blazer2000x Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 Add some sugar and yeast- water will turn into wine. :) No laws of nature are broken. That is why I added the "as described in that passage" cavat. Does it turn into wine instantaneously? (I honestly don't know, if it does than your argument is valid)
bumab Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 Because God created nature and He is above it. And that means He can't work inside it? If a miracle can be explained to have a physical and natural cause, it is removed from the category of the miraculous and supernatural. (hense the word "super"-"natural") Just because something does not have a natural cause in actuality doesn't mean we can't assign it one perceptivaly. Miracles are a matter of perception.
Erasmus00 Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 I can only speak in detail about Christianity on this topic, not theism in general. God did not ask us to suspend our brains to be faithful. On the contrary, we are commanded to love God with all our soul, strength and mind. I think that a lot of disservice is done to the concept of faith by suggesting that it is not associated with logic or intellect. I think the bible contains enough stories that run counter to logic that it requires faith to take it on its word. There is nothing that seperates one cultures myths from anothers, and yet one is true, the rest are false? You have to start from some idea