again, we humans seem to like thinking God cares about us in detail. But if you actually read your bible... the real miracles involve a lot of death and destruction and suffering.

Did God part the Red Sea? Saved the Hebrews? or did he really just want to teach Pharoh a lesson and use it to trap and drown Pharoh's army. Killed Pharoh's first born son and all the first born sons of Egypt. Then let the Hebrews wander the desert for a lifetime rather than just show them the way....

Burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground and turned Lot's wife to salt for having a quick peek. Nasty entity God is. :rolleyes:

Destroyed the world with a flood. Why bother to save Noah and his family? Only takes 7 days to create the universe and 40 days to flood our planet. Why not start over? Or is he just a practicle joker. "Hi Noah, I want you to muck out all these stalls for the next 8 weeks."

Make a mistake, go to hell. Gotta be perfect to get to heaven. And God's representatives, priests and ministers and bishops and popes and rabbis all have different sets of rules and even change those rules all the time. Can't eat meat on Fridays... I wonder what all those souls in hell are thinking now?

Y'all put too much faith in the writings of men who themselves believe God spoke through them. Today we call that insane. Either that or we're putting all that faith in men who merely claimed God spoke to them and today we call that type charletons, scoundrals, and thieves.

We'd be better off if we didn't preach to others and insist everyone believe the same way. Every person should be left alone to find their own spirituality.

Ozme52

01-09-2008, 11:15 AM

Red (can we still call you Red?) :)

The problem with this statement...

There seems to be no end to the evil that people are capable of, but it is my belief that the wicked will not go unpunished. I think torment in hell for eternity is worse than any prison sentence we could impose, though I'm not opposed to hurrying wrongdoers on their merry way. *eg* If I chose not to believe in God, then I would also have to believe that there would be no justice in the end. It's a miserable thought. Anyway, your view point reminds me of an old song, which still doesn't explain why bad things happen to good people....

...is "Who defines wicked?"

The "people" who brought you the concept of hell would say you are wicked. Sex outside of marriage, sex for pleasure instead of procreation, worshipping (by their defintion) another before God...

Ozme52

01-09-2008, 11:36 AM

I think can agree with you that, while the ability to appreciate beauty might have to be taught, the act of appreciating it is a subjective one. So, while I might think my wife is ugly, and you consider her beautiful, there is a quality of "beauty" out there somewhere that we both subscribe to: an idea of what beauty is. Science cannot explain what that is.

TYWD

Actually science can explain that. Turns out to mostly be about symmetry. Ask a large sampling of men and women to arrange a large sampling of faces from most handsome/beautiful to least and then take measurements of all the faces and the most symmetrical faces are beautiful and the least symmetrical faces are ugly.

So the point is that we are governed by things that science can explain. And you can ask all you want about big bang and atoms... Your attitude is very arrogant in the sense that your argument presumes we know everything there is to know... and anything we don't know must be because of some omnipotent omniscient being.

Ozme52

01-09-2008, 11:49 AM

Are people having two different discussions here.

Miracle = something unbelievably extraordinary.

or

Miracle = there's an external, (possibly intelligent) entity that can suspend the laws of nature, ie perform magic.

They're arguably the same thing. I suspect that it's just that some people have a wee bit too high trust in their faculties and draw the conclusion, "I don't get it, therefore it is magic".

Well therein lies the issue. Where does science end.

I wouldn't be surprised if the border between these two interpretations simply comes down to what level of education you've passed.

I think you're spot on Tom. But I'll go a step further and suggest that those who believe in a 'miracle-performing god' think mankind has now learned all there is to learn and everything else must be God's works.

I believe in miracles to.

I also can easily use that word to help others understand my wonder and awe...

But I don't see any shame in not understanding everything.

...in the things I don't understand... today.

ThisYouWillDo

01-09-2008, 12:11 PM

Actually science can explain that. Turns out to mostly be about symmetry. Ask a large sampling of men and women to arrange a large sampling of faces from most handsome/beautiful to least and then take measurements of all the faces and the most symmetrical faces are beautiful and the least symmetrical faces are ugly.

Are you saying beauty is about symmetry or that it is symmetry. The experiment seems to suggest the latter, and I reject that. Also, it doesn't account for the fact that I think wifey is ugly and Thorne thinks she's beautiful. And it seems to me that handsome men have more asymmetrical faces while pretty women have symmetrical ones.

So the point is that we are governed by things that science can explain. And you can ask all you want about big bang and atoms... Your attitude is very arrogant in the sense that your argument presumes we know everything there is to know... and anything we don't know must be because of some omnipotent omniscient being.

No, no, no! That's quite wrong (apart from the "arrogant" bit) - I am arguing that science does not know everything. I am trying to counter the suggestion that everything can be explained by science now, or at some time in the future. Currently (I am told), science regards atoms as "unknowable".

Flaming_Redhead

01-09-2008, 12:50 PM

Red (can we still call you Red?) :)

The problem with this statement...

...is "Who defines wicked?"

The "people" who brought you the concept of hell would say you are wicked. Sex outside of marriage, sex for pleasure instead of procreation, worshipping (by their defintion) another before God...

Of course you can still call me Red! I don't think you'd have a problem finding people who agree that child molesterers, serial killers and other cold-blooded killers, etc., are wicked. The gray area lies in intent. In some cultures, it's customary to chop off the hand of a thief. Is a person who steals food because he's starving the same as a person who steals for a living rather than work an honest job or simply because he's greedy? I don't think so, and I don't think God thinks so either. I wouldn't press charges against a hungry person who runs off with a bag of groceries, but I'd let my investment broker rot in prison for running off with my retirement fund. Yeah, I know I'm hardly a saint. *eg* I believe the term commonly used is "sinner." What's your point? I'm not perfect. I know it. You know it. God knows it.

Btw, I believe the concept of sex strictly for procreation is an invention of the Catholic church, not God. I'm not Catholic, so I don't buy into that nor do I fornicate only in the missionary position, which was supposedly the optimal position for conception. I also use birth control. In addition, I'm divorced, so anyone who fornicates with me is committing adultery. *GASP* I guess this means I'm on the highway to hell. :rolleyes:

Thorne

01-09-2008, 01:33 PM

Even you have redeeming qualities! ;)
Just don't tell anyone! It'll destroy my reputation. :)

I think can agree with you that, while the ability to appreciate beauty might have to be taught, the act of appreciating it is a subjective one. So, while I might think my wife is ugly, and you consider her beautiful, there is a quality of "beauty" out there somewhere that we both subscribe to: an idea of what beauty is. Science cannot explain what that is.

Although I do not even KNOW your wife, this basically has been my point. And it is not science's task to explain what beauty is, or even what may be beautiful. It is science's task to try to remove the superstition and myth which permeates people's views of their world. And I, for one, find a certain amount of beauty in that.

Ozme52

01-09-2008, 01:38 PM

Are you saying beauty is about symmetry or that it is symmetry. The experiment seems to suggest the latter, and I reject that. Also, it doesn't account for the fact that I think wifey is ugly and Thorne thinks she's beautiful. And it seems to me that handsome men have more asymmetrical faces while pretty women have symmetrical ones.

Neither, I'm saying that science is able to correlate beauty to some things that are in fact measurable. I'm making the point that some of the things we attribute to the human experience, music and art and the concepts of beauty, can in fact be correllated to factors in the physical world that science can attempt to explain. Countering the specific statement you made that science couldn't explain beauty.

You may call your wife ugly and someone else may say she's beautiful and you would likely both place her in the same relative position on a continuum of faces. The words are qualitative, not quantitative. But regardless of the word, you probably would both rate her relatively similarly in comparison to other faces.

And... familiarity breeds contempt. LOL. And variety is the spice of life... so of course one tires of the same face after a while. Another reason you might use different adjectives.

No, no, no! That's quite wrong (apart from the "arrogant" bit) - I am arguing that science does not know everything. I am trying to counter the suggestion that everything can be explained by science now, or at some time in the future. Currently (I am told), science regards atoms as "unknowable".[/QUOTE]

I will always disagree with the one statement 'or at some time in the future.'
That's religion masquerading as philosophy trying to deny science.

"Science" has regarded stuff we understand very well today as unknowable in the past. That particular statement, that atoms are unknowable, is itself pretty old... before we understood protons and neutrons and electrons, let alone quantum mechanics.

Thorne

01-09-2008, 01:56 PM

Are you saying beauty is about symmetry or that it is symmetry. The experiment seems to suggest the latter, and I reject that. Also, it doesn't account for the fact that I think wifey is ugly and Thorne thinks she's beautiful. And it seems to me that handsome men have more asymmetrical faces while pretty women have symmetrical ones.
I think you will find that the majority of people tend to find things which are symmetrical to be more beautiful than things which are not. But this is by no means definitive. That's why I say it is subjective. And yes, men and women, perhaps because of gender differences or differences in upbringing, do tend to have differing concepts of beauty.
As for your wife (and I apologize in advance to the lady), if you were to show me a picture of her, or even if I were to meet her socially somewhere, I might indeed find her attractive, even beautiful. But I am looking solely at her appearance, while you are seeing her with the eyes of familiarity. And it is true that "familiarity breeds contempt." You have had to live with her for some number of years, perhaps you've had to deal with her lackadaisical housecleaning, or dealt with her foul language, or are just plain sick of smelling her farts all night long, as I'm sure she is sick of smelling yours! I'm sure that at one time you must have considered her beautiful, or you wouldn't have married her. You had to "learn" to think of her as ugly. (Again I apologize to her. I don't know her, have never seen her, everything I said is for illustrative purposes only, there's not a grain of truth in it. I'm sure she never farts.)

No, no, no! That's quite wrong (apart from the "arrogant" bit) - I am arguing that science does not know everything. I am trying to counter the suggestion that everything can be explained by science now, or at some time in the future. Currently (I am told), science regards atoms as "unknowable".

It's true, science does not know everything. Probably never will know everything. But religion knows nothing, cannot prove anything, and is based upon supposition and guesswork rather than facts. And calling something a miracle just because science cannot explain it doesn't make it so.

Ozme52

01-09-2008, 01:58 PM

Of course you can still call me Red! I don't think you'd have a problem finding people who agree that child molesterers, serial killers and other cold-blooded killers, etc., are wicked. The gray area lies in intent. In some cultures, it's customary to chop off the hand of a thief. Is a person who steals food because he's starving the same as a person who steals for a living rather than work an honest job or simply because he's greedy? I don't think so, and I don't think God thinks so either. I wouldn't press charges against a hungry person who runs off with a bag of groceries, but I'd let my investment broker rot in prison for running off with my retirement fund. Yeah, I know I'm hardly a saint. *eg* I believe the term commonly used is "sinner." What's your point? I'm not perfect. I know it. You know it. God knows it.

Btw, I believe the concept of sex strictly for procreation is an invention of the Catholic church, not God. I'm not Catholic, so I don't buy into that nor do I fornicate only in the missionary position, which was supposedly the optimal position for conception. I also use birth control. In addition, I'm divorced, so anyone who fornicates with me is committing adultery. *GASP* I guess this means I'm on the highway to hell. :rolleyes:

My intent is not to argue the specifics per se. Just the concepts of science v. religion as manifested in the concept of miracles and down all the tangents that takes us... (hmmm did I just contradict myself? :confused:)

I'm spiritual but not "religious"... mostly because of the connection to organized religion that implies. But I will stand by my statement. Who gets to decide what is wicked?

All of your examples sends chills up our spines. Of course we all agree child-molesters and serial and other cold-blooded killers are evil and will be or should be punished both here on earth and by god...

But wait!! Please define child-molester. Are all our British friends going to hell? They use a different age than we use in the USA. I'm not actually asking you to define it... Ancient Jews consider 13 to be the age of assent. And in many cultures girls became marriable upon menstruation.

Just pointing out the folly of general statements when arguing 'right and wrong'.

Thorne

01-09-2008, 02:07 PM

But wait!! Please define child-molester. Are all our British friends going to hell? They use a different age than we use in the USA. I'm not actually asking you to define it... Ancient Jews consider 13 to be the age of assent. And in many cultures girls became marriable upon menstruation.

A long time ago I posted somewhere about this very idea. ( I think it was here when Rabbit took over and changed some rules about posting stories containing underage characters.) I'm not going to do the research again, but my recollection is that here in the US there was a very large variation between states regarding age for marriage. In at least one state, I believe, a girl of 14 could marry without her parents consent, and in many states she could marry with their consent. In other states women under 21 had to have their parents consent. There was even one country, as I recall, which allowed girls as young as 9 years old to be given away in marriage (I'm not certain, but I think it was Afghanistan under the Taliban.)

ThisYouWillDo

01-09-2008, 07:07 PM

Thorne

01-09-2008, 08:29 PM

For all your very interesting and even learned responses to my trite postings, I cannot get past this point:

We all seem to agree that science cannot explain everything and possibly never will. But regardless of that, we have to argue from our current state of knowledge. It is certain that we do not know everything now.

Given that fact, the possibility has to be acknowledged that some things might happen as a result of divine interervention. Those of us who reject the idea of divinity are backing a hunch: we do not know that there is no god - at least, not in the terms of the only standard that is left: science, which requires rigorous proof before it says a thing is or is not so. We simply believe it. Until an apparent miracle can be scientifically explained, its cause can only be guessed at, and divine causes are imaginable.

This goes far beyond simple mechanical explanations: science must provide an answer to the question "why". Eventually, it must explain the mind of man, and account for self-awareness and abstractions. It must tell us what the square root of -1 is or why negative numbers cannot have roots. It must discover what caused the Big Bang, and what the purpose of the universe is. And it must confirm whether or not we are the crazed imaginings of some super being, or pawns in a huge chess game.

Finally, to prove its own validity, it has to demonstrate that science exists independently of god: it therefore has to prove there is no god.

Until it does all that, who's to say God isn't responsible after all?

TYWD
Once again we seem to batting this subject back and forth with no real way to resolve it. As you say, it's all a matter of belief.
One thing that I think you and I are both guilty of here, though, is treating science as if it were a living entity, a god if you will. It's not. It is simply a tool, a method of explaining the world around us, of investigating those things we don't understand. Science is humanity seeking to learn about the universe we live in.
Can we prove that God does not exist? Absolutely not. One thing that science HAS taught us is that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that something is impossible. But for all the time and effort that mankind has spent trying to prove the existence of gods, we are no closer to that proof now than we were when we worshiped the volcano gods.
And to my way of thinking, a belief in miracles stems from the same roots as a belief in a divine creator: it's an attempt to explain our world when unexplainable things happen. When you have no concept of geologic forces, it's just as valid to suppose that there is some sort of superior being living in that mountain who vomits out lava periodically.
The problem there, though, is that you can get the idea that there's something you can do to appease that being, to make him stop the destruction. And that's when you have some really smart guy, who really hates working for a living, step up and say, "All we have to do is toss a virgin into the mountain and the god will be satisfied." And when that doesn't work, well, we must really be bad, so let's find another virgin. And maybe the volcano will die down, as it's done in the past, or maybe it will destroy the village. But either way, that smart guy has it covered and before you know it he has everyone convinced that the god speaks only through him and if they don't follow the god's directions really bad things will happen.
So I say, let's forget about the gods. Let's find the real reason for that volcano erupting. Maybe we can't do anything about it, but at least we won't have to sacrifice any virgins to it. I can think of much more enjoyable things to do with them! ;)

TomOfSweden

01-10-2008, 12:52 AM

Well therein lies the issue. Where does science end.

I think it's even simpler. Some people are just more critically minded than others. That's a skill that is taught in schools, not necessarily by science institutions. And it can also be learned simply by living life. The scientific discussions on the gods existence from a scientific view, are on such a high level that it's mostly just an amusing parlour game. The supernatural religions fails before it even comes to the point where science is relevant. They're always forced to make mind boggling assumptions, for which they have absolutely no basis. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does question the basis for faith. There's a world of difference between having a theory which sounds compelling and having faith in it. I guess what makes scientifically minded people different is there ability to have faith in several different theories, and apply a ratio between how great the possibility is that any of them is right.

Christianity 000.1, Islam 000.1, Judaism 00000.1, Buddhism 000.3, Hinduism 000.1, Flying Spagghetti monster 000.1. aww god I'm cruel now. Sorry about that. The subject of religion is just asking for it.

ThisYouWillDo

01-11-2008, 05:33 AM

I guess what makes scientifically minded people different is there ability to have faith in several different theories, and apply a ratio between how great the possibility is that any of them is right.

Christianity 000.1, Islam 000.1, Judaism 00000.1, Buddhism 000.3, Hinduism 000.1, Flying Spagghetti monster 000.1. aww god I'm cruel now. Sorry about that.

Now, that I can agree with. I have never really tried to exclude the probability that science has the best, more believeable, more probable answers. I have just tried to acknowledge that there is a conceptual possibility, however improbable, that events could be divinely influenced.

Personally, I think the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is far more probable than that of a divinity: I have seen spaghetti fly with my own eyes, due to a minor dispute with "her indoors"!

So back to the original question: Do you believe in miracles? Yes I do believe they just might happen, but I believe it is far, far more likely that they don't.

TYWD

Captain

01-13-2008, 05:08 PM

I absolutely believe in miracles. I believe some are performed by God, and others through the natural occurrence of scientific probability. Let me explain. If someone is suddenly healed from a serious illness, it could that God healed them, or it was a one in a million scientific natural healing.

I believe God gave us free will and does not interact in our everyday lives as much as most religous people think. If he controlled our every move, thought, feeling, emotion...what would be the point in making us in the first place? God intends for us to lead good lives under our own free will.

Thorne

01-13-2008, 07:38 PM

I believe God gave us free will and does not interact in our everyday lives as much as most religous people think. If he controlled our every move, thought, feeling, emotion...what would be the point in making us in the first place? God intends for us to lead good lives under our own free will.

If we assume that you are right, who defines what "good" is: some smarmy TV evangelist who takes badly needed pennies from his viewers while driving around in a limousine and wearing $500 suits? A book which was devised 2000 years ago and which has been edited and adjusted to justify a repressive religion? Or perhaps some insane jihadist who hates anyone who's not as insane as he is?

No, if God exists, an assumption I'm not ready to make, he's certainly not interested in the goings-on on this ball of dirt. For mankind to assume that God is so consumed with our lives that he would change things around just because someone prays to him is the height of egotism.

Ozme52

01-13-2008, 10:54 PM

Thorne

01-14-2008, 08:29 PM

I just read A War of Gifts by Orson Scott Card.

It's an 'Ender' story and quite nice. Embedded in the midst of the story is a very very cogent perspective of faith with regard to the Bible.

Basically... the central character believes that God had the writers of the bible, men, explain things in a manner mankind could understand within the scope of knowledge at the time.

Now we know more about how the world really works... our understanding of God's works should change accordingly. Imagine... all you really have to believe is that God wrote the code and kick-started our universe. Big Bang. Believe in that and you can probably have faith and science too.

Yeah, I've heard similar concepts. And to be honest I have no quarrel with the idea. My belief, though, is that the universe is cyclical, exploding into being, expanding for billions of years, then slowly contracting back into the cosmic egg before exploding once again. If you can live with the concept that God is eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

Either way, unless you intend to ride out the end of the universe and step into the next one (see "Tau Zero" by Poul Anderson) I don't think there's any way to prove either point of view. Certainly not with our present scientific knowledge.

mkemse

01-14-2008, 10:53 PM

Have never seen anything to convience me one way or the other

Ozme52

01-14-2008, 11:54 PM

Yeah, I've heard similar concepts. And to be honest I have no quarrel with the idea. My belief, though, is that the universe is cyclical, exploding into being, expanding for billions of years, then slowly contracting back into the cosmic egg before exploding once again. If you can live with the concept that God is eternal, why can't the universe be eternal?

Either way, unless you intend to ride out the end of the universe and step into the next one (see "Tau Zero" by Poul Anderson) I don't think there's any way to prove either point of view. Certainly not with our present scientific knowledge.

Agreed. But by that very fact, (at least as far as we know as of now,) it's the one place that perhaps the two beliefs can easily co-exist. And more importantly, the issue between science and faith can also coexist.

Thorne

01-25-2008, 08:44 PM

It's funny that I seem to have empirical evidence and still I find myself doubting but if you want evidence that is astounding, I have three miracles to share. I’ll be brief.
Okay, I'm going to take you at your word that these things happened as you say they happened, or at least as you remember them. I have no doubt that you honestly believe them, and I cannot, of course, definitively say that they were NOT miracles. But I may have alternative explanations which don't necessarily require the intervention of God.

Situation one: I fell off a house and screamed Gods name as I was falling when I was nine. As I was rolling down I saw my feet go over my head and my life was ending before me. I didn't scream it as though I was begging, I screamed it as though God were my parent and I was informing him that I needed his care right then and there. I am telling you, and I'm not playing, I was instantaneously at the top of the roof again as though nothing had ever happened.
My first instinct is that this was probably a very vivid, perhaps even repetitive, dream. Maybe even a waking dream. You are playing on the roof, your mom or dad have warned you that you could fall off and get hurt, and perhaps you slipped a bit. Your mind fabricated everything right down to just above ground level. Then you woke up. As I understand it, it's common for people who are dreaming of falling to wake just before they hit. It's even happened to me. Unless there were witnesses who saw you miraculously teleported back to the roof top, I'll have to go with this explanation.

Situation two: I became deaf in one ear in college for three months. I had always been taught in my religion to expect instantaneous healings since it was what Jesus taught his disciples and tried to get them to pass the word on. I hadn't prayed about it at all when one night I decided that I was a Christian Scientist and I should be able to heal myself instantaneously. So I knew that I was a child of God. Not born into matter and that my rightful heritage was spiritual. I had only been knowing the truth for one minute max when all the fluid drained from my ear in that very instant.
We often hear about people who seem to have achieved a cure through the power of faith, or the power of the mind. It's true that the mind can do some pretty amazing things, as can the body, in times of stress. People have been known to perform some amazing physical feats to save a loved one. It can generally be explained without resorting to the mystical.
I take it that you suffered with this malady without seeing a doctor? If you had, he would probably have diagnosed a cyst of some sort and drained it himself. As it was, you had to wait for the cyst to "ripen" until it burst on its own. The belief that you magically (or miraculously, if you prefer) cured it in less than a minute is, I believe, likely to be a fiction your mind formed to try to explain it all.

Situation three: I was about 50 miles inland in the middle of nowhere. My job as an ornithologist required very remote settings. I became lost as I lost my flag line. I wondered aimlessly for 30 minutes and then panic set in. I realized my life was in danger. There literally was no way out but by boat which was an hour walk to the boat and the boat ride took 30 minutes and to get out of the forest took another 45 minutes by car. I was screwed if I didn't find the flag line! I told God. I will calm down and listen. He said to me, "Stop and know that I am God." So I stopped and prayed. He was quiet and I didn't hear him and began to get nervous so I stopped again and listened very carefully. He told me 90 degrees. So I was startled and turned my compass 90 degrees. Nothing. I thought, "That's the wrong way anyway." So I decided to head at about 350 degrees. Well I didn't make it more than three feet when I ran into a web of a spider! With the spider in it! I thought that was a sign from God so I backed up. I went back to where God had told me to turn my compass to 90 degrees. I looked again but nothing. Then I thought to myself. If He says it is 90 then it is 90. So I started at the ground and with a straight line I ran my compass into the air and it was the last flag on the corner of the plot dangling over 10 feet in the air. Holy Cow! It was then that I remembered that in Arkansas, the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge is under water when the flags were put in. God had saved my life again!
You know, Moses doubted God once and the Israelites had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. You must be particularly holy if God gave you a second chance!
No, again I must rely on the power of the mind. Consciously you were lost, and you were frightened and panicked. Understandably. But your subconscious mind was keeping track all along. It was only when you calmed yourself down, and allowed the subconscious to exert some control over your conscious mind, that you "remembered" the way out.

I am not trying to ridicule your beliefs or minimize these events. I'm sure they had a profound influence upon you. But the interpretations you, and I, make are all subjective. I am not happy with the mystical explanations and prefer more rational ones. You are convinced that God has interceded in your life. I certainly can't prove that I'm right and you're wrong. But then, neither can you.

Coincidence? If so then I should sign up for the lottery!
If God wanted you to be rich, He wouldn't have to depend upon the lottery to do it, would He?

ThisYouWillDo

01-26-2008, 12:12 PM

Well, all I can say is, it's a poor kind of god that favours some people over others for no obvious reason. What have you done to deserve three life-saving miracles, plus wealth, while other good people starve and die, fall into the hands of psychopaths and so on.

Good luck to you, Pro-Dom, I'm not envious, and I do not begrudge you your good fortune, but if you're argument is true, God is hateful.

Thorne

01-26-2008, 01:50 PM

Well Thorne, I have to say that I had 5 witnesses when I fell off the roof since we were jumping from the roof onto a trampoline. In the second senario I had put hydrogen peroxide in my ear to clean it out better. Stupid! True. But it was there for three months so why in the only minute that I was praying during that whole three months did it decide to drain right then and there? Finally, I thought that 350 degrees was the correct angle and had the 90 degrees not been said to me at the very moment when I was standing next to the flag, there is no way I could have seen it in the thick swamps. Remember I'd been wondering aimlessly for 30 minutes before realizing that I was truly lost. I think that it is important as well to be sure that it is not bullshit which is why God could fall from the sky and I would still doubt but I know for a fact that this happened and that the moment for opportunity was slim to none. If these are all coincidences then that implies there is no God and then I have revealed myself to be a winner at slim opportunities which would make the lottery a good bet. P.S. I am wealthy so I guess he's already intervened there.

So, those 5 witnesses actually saw you levitate back up onto the roof? Or saw you vanish into thin air and reappear on the roof? Or is it possible you fell off the roof, hit the trampoline and landed back on the roof?
As for the ear, I'm not a doctor, but perhaps a sudden drop in blood pressure as you grew calm while you prayed.
And after being lost, once again you calmed yourself while praying and this allowed your mind to work more freely. It's been well documented that there are significant physical changes which occur when devout people pray: drop in blood pressure, changes in cerebral activity, and so on.

Like TYWD, I would have to wonder why you have been singled out to receive such blessings from a God who seems to have abandoned even some of his most faithful servants. It would seem to be a most capricious God indeed.

mkemse

01-27-2008, 06:14 PM

To be honest, I have never seen or not seen anything to make me believe either way, sorry if that sounds strange

ThisYouWillDo

01-27-2008, 06:32 PM

I am one of the confirmed atheists who is prepared to admit that he is wrong. That's not to say I'm agnostic, I truly believe there is no god - but I could be wrong. You have completely failed to change my mind, however.

Now you might have been taught that God has no favourites, but the evidence is there to demonstrate quite clearly the opposite. Look at Africa. Look at the Middle East. Look, even, at the inner cities of the West. Then look at the wealth of western farmers, industrialists and bankers, most of whose wealth was taken from the poor: precious little was earned by the sweat of their brows! Look too at the ostentatious wealth of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches. Then regard their poor missions to developing countries. God's work or Satan's? You tell me.

(I recall it used to be said that most of the brothels in London were owned by the Church of England!)

The USA could take several of the poorest nations out of poverty at a stroke if it chose to, so too could Britain, Germany, France and Japan. Many other developed nations could make significant inroads on the dire poverty some of God's children face daily. They prefer to serve their own interests first.

Besides, the Bible tells us that the Jews are God's Chosen People after he made a covenant with Abraham to bless and protect the Jewish people provided they worshipped him faithfully.

If there is a God, he DOES have favourites. Your teachers lied to you, or at least, misled you.

We have already established, in another thread, that God is not perfect and also that he is probably malign, as he "tests" his perfect creations (which, if perfect, could not fail). We all know that we are imperfect and flawed, and God knew beforehand that we would fail his test.

After we failed, he punished us.

Some people see the truth clearly, others see mirages.

TYWD

Thorne

01-27-2008, 07:55 PM

After we failed, he punished us.
Even that would be consistent. But we aren't even given a chance! IF the bible is accurate, then God has punished all the generations of mankind for the sins of one man and one woman! This is certainly not the action of a just and merciful god.

mkemse

01-27-2008, 10:12 PM

I do not wish to make light of or a joke out of this serious question, but If the Chicago Cubs win the World Series in 2008 I will in fact believe in miracles, they will be ilvinig proof after 100 years of waiting that miracles do happen

ThisYouWillDo

01-28-2008, 05:22 AM

Don't know anything about the Cubs, but as a Leicester City supporter, I understand the sentiment!

ThisYouWillDo

01-28-2008, 05:41 AM

<deleted: just an unnecessary smart-arse comment.>

Warbaby1943

01-28-2008, 05:56 AM

Simply put do you believe that God still performs miracles today?Simply answered - yes I do.

TomOfSweden

01-29-2008, 06:30 AM

It's funny that I seem to have empirical evidence and still I find myself doubting but if you want evidence that is astounding, I have three miracles to share. I’ll be brief.

Situation one: I fell off a house and screamed Gods name as I was falling when I was nine. As I was rolling down I saw my feet go over my head and my life was ending before me. I didn't scream it as though I was begging, I screamed it as though God were my parent and I was informing him that I needed his care right then and there. I am telling you, and I'm not playing, I was instantaneously at the top of the roof again as though nothing had ever happened.

Situation two: I became deaf in one ear in college for three months. I had always been taught in my religion to expect instantaneous healings since it was what Jesus taught his disciples and tried to get them to pass the word on. I hadn't prayed about it at all when one night I decided that I was a Christian Scientist and I should be able to heal myself instantaneously. So I knew that I was a child of God. Not born into matter and that my rightful heritage was spiritual. I had only been knowing the truth for one minute max when all the fluid drained from my ear in that very instant.

Situation three: I was about 50 miles inland in the middle of nowhere. My job as an ornithologist required very remote settings. I became lost as I lost my flag line. I wondered aimlessly for 30 minutes and then panic set in. I realized my life was in danger. There literally was no way out but by boat which was an hour walk to the boat and the boat ride took 30 minutes and to get out of the forest took another 45 minutes by car. I was screwed if I didn't find the flag line! I told God. I will calm down and listen. He said to me, "Stop and know that I am God." So I stopped and prayed. He was quiet and I didn't hear him and began to get nervous so I stopped again and listened very carefully. He told me 90 degrees. So I was startled and turned my compass 90 degrees. Nothing. I thought, "That's the wrong way anyway." So I decided to head at about 350 degrees. Well I didn't make it more than three feet when I ran into a web of a spider! With the spider in it! I thought that was a sign from God so I backed up. I went back to where God had told me to turn my compass to 90 degrees. I looked again but nothing. Then I thought to myself. If He says it is 90 then it is 90. So I started at the ground and with a straight line I ran my compass into the air and it was the last flag on the corner of the plot dangling over 10 feet in the air. Holy Cow! It was then that I remembered that in Arkansas, the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge is under water when the flags were put in. God had saved my life again!

Coincidence? If so then I should sign up for the lottery!

The thing is that I've experienced plenty of similar things. It's just that my assumption has always been that it's my mind playing tricks on me. This is down to faith. I've got a great one with the sky lighting up, angels, trumpets, divine presences and a great epiphany. The whole circus. But even though I've seen it, I'm still convinced that there was nothing there. That's my faith. I have a very over active mind. If I gave that credence, I'll have to have faith in all kinds of monsters and space aliens. I've chosen to give all of them a miss. Faith.

We know perception is interpretative. Basically, if we believe in God, we'll see God everywhere, and if we don't, we won't. So here is the dilemma. Since we can't trust our senses, how do we know what is really there?

Christians seem to be at ease about the fact that God is hiding whenever Scientists try to prove his existence, or even whenever there's a measuring device in the vicinity. Personally, that only serves to make me suspicious, but that's just me. And it's certainly no proof God doesn't perform miracles, or even exists. But if God would exist it would strongly suggest that God didn't want me specifically to believe in him/her. Just out of respect for Gods wishes, I'll refrain from faith in him/her.

amen

Here's (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ninja_parade_slips_through_town) a fun little video on topic

edit:
... and there's that great quote from Jesus Christ superstar. From Judas lips:

"Everytime I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned
Why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?
If you'd come TODAY you would have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
Don't you get me wrong - I only want to know"

That's a film I don't understand how it could keep from being black listed by Christian fundamentalists. To me it's a vitriolic attack on Christianity as a whole. But, hey... that's just my interpretation.

ThisYouWillDo

01-29-2008, 06:46 AM

You're considerate to a fault, Tom

ThisYouWillDo

01-29-2008, 07:02 AM

ProDom

I was about to make a considered rebuttal to your last post about coke bottles and walking in truth with God - and then I realised - you're having a laugh aren't you!!!!

HA HA HA

TYWD

ThisYouWillDo

01-29-2008, 07:08 AM

Tom

Maybe it's because the words came from the mouth of Judas and it is to be expected that an arch-villain like him would attack Christianity: they didn't take it seriously.

TYWD

TomOfSweden

01-29-2008, 08:05 AM

Tom

Maybe it's because the words came from the mouth of Judas and it is to be expected that an arch-villain like him would attack Christianity: they didn't take it seriously.

TYWD

Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar is a bit different than "life of Christ" interpretations generally are. His is the voice of reason. What reason did he have to believe Jesus was the son of God? All he had was his word. Judas is the main narrator of the story. We're supposed to identify with Judas. So by coming from his lips, these words are intended to be the thoughts of the onlooker, which makes it so much stronger!

I'm sure that's why Judas is black. The director assumed that racist people are also the same dogmatic idiots who cannot reconcile the idea of reinterpretations of the Bible. By making Judas black, it'll go right over their narrow minded barely functioning heads. Maybe that's why nobody reacted. It's a theory.

I love it BTW. It's the singing and music. I'm not really interested in critique or attacks on Biblical myths. Why bother? Musicals rock!

Maybe I'm a screaming queen at heart... Maybe I'm so far into the closet I don't even notice I'm in it!

TomOfSweden

02-08-2008, 05:56 AM

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4FBM1GD-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5bec941258920dada37d6fa5b5839854

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4GDK9G4-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fd4cc23dbbcc54f72bc6d8d43fa3d60e

Here's two reports linking belief in the paranormal, (like being a Christian for example) and witnessing miracles with predisposition for schizophrenia.

So if you've met God, you might want to get yourself checked.

For me it wasn't a surprise. Schizophrenics see things that aren't there and religious people see things, I'm convinced aren't there either. Sounds pretty similar, doesn't it?

ThisYouWillDo

02-08-2008, 06:22 AM

I wondered why He and I are so alike!

rabbit111

02-08-2008, 07:07 AM

There are miracles around us every day if only we take the time to notice. The things I feel and the joy that we experience in our lives every day is a miracle. Can you wander along a street and see a miracle? I can and do every single day.
How can you not look at the wonder in a childs eyes and not see a miracle. To see the love that people feel for each other reflected in their eyes and smiles, surely that's a miracle of all. Don't listen to the media and all those who tell us what's wrong with our world and our loves, instead open your own eyes, see things for yourself and enjoy the thousands of miracles that surround you every single moment.
It's all in the way you look at life. I feel sorry for those who don't see miracles.

TomOfSweden

02-08-2008, 07:14 AM

ThisYouWillDo

02-08-2008, 10:56 AM

In a godless universe (multiverse?) there is only one miracle: chance.

Thorne

02-08-2008, 03:10 PM

It's all in the way you look at life. I feel sorry for those who don't see miracles.

I'm much more comfortable seeing reality than trying to visualize things that aren't there. Don't feel sorry for me, though. I feel sorry for those who try to block out reality by sentimental musings and pseudo religious visions. Sooner or later the real world will break through and knock them for a loop.

markus_valtion

02-08-2008, 03:37 PM

TomOfSweden

02-09-2008, 03:53 AM

In a godless universe (multiverse?) there is only one miracle: chance.

Isn't that a bit narrow definition of Miracle? How about miracles as "the incomprehensible"?

Thorne

02-09-2008, 01:40 PM

i do believe in miracles. i would be dead if they didnt exsist.
i have had so many close calls in my life. but to me its not god that makes them.
its weird but i believe that something or someone is watching over me.

I hear this kind of thing all the time after some sort of catastrophe. Something happens and someone doesn't get killed and right away they claim it's a miracle, that they prayed and God saved them. So why didn't God save the other 29 people who died that day? I'm sure they were praying, too.

No, I'm with TYWD on this one. (Talk about MIRACLES!!!) Chance plays a much larger roll in our lives than any of us want to admit. Miracles let us assume that we have at least some form of control: if we pray hard enough, or lead good lives, or do SOMETHING, then we'll be protected. Chance is completely beyond our control. It either hits you or it doesn't.

Thorne

02-09-2008, 01:45 PM

Isn't that a bit narrow definition of Miracle? How about miracles as "the incomprehensible"?

No, incomprehensible means just that: we cannot comprehend it. That doesn't make it a miracle. Just unknown.

The Bible claims that Jesus walked on water, and proclaims it a miracle. A thousand years later if someone walked on water they would be executed as a witch. Now, if you see that it's probably David Blaine. Where's the miracle?

ThisYouWillDo

02-09-2008, 05:31 PM

I'll stick with "chance".

Assuming a multiverse, it's inevitable that this universe would have come into being. Assuming a universe, the chances of everything falling into place the way they did are mind-boggling (but not impossible), and it does tend to make you wonder if there's a place for a higher power.

TYWD

(And I think Thorne's a perectly reasonable man when he sees things my way! But I'm sure I just alienated him.)

Thorne

02-09-2008, 08:21 PM

Assuming a multiverse, it's inevitable that this universe would have come into being. Assuming a universe, the chances of everything falling into place the way they did are mind-boggling (but not impossible), and it does tend to make you wonder if there's a place for a higher power.
Why? As you state, there HAS to be a universe, or we couldn't be here. But it didn't HAVE to turn out this way. If it were different, then we would be different, or at least beings in that universe would be different. And they would undoubtedly be standing around wondering how they could have gotten so lucky to have the universe turn out perfectly to suit them!

No, chance plays its part, but it is WE who are attuned to this universe, not the other way around. If it is possible for life to exist on a world without water (and that means ANY kind of life, not just life as we know it) then there is a possibility for that life to advance to a point of intelligence, or what we would recognize as intelligence. Their universe would be much different than ours, but it's still the same "multiverse."

(And I think Thorne's a perectly reasonable man when he sees things my way! But I'm sure I just alienated him.)
Alienated? Not at all! You're right: I am a perfectly reasonable man when you see things my way. I also happen to be a perfectly reasonable man when you DON'T see things my way.

By damn, that makes me perfect! Where are all the ladies?

Thorne

02-10-2008, 07:50 AM

You know, I just thought of a way to put it. Let's say that 29 people take a test but only two pass. Just like 29 people boarded a train that crashes and only two survive. Why only two? The other people prayed the other people studied. My answer is that only the two people who understood the rule survived or passed the test. If you don't understand that 2 + 2 =4 you won't ever pass but the rule was always true and always there. If you don't understand that God governs every moment and that you are spiritual and not material then you will have to learn that lesson another way. Jesus prooved that there is no death and so the 26 who passed on did just that; they didn't die just passed on. They awoke to realize that death never touched them, that they did not get off at a station called death. Did God love them any less? No. Does your math teacher love you any less? No.

Okay, I'm going to jump in with both feet here, and the hell with the consequences.
Is it possible that only two people passed the test because the teacher (God) grades on the curve? Chances are my math teacher doesn't love me, or care how I do, as long as his statistics show he's doing a good job. (And by the way, I know my math: two survivors plus 26 who passed on makes only 28 people! WHERE'S THAT LAST ONE HIDING???)

Do you honestly believe that a God who would destroy peoples lives, or allow peoples lives to be destroyed, is worthy of any kind of adoration? A God who inflicts vile diseases upon innocent children? A God who seems to have absolutely no pity for some people who try their damndest to please him? Is it possible that you can truly believe that those people who don't do or act precisely the way YOU think they should act can not be saved?

No, a loving and merciful God, which all those preachers claim he is, wouldn't give a rip HOW we worship, or even IF we worship. He would only be concerned with how we LIVE! How we use the life he gave us. Using your math analogy, when the teacher gives you a complex problem, the good teachers don't really care HOW you get to the solution, so long as you get there. The bad teachers require you to get there in only one way, and if you don't, you fail, regardless of whether or not you got the right answer!

And as for Jesus rising from the dead, I challenge you, or anyone else for that matter, to show me positive evidence, which doesn't ultimately arise from the Bible or the teachings of his disciples, that Jesus even existed, much less rose from the dead. It's my understanding that it can't be done: there is no evidence anywhere, except in the Bible, that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible actually existed. Hell, even the Bible contradicts itself about far too many important portions of his supposed life. There is ample independent evidence that Pilate existed, and Herod, and even Caiphus, the high priest. But there is nothing independent to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was ever tried, convicted or crucified.

I would guess this is going to piss off a lot of people, but I don't care anymore. This "holier-than-thou" attitude really drives me up the wall. And it's not just Christians. There are very few, if any, religions which accept the idea that other religions can be just as right as their own. And they are all based on suppositions, stories, fables and outright lies. The world would be a whole lot better place without all those religions fighting one another.

I've got it! Let's send all the priests/ministers/rabbis/mullahs out to battle one another. And may none of them come back alive.

ThisYouWillDo

02-10-2008, 05:01 PM

I agree with Thorne almost entirely, but I would prefer to think that a good Maths teacher would care little about whether the final answer was right, so long as the correct method was used to solve the problem, while a bad teacher wouldn't care about your understanding if you guessed the answer correctly.

I have always wondered why a god needs to be worshipped and praised. Does it make him feel good? Is there a heavenly opinion poll carrried out each week to see if Jehovah is more popular than Shiva, Vishnu, or Jupiter.

It also seems to me that a "jealous" god is probably also a very insecure god, and his motives are suspect, especially if he tries to "buy" adoration by promising one particular race of people preferential treatment over all others.

And why do we have to "deserve" salvation, when our imperfections are of his making? I am at a loss to understand why, if they prayed and studied, god would desert your 26 or 27 failed mathematicians in their moment of need. That certainly goes against what many Christian preachers suggest.

TYWD

ThisYouWillDo

02-10-2008, 05:22 PM

Why? As you state, there HAS to be a universe, or we couldn't be here. But it didn't HAVE to turn out this way. If it were different, then we would be different, or at least beings in that universe would be different. And they would undoubtedly be standing around wondering how they could have gotten so lucky to have the universe turn out perfectly to suit them!

No, chance plays its part, but it is WE who are attuned to this universe, not the other way around. If it is possible for life to exist on a world without water (and that means ANY kind of life, not just life as we know it) then there is a possibility for that life to advance to a point of intelligence, or what we would recognize as intelligence. Their universe would be much different than ours, but it's still the same "multiverse."

You're mixing universes and multiverses up. But I understand what you say. Life may be very common in this universe, and if it had come into existence in another way, life forms might still have been tenable. But it seems far more probable that it would have been absolutely sterile. For that reason alone it is not surprising that we think we see the hand of some greater being at work.

With a multiverse, there will be countless numbers of universes each having its own separate existence and its own set of scientific laws. It seems likely to me that many, many of them will support life in one form or another, but that many, many, many more will be utterly devoid of anything even remotely resembling life. The Hand of God will not be so obvious.

By damn, that makes me perfect! Where are all the ladies?

Sitting at my feet with rapt adoration.

TYWD

Thorne

02-10-2008, 09:23 PM

You're mixing universes and multiverses up. But I understand what you say. Life may be very common in this universe, and if it had come into existence in another way, life forms might still have been tenable. But it seems far more probable that it would have been absolutely sterile. For that reason alone it is not surprising that we think we see the hand of some greater being at work.

I don't think this is accurate. More and more, scientists are finding that life seems to thrive under absolutely horrible conditions. There is evidence that life may have existed on Mars, even if it doesn't now, and there MAY possibly be life on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Even here on Earth they have found life existing in environments which, just 30 years ago, they would have assumed to be sterile.
My point is, though, that just because man is the only intelligent species on the planet (as defined by ourselves: I'm not forgetting the cetaceans or other apes) we should not make the assumption that there must have been a higher being to create us. If that asteroid hadn't wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, is it possible that a saurian intelligence could have arisen here, rather than mammalian?
Let's face it: so far, 100% of the stellar systems we are able to study have intelligent life. The odds are good that there is more out there, somewhere, and it doesn't have to be mammalian or saurian or even carbon-based.

By damn, that makes me perfect! Where are all the ladies?
Sitting at my feet with rapt adoration.
Hmm, I guess I'll have to bring myself down to your level, then.

Thorne

02-10-2008, 09:28 PM

Well shit Thorne I don't know I was just playing devils advocate. I'm as atheist as they come. That's the religion I grew up with. I think if there is a God then I would worship this God because he is not the creator of sin, sickness and death. That means he never did anything on earth that you claim as it does not exist. I don't even believe in God at all. I just have to live with the fact that those three experiences are beyond explanation. You weren't there for any of them so you don't understand but still you want to say fuck God then fuck him, who cares, he doesn't exist anyway. I bet you didn't peg me for atheist huh? I believe in evolution that makes more since to me.

Well, DAMN, Pro Dom, you had me going there. I'm from the dead center of the Bible belt and I've heard local nuts who weren't as eloquent about there religion as you seemed to be. The last thing they need is a Devil's advocate. In fact, that's the last thing they would want!

TomOfSweden

02-11-2008, 12:24 AM

No, incomprehensible means just that: we cannot comprehend it. That doesn't make it a miracle. Just unknown.

The Bible claims that Jesus walked on water, and proclaims it a miracle. A thousand years later if someone walked on water they would be executed as a witch. Now, if you see that it's probably David Blaine. Where's the miracle?

That wasn't convincing. I still don't see a difference. All religious miracles are not only of unknown origin but also undetectable. How more unknown do you want to get?!?

ThisYouWillDo

02-11-2008, 03:53 AM

Thorne.

I don't believe there is evidence of life outside Earth, whether past or present. There are indications that life as we know it is/was/might be possible, but no hard and fast evidence.

That said, my point is, while life might be abundant in a universe that permits life to exist, and it would be surprising that no life ever evolved in such circumstances, it seems far more probable that a universe that comes into existence purely by chance will produce conditions that are inimical to all life forms.

TYWD

ThisYouWillDo

02-11-2008, 11:18 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw&mode=related&search=

This time Dawkins is having a go at science. Beside being interesting I think It's extremely funny. Among other things he defends belief in miracles. But it's not really about religion so I guess it's just a side note.

I've just come across Tom's post on another thread and thought it'd be an interesting side-note here too.

TomOfSweden

02-11-2008, 11:22 AM

I've just come across Tom's post on another thread and thought it'd be an interesting side-note here too.

Good repost. That's one of those classical speeches that will go down in history as one of the most important ones ever. Dawkins may not be the best philosopher in the world, (I'm thinking about the God Delusion), but nobody can criticize him for his absolute understanding of science and it's limits. He's a king.

wmrs2

02-16-2008, 10:38 PM

I agree with Thorne that the miracles of our forebearers can be almost entirely explained through scientific inquiry. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Knowing why a rainbow happens does not lessen its beauty. In fact, I think knowing the enormous odds of not only our planet developing in such a way to sustain life but the fact that you (individual) exist, is pretty darn miraculous. Is it the hand of G*d? In my opinion, it doesn't matter. I'm just thankful to have people like you in my life.

Well said Euryeia. To a cave man fire is a miracle. A greater miracle is that the cave man understands by rubbing sticks together fire is made. Knowing what to do with the fire is even a greater miracle. Understanding the scientific method is also a miracle. Finding faith is God is a miracle. Knowing how to make man's situation better by using God is a greater miracle. The amount of evil in the world does not mean we should not believe in God. It does mean we need to use God better just like the cave man learned to cook food with fire and warm himself. Let's do that with God. Let's use him better, as He is a process and the way. To not believe in God because everything does not go our way may not be real smart.

wmrs2

02-16-2008, 11:55 PM

Okay, I'm going to jump in with both feet here, and the hell with the consequences.
Is it possible that only two people passed the test because the teacher (God) grades on the curve? Chances are my math teacher doesn't love me, or care how I do, as long as his statistics show he's doing a good job. (And by the way, I know my math: two survivors plus 26 who passed on makes only 28 people! WHERE'S THAT LAST ONE HIDING???)

Do you honestly believe that a God who would destroy peoples lives, or allow peoples lives to be destroyed, is worthy of any kind of adoration? A God who inflicts vile diseases upon innocent children? A God who seems to have absolutely no pity for some people who try their damndest to please him? Is it possible that you can truly believe that those people who don't do or act precisely the way YOU think they should act can not be saved?

No, a loving and merciful God, which all those preachers claim he is, wouldn't give a rip HOW we worship, or even IF we worship. He would only be concerned with how we LIVE! How we use the life he gave us. Using your math analogy, when the teacher gives you a complex problem, the good teachers don't really care HOW you get to the solution, so long as you get there. The bad teachers require you to get there in only one way, and if you don't, you fail, regardless of whether or not you got the right answer!

And as for Jesus rising from the dead, I challenge you, or anyone else for that matter, to show me positive evidence, which doesn't ultimately arise from the Bible or the teachings of his disciples, that Jesus even existed, much less rose from the dead. It's my understanding that it can't be done: there is no evidence anywhere, except in the Bible, that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible actually existed. Hell, even the Bible contradicts itself about far too many important portions of his supposed life. There is ample independent evidence that Pilate existed, and Herod, and even Caiphus, the high priest. But there is nothing independent to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was ever tried, convicted or crucified.

I would guess this is going to piss off a lot of people, but I don't care anymore. This "holier-than-thou" attitude really drives me up the wall. And it's not just Christians. There are very few, if any, religions which accept the idea that other religions can be just as right as their own. And they are all based on suppositions, stories, fables and outright lies. The world would be a whole lot better place without all those religions fighting one another.

I've got it! Let's send all the priests/ministers/rabbis/mullahs out to battle one another. And may none of them come back alive.

Thorne, it is a highly emotional use of logic to blame a God that does not exist for the evil that is in the world. Why not blame mankind for the evil inflected on man. I don't see God killing and bringing sickness to the world. All the evil you speak of, I see man doing it to himself.

As for the proof of God, the Christ, Western Civilization's very existence is evidence that Christ existed. If you will not accept this, nothing will convince you that Christ lived. Myself, I see Christ's mark everywhere.

Think of God as a process. If man would listen to God, observe Him, and learn to use God things would be better for all. God is like a golf swing. It takes a lot of practice to perfect it. If you would practice using God more, you would feel better about the world. (One more thing, God is a Republican.):dont:

TomOfSweden

02-17-2008, 02:02 AM

Well said Euryeia. To a cave man fire is a miracle. A greater miracle is that the cave man understands by rubbing sticks together fire is made. Knowing what to do with the fire is even a greater miracle. Understanding the scientific method is also a miracle. Finding faith is God is a miracle. Knowing how to make man's situation better by using God is a greater miracle. The amount of evil in the world does not mean we should not believe in God. It does mean we need to use God better just like the cave man learned to cook food with fire and warm himself. Let's do that with God. Let's use him better, as He is a process and the way. To not believe in God because everything does not go our way may not be real smart.

Actually, evil in the world is proof that God doesn't exist according to Christian doctrine. The Theodicy Paradox, is in a mathematical sense a real paradox, ie the basic theory is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

There are many many more Christian paradoxes. All pose real problems. What the Catholic church has traditionally done is ignore them. Thomas Aquinas penned them all down and hoped future Christian researchers would solve them. This has yet to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems. I'm not trying to be cheeky or nasty to Christians now. These are real problems for Christianity which they've been struggling with since Constantin decided that Christian faith was a matter for the state and not a question of personal conviction. This is when he ordered the compilation of the Vulgate Bible. Which is the most popular Christian Bible today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate_Bible

Another solution is to read the Bible liberally. But then you'll have the next problem. What is your opinion, and what is the message from God? But the original New Testament was just a bunch of lose pages and articles, so that is going back to the roots. But it'll be very hard to track all of them down. It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.

These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

Thorne

02-17-2008, 09:19 AM

Thorne, it is a highly emotional use of logic to blame a God that does not exist for the evil that is in the world. Why not blame mankind for the evil inflected on man. I don't see God killing and bringing sickness to the world. All the evil you speak of, I see man doing it to himself.
I do not blame God for anything, as I don't believe he does exist. My point was that IF he existed, I could still not worship him because of the things he ALLOWS to happen. And if he is the ultimate creator of all that we know then he is, in some sense, responsible. Evil could not exist without God's knowledge and acceptance.

As for the proof of God, the Christ, Western Civilization's very existence is evidence that Christ existed. If you will not accept this, nothing will convince you that Christ lived. Myself, I see Christ's mark everywhere.
Yes, this is an old argument: God exists because I KNOW he exists. Western Civilization has nothing to do with the actual existence of Christ, but rather with the existence of the CONCEPT of Christ. My question is about whether the MAN existed. Any culture which develops a religion can "prove" that their gods exist by the actions those gods supposedly take. The crops grow every year, so their must be a god/goddess of fertility; the moon floats serenely overhead and only a god/goddess could do that, ergo there is a lunar god. You can attribute anything that you don't understand or can't control to the actions or inactions of the gods.
And actually, it's Western Law, rather than Civilization, which owes so much to the teachings of the Church. Like it or not, most nations' laws are based in some measure upon the Ten Commandments. But the Greeks and Romans did far more for the advance of Civilization than the Church ever did.

Think of God as a process. If man would listen to God, observe Him, and learn to use God things would be better for all. God is like a golf swing. It takes a lot of practice to perfect it. If you would practice using God more, you would feel better about the world. (One more thing, God is a Republican.)
Personally, I think of God as a convenient fiction which man developed at a time when he needed something to explain the world around him. As for God's political leanings, I must wonder to which God you are referring. Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is probably a Republican. Christ, the God of the New Testament, is more likely to be a Democrat.

Thorne

02-17-2008, 09:36 AM

It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.
These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

This is one of the major problems with religion. On the one hand they tell you that one cannot truly know the mind of God, and on the other hand they tell you EXACTLY how God wants you to behave. How can both be true?

Personally, I find it impossible to trust anyone who proclaims that he knows what God wants. They may believe they know, and might even believe they are actually DOING what God wants, but I still don't think they can be trusted to have MY welfare at heart. I always feel they are more interested in my checkbook than my soul.

wmrs2

02-17-2008, 09:57 AM

Actually, evil in the world is proof that God doesn't exist according to Christian doctrine. The Theodicy Paradox, is in a mathematical sense a real paradox, ie the basic theory is flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

There are many many more Christian paradoxes. All pose real problems. What the Catholic church has traditionally done is ignore them. Thomas Aquinas penned them all down and hoped future Christian researchers would solve them. This has yet to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems. I'm not trying to be cheeky or nasty to Christians now. These are real problems for Christianity which they've been struggling with since Constantin decided that Christian faith was a matter for the state and not a question of personal conviction. This is when he ordered the compilation of the Vulgate Bible. Which is the most popular Christian Bible today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate_Bible

Another solution is to read the Bible liberally. But then you'll have the next problem. What is your opinion, and what is the message from God? But the original New Testament was just a bunch of lose pages and articles, so that is going back to the roots. But it'll be very hard to track all of them down. It also makes it very hard to tell what God wants.

These are all extremely hard problems to solve. And need to be solved for the Christian scientific theories to work even hypothetically.

Religion is More Personal
People like you are necessary and fun to discuss and converse with. If you want the facts, you have these. Your knowledge of the subject is real and very intellectual. It is real on the personal and subjective level. In any intellectual discussion with me, you would certainly overpower me with your vast knowledge.

What I like to talk about is not intellectual in any academic sense. When the cave man discovered fire, he discovered a miracle which he translated into a basic, primitive religion which improved his life and the life of others. For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth.

Your statement, "To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems" does not apply The point here in the Bible has been well taken. The truth here is obviously true by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct when you say the Bible needs to be read with a liberal slant. That's what Christ preached also. He was very much a liberal.

What many attack as Christianity is not really Christianity at all. Christianity is more than historical interpretation. It is very much more personal. I hope this helps.

TomOfSweden

02-17-2008, 12:30 PM

Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind.

What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?

Religion is More Personal

It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth.

Your statement, "To be Christian today you have to either reject the accuracy of the Bible or reject logic as a valid system to solve problems" does not apply The point here in the Bible has been well taken.

You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now

The truth here is obviously true by any stretch of the imagination. You are correct when you say the Bible needs to be read with a liberal slant. That's what Christ preached also. He was very much a liberal.

So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

What many attack as Christianity is not really Christianity at all. Christianity is more than historical interpretation. It is very much more personal. I hope this helps.

You'll have no argument there. I'm not going to hold what one Christian does in the name of religion toward another.

Just to be clear here. I suspect that you're using the word "truth" as an abstract and empty container, void of meaning. And just using it a lot because it has positive connotations. If the message of Christ is the truth, it's is the message and not the label of truth that is relevant, isn't it? Tell me a Christian truth. Anything? Please give me something concrete to have an opinion about or reply to.

wmrs2

02-17-2008, 02:44 PM

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;560628]What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?

You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now

So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

God Wants Actions

Sorry Tom that I took so long to give you an answer. My K-board on the PC broke down. Here's your urgent answer.

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically. For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

Thorne

02-17-2008, 07:08 PM

Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.
So, if I believe that God wants me to beat my wife because she burned my dinner, that makes it okay? It seems self-evident to me!! (NOT!)

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind.
Certainly! Just look at the Crusades, and the consequences which we are STILL living with!

Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.
Funny, but I was once told by a seemingly intelligent preacher that most people don't have the understanding to interpret the Bible, and should rely on those trained to interpret its "truths." Where's the difference?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.
Yes we certainly wouldn't want to confuse the ignorant serfs with the facts, would we? They might just decide that they don't really NEED us!
This kind of logic kept humanity in virtual slavery to religion for millennia. It's about time we eliminated it, don't you think?

TomOfSweden

02-18-2008, 01:25 AM

God Wants Actions

And you base this opinion/truth on what exactly? Your intuition?

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

The point with academic studies, isn't to impress with big brain on internet forums. It is comparing ideas and learning from each other. You're rejecting this and replacing it only with intuition. I'm guessing that you're not a scholar. If that is the case, what you are doing is rejecting thousands of years of work, that you haven't read, and draw conclusions about the futility of their work. But you're not against studying are you? You read the Bible don't you?

For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

So what do you need God for? If being good is self evident then religion can be rejected, right? I'd personally call it instinct or human nature. But that's just me.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I'm not going to argue. But I think the did what they did, not because they believed in God, but because of helping others made them feel good about themselves, and affirmed them. Humans are a helpful species. We're social, and we like to help those we can connect and empathise with.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Wikipedia is for laypeople. It's the whole point of it. So I think you'll do fine.

If truth is relative you need to give a context.

You wrote the bellow text:
"For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth."

Is the Bible seeking to enlighten mankind? Is this relative? If the good Samaritan would have done it anyway, what did he need God and the Bible for? How has he been enlightened if he had done it anyway? And then you go on to saying that "it is no fault or error in it", like a statement. As if it needs pointing out if it would have been true.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

Again, what does the "real scholar of truth" need God for? If he's taught parables that are self evident, he doesn't need them does he?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us.

So you're basically saying that God is irrelevant? If the existence of God isn't important, I assume that you don't care either way?

We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

But your facts wouldn't confuse a man with bad common sense?

edit: BTW. There is no need to apologise for not answering fast. I prefer you taking your time and making sure what you write is what you had in your mind and what it is you want us to understand.

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

A problem with parables is that they need interpreting. Which brings us back to the issue with truth. How can you possibly know that you've interpreted something correctly? How can you ever say that you know what God wants? How can you ever say that your actions are in accordance with Gods wishes?

Ozme52

02-18-2008, 12:16 PM

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. :rolleyes: <<== ;)

ThisYouWillDo

02-18-2008, 06:42 PM

Ummm - the Eastern Orthodox Christians might take an opposing view, and that it was Rome which fell into error leading to the Schism

<No I am not having an anti-Ozme day, even if it looks like it!>

Ozme52

02-18-2008, 07:09 PM

Ummm - the Eastern Orthodox Christians might take an opposing view, and that it was Rome which fell into error leading to the Schism

No issue there. My point is that it is indeed in the eye of the beholder... and not based on any underlying "truth".

<No I am not having an anti-Ozme day, even if it looks like it!>

No problem TY.

('course I haven't read what else you've shot my way today yet :D)

ThisYouWillDo

02-18-2008, 07:14 PM

No issue there. My point is that it is indeed in the eye of the beholder... and not based on any underlying "truth".

So true ...

TomOfSweden

02-19-2008, 05:20 AM

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. :rolleyes: <<== ;)

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

Ozme52

02-19-2008, 12:39 PM

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant.

Well, not really because, unfortunately, while you look for a way to "know" and to prove what is "true" most people are

... arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth.

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

ThisYouWillDo

02-19-2008, 07:17 PM

Apparently, people with greater religious beliefs are likely to live longer than average. It seems there is even scientific evidence to support this, but how good it is, I don't know.

Still, it seems we have a miracle: God lets his followers live longer.

TYWD

Thorne

02-19-2008, 08:33 PM

wmrs2

02-19-2008, 11:10 PM

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life. To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Take a bad experience one has in religious purists, for example. Would a person be better off to stay away from religion altogether? Should he change his mind about religion? Should he try to change religious behaviors with a different model? Should he become bitter? The bad experience will lead to another experience depending how one reacts (or doesn't react) to the bad experience.

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

TomOfSweden

02-19-2008, 11:46 PM

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

I think you're totally wrong. All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level. If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

TomOfSweden

02-20-2008, 01:37 AM

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

That's the definition of faith. You have evidence for something and each time you check the result is the same. When you've checked enough times without any deviation it's safe to assume it'll always be the same, we call it faith. It's the same for scientific or religious faith. When I'm out walking I don't go running between lamp posts and grabbing them tightly just in case gravity might give way. I have faith in that it'll keep working. Even when I'm not watching. I'm a man of faith.

But you're leaving out the most interesting detail. How did you reach this conclusion that "God is absolute truth"? How did you work it out? How can you be sure that it isn't just in your head?

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life.

I didn't get this? Are you talking about how much evidence you need for faith in God?

To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Are you saying that "intuition" is the same thing as "self evident truths"? I wouldn't mind you explaining this. How do we know when a truth is self evident? My intuition tells me God doesn't exist. If intuition is self evident truths, then is my brain broken?

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

But Artistotelian logic can prove Christian theory of God has logical inconsistencies, (ie the Christian paradoxes). How do you reconcile that? How can the theory of God be true and false at the same time? How can God be good when there is evil in the world? Once again, what I think you're doing is removing the content of the "Scientific method" and "Aristotelian logic" and treating them as empty abstractions, because it looks good in a sentence. I'll grant you that it saves you the effort of understanding it, but doesn't add to your argument. You cannot apply the scientific method to something that cannot be measured. Some say this is proof God doesn't exist. Some say it's down to nonoverlapping Magisteria, but if that is the case your Christian faith cannot teach you anything about science. What you mean with "historical approach" I'm not sure? Hegelian dialectical reading of history perhaps? It's the standard method today of interpreting history.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

You'll have no argument there. But there's a world of difference between living your life as Christian because that's what sounds the most plausible to you, and having faith. One is arrogant and the other one is an educated guess.

Ozme52

02-20-2008, 03:50 PM

I think you're totally wrong. Perhaps. I will admit I had fundamentalist types in my mind as I wrote my comment. Those who out and out reject any possible interpretation of the world that implies that the bible isn't the actual word of God. Those who reject science and would prefer blind obedience... and who would force it on you if only they could.
All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level. I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.
If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data. heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

ThisYouWillDo

02-20-2008, 07:53 PM

Let us not forget that, historically, non-believers tend to die at the hands of believers! Skews the data. ;)

Believers have died at the hands of non-believers too. Joseph Stalin made a creditable one-man attempt to restore the imbalance, for example!

Thorne

02-20-2008, 09:27 PM

Believers have died at the hands of non-believers too. Joseph Stalin made a creditable one-man attempt to restore the imbalance, for example!

You're absolutely right, of course. But Stalin was killing just about anybody, with hardly any consideration for their religion. And Hitler didn't just kill Jews, either. There were whole classes of people who were on HIS hit list.

But I think you have to admit that, with the Crusades and the Inquisition and the "convert or die" mentality of the Spanish missionaries in the Americas, the Church has had a lot more experience in killing off non-believers. Or even believers who were not quite docile enough to suit them.

TomOfSweden

02-21-2008, 01:53 AM

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

And this is of course why all holy texts will eventually fail being true. At least if scientists are doing their job. And is a problem for any religion with a static holy text.

But then again. This shouldn't really apply to Christianity since the original Bible only was a bunch of ever expanding collection loose articles. It's a shame that little tid bit of information got lost somehow.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

I was speaking from the sense of perception. If we perceive we have valid data, then we will perceive that the conclusions we draw are correct. The world is full of opinionated people who haven't done all their homework. People who read theories from the wrong angle, misinterpret and then draw conclusions. I've been guilty of this many many times. It is very difficult to get every theory right. Sometimes we cannot understand a theory, like molecular biology. I don't know enough maths to understand even the simplest of their theories. I have to depend on second hand interpretations. Which comes down to trust. Valid Data is an elusive animal. Especially when it comes to the big theories. I mean Quantum Theory! Even the greatest minds of physics can't understand that one. So let's say we're Christian and we want to reconcile it with known theories of physics. Even if we have all the valid data it is impossible. I'd personally see this as a victory for agnosticism. How can we have faith in something we don't fully understand?

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Doing away with the unknown is the goal of our curiousness. Is it not? But let's for sake of argument say you're lazy. You don't want to do your homework, but you still want the answers. I'm certain the latest surge of finding God in the west is simply a symptom of people becoming more comfortable and lazy. They can't be arsed to study the data out there because it is hard to understand. Any buffoon can accept God. It's a superficially an easy concept. Even though it isn't really. But that's just my highly personal opinion.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

That is why neither of us is religious. I have no problems with using the "unknown" column in my spread sheet of the universe.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

I'm really posting here with my fax. Now you know.

Mr.FixIt

04-15-2008, 05:03 PM

I am the son of a Church of Christ preacher (maybe that's my problem), who is the son of a Baptist minister, and my brother is a Church of Christ youth minister, AND MY OPINION IS ___________________________________________! :)

stripedangel

04-15-2008, 05:06 PM

The biggest trick the devil ever played on us was convincing us that he doesn't exist.

That's all i have to say about that!

TomOfSweden

04-16-2008, 07:14 AM

The biggest trick the devil ever played on us was convincing us that he doesn't exist.

That's all i have to say about that!

I've thought about this now. What exactly are you trying to say here? Either you're saying what you're saying or it's so full of irony that it goes way over my head.

mkemse

04-16-2008, 09:44 AM

I have never seen any proof to prove to myself that miracles do or not not exist, this does NOT mean i do not belive in them, al it means is i have never seen anything to indicate they do or do not exist or have or have not happened

stripedangel

04-16-2008, 01:35 PM

I've thought about this now. What exactly are you trying to say here? Either you're saying what you're saying or it's so full of irony that it goes way over my head.

Thought it was pretty clear, myself...and it is very ironic as well. However, it is making you think.

GearJammer

04-16-2008, 02:52 PM

having seen one, I can only answer, yes.

Mr.FixIt

04-16-2008, 10:09 PM

Simply put do you believe that God still performs miracles today?

Ok. I must speak up now. I believe that this thread is waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base from where it originally began. The question was "do you believe that God still performs miracles?" Not "do you believe that God exists".

The purpose of the (historic if you will) biblical examples of miracles was to introduce a new message of a newly established (new testament) religion to have an impact on non-believers--and also to set the stage, via envy of His notoriety, for non-believers to ultimately crucify His son. There was a strong purpose for miracles--then, but now that the religion is established, there is no purpose for miracles today. The word is out--the choice to believe is now ours (freedom of choice and all that).

I do believe that God has a plan for everything, including all of us (everything happens for a reason and all of that), and He does intervene with a divine purpose of guiding events according to His plan. I don't quite think that this should be considered a miracle; however.

So, to answer the original question: No, I don't believe that God still performs miracles today.

BTW...I am certain that my lineage of religious leaders would not agree with me!!!!!!!!!

TomOfSweden

04-17-2008, 01:26 AM

Ok. I must speak up now. I believe that this thread is waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base from where it originally began. The question was "do you believe that God still performs miracles?" Not "do you believe that God exists".

I understood the purpose of the question, but it was a bollocks question. It was one of those "Do you give to the Lutheran Charity, or do you hate children" kind of questions. The question itself answers most of the question. The question was only about affirming the faith of the person asking it. It's not really a question. It's more of a statement.

stripedangel

04-17-2008, 08:45 AM

The question infers that Midnite already has faith. This is a question about that faith. Not whether God exists. It is not a bullshit question, it is quite valid. i cannot see where this question equates with your examples.

i watched my mother come out of death from a terminal illness and make it another 11 months. She wasn't ready to die just then, i (her only child) was about to give birth to her second grandchild. She lasted until he was 8 months old. Miracle, or sheer will?

Tom, what if you simply answered the question without all the added commentary? i think that when the thread was started, it was to see if anyone had a "miracle" story to tell. If you don't like the "bullshit" question, then don't answer...now, it appears that you hijacked a thread because the topic was not up to your standards.

As far as Mom is concerned.....that was sheer will. She had been told that she would have no children at all before she was pregnant with me...she wasn't about to miss a grandchild's first word.

i tend to think that everything happens for a reason. At this moment, i can't think of an example of a miracle...possibly because i've been reading about the existance of God.

I, for one, believe that miracles do exist. It's a miracle that i didn't reach across the counter at the bank and strangle the teller, when she told me that i could not get $1000 from my account without 2 forms of ID......but i could get $999. Devine intervention is all that saved her purdy lil neck, and i was given a laugh when she actually answered the question, "Why do i keep my money in the bank if i can't get hold of it?" LOLOL

icey

04-17-2008, 09:03 AM

no i dont believe in miracles plain and simple!
im glad your mother survived long enough to see her grandchild stripedangel but if that was a miracle then why did my best friend die at the age of 32 leaving her children whose father had died less than 12 mths previously with no family?? (the rest living in trinidad)

Thorne

04-17-2008, 02:03 PM

Tom isn't the only one who thought it was a "trick" question. To answer Yes or No implies that you believe that God performed miracles at one time, and that there is therefore a God. If you don't believe in God you cannot truthfully answer the question. Kind of like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The diversion which this thread took is a natural evolution of the original question. That's anathema to most religious folks, though.

stripedangel

04-17-2008, 03:14 PM

To answer Yes or No does imply that you believe in God. So, if you don't believe in God, why answer the question at all? It wasn't directed at non-believers, obviously.

Should the question have been phrazed, "Do you believe in miracles?" Well, start your own thread,then.

Mr.FixIt

04-17-2008, 11:17 PM

Mr.FixIt

04-17-2008, 11:19 PM

I think that we're pulling at threads here!

icey

04-17-2008, 11:43 PM

i re-read it and was still left with the same impression.
if not then perhaps there is a different example?

Mr.FixIt

04-18-2008, 12:22 AM

As far as Mom is concerned.....that was sheer will. She had been told that she would have no children at all before she was pregnant with me...she wasn't about to miss a grandchild's first word.

i tend to think that everything happens for a reason. At this moment, i can't think of an example of a miracle...possibly because i've been reading about the existance of God.

I, for one, believe that miracles do exist.

she was not citing her mother's unexpected longevity as a miracle, hense the phrase "sheer will" (her mother's own stong will to live). While many might prefer to cite this as an example of a miracle, stripedangel did not.

BUT, stripedangel does believe that God performs miracles still today. We differ (slightly) in opinion on this matter, but I understand what she is saying. I hope that this clarifies her intent for you.

TomOfSweden

04-18-2008, 12:35 AM

To answer Yes or No does imply that you believe in God. So, if you don't believe in God, why answer the question at all? It wasn't directed at non-believers, obviously.

It's such a specific scenario catering to a very slim definition of God. Maybe? It's not even clear anything religious is intended with the original question. I think the question you are thinking about needed to be formulated more along these lines:

"If the [insert religion] theory of God would be true according to the [insert denomination/sect], do you think that it follows, that God still performs miracles".

By formulating the question as if it would be straightforward, or made sense as is, the creator is trying to play down the complexities of the question.

Without a kind of scenario given as I did, it is in fact impossible to answer.

icey

04-18-2008, 12:57 AM

the phrase used i believe was asking miracle or sheer will ? but i dont want to get petty over it lol i guess we all interpret things differently :)

what does annoy me about this kind of thing and religion in general is while it seems non-believer and cynics will as a rule answer and debate such questions quite clearly and emphatically with no-inbetweens or turn arounds firm believers often have a tendency to turn things,go back on what they've originally said into different shades of grey and twist religion and bible quotes and all the like to suit themselves.

the phrases i take what i need and want from my religion,god gave us all free will, conveniently forgetting the shalls and shall nots (when it doesnt suit) that god also supposedly gave! are a few that comes to mind.

im probably saying this all wrong and totally changing the thread sorry and its not my intention to piss everyone off!

Thorne

04-18-2008, 03:10 AM

what does annoy me about this kind of thing and religion in general is while it seems non-believer and cynics will as a rule answer and debate such questions quite clearly and emphatically with no-inbetweens or turn arounds firm believers often have a tendency to turn things,go back on what they've originally said into different shades of grey and twist religion and bible quotes and all the like to suit themselves.

the phrases i take what i need and want from my religion,god gave us all free will, conveniently forgetting the shalls and shall nots (when it doesnt suit) that god also supposedly gave! are a few that comes to mind.

im probably saying this all wrong and totally changing the thread sorry and its not my intention to piss everyone off!

You're not saying anything wrong. It sounds perfectly clear to me. And your comments about free will made me stop and think. We tend to believe we have free will, especially those of us who were born and live in a free society. So if God intended for us to have free will, why give us a bunch of rules and regulations? The Ten Commandments were not, after all, suggestions!

And as for changing the thread, these discussions are like the roots of a tree, growing, expanding, branching, sometimes intertwining, sometimes going off on their own, and sometimes undermining the foundations of our comfortable beliefs. And that's a GOOD thing!

stripedangel

04-18-2008, 07:55 AM

It's such a specific scenario catering to a very slim definition of God. Maybe? It's not even clear anything religious is intended with the original question. I think the question you are thinking about needed to be formulated more along these lines:

"If the [insert religion] theory of God would be true according to the [insert denomination/sect], do you think that it follows, that God still performs miracles".

By formulating the question as if it would be straightforward, or made sense as is, the creator is trying to play down the complexities of the question.

Without a kind of scenario given as I did, it is in fact impossible to answer.

Are you telling me that with your high intelligence, you cannot simply recognize that it is a question for whatever religion? What's it matter the religion of the thread starter?

So, why not answer it according to what you believe, in stead of complaining that your religion (or non-religion, whichever the case may be) was left out?

So, Tom, according to what you believe, if you believe in God, and that he performed miracles, do you believe that He still performs miracles today?

stripedangel

04-18-2008, 08:38 AM

[QUOTE=icey;608377]the phrase used i believe was asking miracle or sheer will ? but i dont want to get petty over it lol i guess we all interpret things differently :)

icey, it was a statement, not a question. The rest of that story is in the lower paragraphs...

"As far as Mom is concerned.....that was sheer will. She had been told that she would have no children at all before she was pregnant with me...she wasn't about to miss a grandchild's first word."

Sure, religious folks cannot answer all of the questions..and sure, there are those who change their minds and views about God, and the Bible, sometimes only to suit themselves.

Thing is.....that's why they call it faith. It's not about knowing all the answers, or having proof that God exists. It's about believing, even with no proof....no matter what your denomination or beliefs are.

icey

04-18-2008, 12:46 PM

yes you did say sheer will sorry i just re-read the post...again!

although my opinion will not change, im not going to dispute the definition of the word faith, but what about the actual rules and decrees of the church and such, how can anyone justify twisting those to suit themselves.

and if those with 'faith' dont have proof that god exists how the hell can they then say he makes miracles! and if people arnt too sure that 'god' exists than how can they worship him? why do they pray to someone/thing they're not even sure is there?

Thorne

04-18-2008, 12:52 PM

Thing is.....that's why they call it faith. It's not about knowing all the answers, or having proof that God exists. It's about believing, even with no proof....no matter what your denomination or beliefs are.

I have no problem with people having faith . Everyone is entitled to believe as and how they will. MY problem is with those who feel the need to try to convert the rest of the world to believe as they do. Those who say (and possibly even believe) that their superstition is the only true faith and you MUST convert to save your soul.

And let's face it, believing without proof opens the door to all kinds of kooks and nuts. How many times have we read about some cult committing suicide because they believed the world was ending and they were heading off to heaven without the rest of us? How does that differ from what YOU believe? (That's a generic "YOU", by the way: not pointing a finger at anyone in particular.)

icey

04-18-2008, 01:02 PM

? i didnt post that lol

stripedangel

04-18-2008, 07:55 PM

[QUOTE=Thorne;609063][QUOTE=stripedangel;608843]

I have no problem with people having faith . Everyone is entitled to believe as and how they will. MY problem is with those who feel the need to try to convert the rest of the world to believe as they do. Those who say (and possibly even believe) that their superstition is the only true faith and you MUST convert to save your soul.

QUOTE]

I agree with ya, Thorne, most of the people who are into church and all of their activities tend to think that because you go to their function on Easter, you're wanting to sign up for missionary work. But nobody was trying to do that with this thread...it was a simple question that was picked apart by others who were on the defensive almost immediately.

Without fully understanding Christianity, most assume that Christians would disapprove or judge the BDSM lifestyle, and many aspects of it. However, God commanded that wives submit to their husbands. The concept of BDSM at its root is almost parallel to this biblical instruction. What a trip!

However, let's take a closer look at this thread...what's a trip is the fact that very few posters on it have actually answered the original question...and the majority of it has consisted of nonbelievers aggressively attempting to convert believers into nonbelief.

Nonbelievers are more commonly outspoken about it, but they don't show up at your door with a "bible" of nonbelief. Hence, my previous statement ...

The devil's biggest trick was convincing people that he doesn't exist.

To clarify, If the devil doesn't exist then God must not exist either, and nonbelievers have nothing to worry about.

That being said, to answer the original question, i believe that God still performs miracles today.

Thorne

04-18-2008, 08:12 PM

? i didnt post that lol

No you didn't. I didn't do that on purpose. Sorry.

icey

04-19-2008, 03:03 AM

i thought it was a miracle *winks* my post editing itsself!! lol...god trying to prove a point or something ;)

Thorne

04-19-2008, 05:29 AM

i thought it was a miracle *winks* my post editing itsself!! lol...god trying to prove a point or something ;)

Nope. Not God. Just a little devil!

Midnite

04-19-2008, 08:34 AM

stripedangel

04-19-2008, 11:21 AM

Actually the question, really was do you believe in miracles? Nothing else was intended, it is interesting to find out why some people to, and some people don't. Some Christians even believe that God doesn't perform miracles in this day and age. Anyway my answer to the question is, yes I believe in miracles.

Master and i are baptised Church of Christ, and they do not believe that God still performs miracles in our time. I differ in that belief, myself.

TomOfSweden

04-21-2008, 12:54 AM

Are you telling me that with your high intelligence, you cannot simply recognize that it is a question for whatever religion? What's it matter the religion of the thread starter?

So, why not answer it according to what you believe, in stead of complaining that your religion (or non-religion, whichever the case may be) was left out?

So, Tom, according to what you believe, if you believe in God, and that he performed miracles, do you believe that He still performs miracles today?

What about the Pantheist definition of God. Where God is the naturalistic universe following the laws of nature. I think it is totally valid to assume that is what is being meant since pantheism is the fastest growing religion in the world right now.

Anyway even if we believe in the Catholic Christian definition of God... then ...still ... no. We don't think that way. God created the laws of nature. The laws of nature is Gods work. When/if God breaks the laws of nature, then those breaks would be included in the laws of nature.

So it gets reduced to a semantic inconsistency. A miracle is the laws of nature being broken, but every break results us to redefine nature to incorporate the breaks as intrinsic to its laws. So with our paradigm of how we think of nature, miracles are impossible. We have no way of recognizing laws of nature being broken as described in the Bible in our language. Christianity rests on that humans/science reject certain Godly laws of nature, only to use the same as evidence of Gods existence. Confusing?

How about that for developing my position? It's just a matter of perspective.
Wasn't it the Muslim philosopher Avicenna who said that there's no point in doing science since everything is a miracle? Everything that happens is Gods will, so why bother studying it? Basically that everything is a miracle so the acts of Jesus, was just as normal/abnormal as everything else.

And even if we're atheist, and God exists. If a trajectory goes straight for 15 billion years and then wobbles a bit, science just assumes that the wobble is nature, and normal, no matter what caused it, and expect that it'll wobble again 15 billion years later. No matter its divine origin science will never understand it as a miracle. We have no way of detecting breaks in the laws of nature even if they did take place.

Christianity and the monotheistic theory of God is not philosophically or scientifically simple. I don't think it's possible to be Christian and understand your faith without studying philosophy for fucking ages. I know a guy who's done that. But he's stripped away so much from Christianity to make it consistent that it would be unrecognisable for the common unread evangelical Christian. Threads like this gloss over the philosophical problems. The interesting bits. And if one doesn't care, then why discuss it?

Was this thread only about affirming ones faith? Not understanding it? My left eye twitches when I come into contact with blind faith propaganda.

Mr.FixIt

04-21-2008, 07:45 PM

Was this thread only about affirming ones faith? Not understanding it? My left eye twitches when I come into contact with blind faith propaganda.

What color is your car? If you believe that it is blue, why? It is simply because someone told you that the color that you see is known as blue, and you believed it, blindly. I am literally colorblind. I see colors different than you do. But, are you seeing the colors correctly, or am I? You believing that your car is blue could also be simply your own blind faith.

But is blind faith wrong then? Maybe not. You go ahead and believe that your car is blue, and I will believe that God exists. I won't try to convince you that your car is not blue if you will not try to convince me that God does not exist. :)

But, you still have not answered the original question. It seems that through all of your intellectual jargon, you, for some reason, are skirting the issue.

TomOfSweden

04-22-2008, 04:38 AM

What color is your car? If you believe that it is blue, why? It is simply because someone told you that the color that you see is known as blue, and you believed it, blindly. I am literally colorblind. I see colors different than you do. But, are you seeing the colors correctly, or am I? You believing that your car is blue could also be simply your own blind faith.

He he. Now you succinctly summed up the problem philosophy has been grappling with for the last 250 years. The problem is that we are changing reality by watching it. We are loading it in a way to suit our needs. My reality isn't the same as yours. Neither of us has access to the real reality. So much philosophers can agree on. No philosopher since Plato has claimed that the true reality is accessible to any human ever. So I think that a good answer is that neither you nor I know that correct interpretation of the colour of the car.

But that doesn't mean that there is no reality. Philosophical relativism is not the same thing as reality being arbitrary. Reality is there, we just can't use our common sense or senses and pretend like that's some kind of definite proof of anything. This is where semantics and science helps. Numbers and measurements are less open to interpretations than vague concepts like colour or feelings.

My car is R: 256, G: 0, B: 0
:)

But is blind faith wrong then? Maybe not. You go ahead and believe that your car is blue, and I will believe that God exists. I won't try to convince you that your car is not blue if you will not try to convince me that God does not exist. :)

Of course blind faith is wrong. Blind faith is the same thing as arbitrary faith. It's just a rhetoric question. Blind faith is always worthless. Nobody believes anything based on blind faith. It's always based on evidence and conclusions drawn from them. Always. One might be wrong or basing ones faith on sketchy evidence, but that's not the same thing as blind faith.

But, you still have not answered the original question. It seems that through all of your intellectual jargon, you, for some reason, are skirting the issue.

I believe I answered this in my first post in this thread.

stripedangel

04-26-2008, 09:27 AM

I believe I answered this in my first post in this thread.

Missed that one...I even looked to make sure. Sorry.

i am a Christian. i believe in God, and i believe that there is a higher power out there, no matter what you call it. Everyone learns about a higher power...Greek Gods/desses, Mayan Gods, etc. Native Americans beieve in the higher powers of Mother Earth. I don't down others' beliefs,and i believe it's the same higher power with many different names and forms. We've all learned it differently.

i also believe that those who are not secure in their own beliefs will try and force those beliefs on others, in an attempt to validate them. You'll never see me on your front porch with tracts and scriptures. Your salvation (or non-salvation) is your business.

I don't care that there is no "absolute proof" of God's existance. The proof need only be in my heart. I've seen what His light has done for myself, my family, and many of my friends. I don't attend church. They don't seem to understand that my relationship with God is MINE, not to be interfered with by anyone. I don't need instruction from them, i have the Bible. i have Master, who knows the Bible very well. i have friends and a Master who will pray with me when i request it. .......and i believe that God placed the Bible, my family, Master, and my friends in my path for a reason.

I met Master at a park that neither of us had been to. He was 45 days from the start of his enlistment. We were just gonna be fuck-buddies (sorry for the vulgarity) until he went away. I lived in #107 at the Park Place Apartments...he lived in #7 at the Southeast Park Apartments (right next to Southeast Park, where we met). Just buddies...and less than two weeks after we met, he was proposing. We're soul mates, best friends, lovers, and now, Master and slave. Together, we've been able to do a lot of good things for ourselves and others. We have been there to lend aid and see 3 people and a dog die in 3 different car accidents, all within a few months' time. We've been able to pitch in and help send a friend for a potentially life-saving operation. We have always tried to be generous and helpful, anytime we get a chance. How long does a miracle take? Is it a "one-fell-swoop" kinda thing, or can it take years? Could it be a miracle that Master and i met like we did? Neither of us was in a good place in life when we met...but we are now! How would our lives have been otherwise? As good as it is now? There's no way to test that, so i will say it happened for God's reason!

i had "blind faith" in Master When i said "yes" to his proposal. i guess if "blind faith" is "wrong"......then i don't wanna be right...but now, my faith in my Master is no longer "blind."

GearJammer

04-26-2008, 09:16 PM

Missed that one...I even looked to make sure. Sorry.

i am a Christian. i believe in God, and i believe that there is a higher power out there, no matter what you call it. Everyone learns about a higher power...Greek Gods/desses, Mayan Gods, etc. Native Americans beieve in the higher powers of Mother Earth. I don't down others' beliefs,and i believe it's the same higher power with many different names and forms. We've all learned it differently.

i also believe that those who are not secure in their own beliefs will try and force those beliefs on others, in an attempt to validate them. You'll never see me on your front porch with tracts and scriptures. Your salvation (or non-salvation) is your business.

I don't care that there is no "absolute proof" of God's existance. The proof need only be in my heart. I've seen what His light has done for myself, my family, and many of my friends. I don't attend church. They don't seem to understand that my relationship with God is MINE, not to be interfered with by anyone. I don't need instruction from them, i have the Bible. i have Master, who knows the Bible very well. i have friends and a Master who will pray with me when i request it. .......and i believe that God placed the Bible, my family, Master, and my friends in my path for a reason.

I met Master at a park that neither of us had been to. He was 45 days from the start of his enlistment. We were just gonna be fuck-buddies (sorry for the vulgarity) until he went away. I lived in #107 at the Park Place Apartments...he lived in #7 at the Southeast Park Apartments (right next to Southeast Park, where we met). Just buddies...and less than two weeks after we met, he was proposing. We're soul mates, best friends, lovers, and now, Master and slave. Together, we've been able to do a lot of good things for ourselves and others. We have been there to lend aid and see 3 people and a dog die in 3 different car accidents, all within a few months' time. We've been able to pitch in and help send a friend for a potentially life-saving operation. We have always tried to be generous and helpful, anytime we get a chance. How long does a miracle take? Is it a "one-fell-swoop" kinda thing, or can it take years? Could it be a miracle that Master and i met like we did? Neither of us was in a good place in life when we met...but we are now! How would our lives have been otherwise? As good as it is now? There's no way to test that, so i will say it happened for God's reason!

i had "blind faith" in Master When i said "yes" to his proposal. i guess if "blind faith" is "wrong"......then i don't wanna be right...but now, my faith in my Master is no longer "blind."

The opposite of faith is not unbelief. Faith, as a matter of fact, is not belief. Faith is WHY one believes. The opposite of faith, then, is sight. No doubt you have faith in your master, but as to the matters you described as associated with the blind faith in the beginning... now you have sight on those.

TomOfSweden

04-26-2008, 10:49 PM

i had "blind faith" in Master When i said "yes" to his proposal. i guess if "blind faith" is "wrong"......then i don't wanna be right...but now, my faith in my Master is no longer "blind."

No...no...no. "Blind faith" would have been if you had no prior experience of him, men or living life at all. Even your human instincts... the stuff we're born with that makes us go yummy when we see a firm and muscular ass removes you from the ability to claim that you said "yes" based on nothing but "blind faith".

Let's sort out the terminology. "Faith" is about measuring things and drawing conclusions from it. There's Kierkegaardian faith, (the so called "leap to faith") where you accept that there's holes in our ability to gather evidence about some things and you simply need to fill in the holes yourself to get a meaningful picture. But that still isn't blind faith. It is also different from the leap of faith, (as defined by Thomas Kuhn) which is when we've measured enough times with the same result to assume that it will always behave the same way. This is the type of faith who people who believe in scientific theories hold.

Both these are different from "hope" which is wishful thinking.

"Blind faith" is when we spend no time reflecting about anything, and rather try to beat any kind of thinking or reason out of the equation at all... probably because we subconsciously know that we're not going to like the result. Keeping ourselves intentionally in the dark because we're is fighting to keep a delusion intact. Blind faith is nothing anybody would want to be proud of ever. If you do, you haven't understood the terminology. To be blunt, it's a bit like tattooing the word "retard" in your forehead and sporting it proudly. Just don't. Please.

"Belief" covers all three definitions of "faith".

Maybe it was more like this: You squeezed that firm soldier ass and hoped that it would stay rock hard for a long while longer, and from this inferred that you were very much in love with him and couldn't care less about reason or measuring any damn thing! Could this have been a more accurate description of it? I doubt faith entered into it anywhere. It doesn't really fit.

Mr Fixit: I'm fucking proud of my intellectual jargon.

stripedangel

04-27-2008, 07:22 AM

OK, Tom, i see your point about blind faith....i had it wrong.

So how 'bout responding to the REST of my post??

TomOfSweden

04-28-2008, 04:48 AM

OK, Tom, i see your point about blind faith....i had it wrong.

So how 'bout responding to the REST of my post??

Ok then. This is thread derailing, but I'm blaming it on you :) I do connect to miracles in the end of this post.

You claim that this is what you feel is "true in your heart". You made the claim that the correctness of the theory of God rests on how true you feel it is in your heart, right?

This logic leads us to two possibilities.

1) Everyone has their own truth, (Solipsism, ie what can be true for you can be false for somebody else). Like as in the Matrix, of being inside the Matrix as if that was the true world.

2) Or that there exists one truth for everybody. ie, the same laws of physics applies to everybody. Basically that there exists an external reality somewhere. Which is basically the claim Christianity is doing. When Neo exits his virtual reality pod.

If you belong to the second category, as all people outside the walls of insane asylums do, you now have to come up with a way to compare truths and realities. Suddenly how true something in ones heart doesn't hold a lot of weight. Basically if you are right, others with other faiths must be wrong.

I'm a big fan of Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper), and I bet, so is the entire body of scientists in the world. In his philosophy of scientific truth he claims that there are things science cannot measure, which it certainly sounds like a belief you share. But discounting science does not give any added credibility to what "your heart" tells you or what just feels the most comfortable.

The best we can do is leave it open. Which is the opposite of faith. Which is basically that you follow your heart, but don't make claims that your heart tells you things better than other peoples hearts tell them.

You can have your life guided by the Bible, trying to be a good Christian because you think it gives it meaning and interpreting the voices in your head as God and not have Christian faith. It's a question of how much you respect other peoples hearts, or to put it more bluntly, your arrogance.

I'm guessing that it's just sloppy use of terminology to talk of "faith" here. Kierkegaard didn't ignore scientific "facts". He had a look at what existed and worked with what he had. Understanding the entire body of scientific knowledge is not possible any more for anybody.

The kind of faith Kierkegaard had and was on about is dead today. All of us. Every single living person today, knows that what they talk about reality they are only communicating a simplified model. Chemistry is not the study of sticks and balls. This is equally true for Christians as for atomic physicists. I respect Kierkegaard deeply. He's one of my favourite philosophers and nobody can claim he wasn't a genius. But he lived in a different time.

I'll give an example. When Creationists have "faith" in that the world is 6000 years old, they are ignoring scientific evidence. They're ignoring evidence that is readily available if they only could be arsed to evaluate it. What they have isn't called "faith" by any stretch. Not according to the definition of Thomas Khun or Sören Kierkegaard. What they are doing is actively maintaining a delusion, anybody who's attended school knows is doubtful. Believing something in spite of evidence is not faith. We can't even call it "blind faith" because we know, that they know better.

I'll try to be even more clear. The issue isn't whether the earth might or might not be 6000 years old. The issue is whether or not it is beyond any doubt. We all know that the scientific theories in the Bible isn't beyond debate, no matter if we're Christians or not. We all know that even if we believe it very deeply, lot's of people have very well grounded reasons to reject it. And we cannot ignore them and still maintain faith. If we haven't studied palaeontology and geology we can't really say anything on the subject. Neither for nor against. We cannot have faith. It is not beyond doubt, because we don't have enough facts, and we never will.

I may be repeating myself now a lot, but I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. Faith is when something is beyond doubt. The stuff that makes you stop worrying about gravity not disappearing over night. Or the faith that when you stab yourself in the hand, it will hurt like a mother-fucker. Beyond doubt. When atheists say they have faith in that God doesn't exists... it isn't really faith.

To return to the original thread topic. When you see something you can't explain, is that evidence of a miracle, or just evidence that you can't explain it? I live in a magical world full of miracles all the time. But I don't pretend like I have the foggiest notion of the source of it. Hell, I can't even build a car engine. The fact that a car that I drive moves at all is to me a miracle.

I'm not saying God doesn't exist or that miracles don't take place. We're not in a place yet where those are relevant questions. First we need to narrow down what a miracle is and what God is. This thread first needs to define that before there is any point in this.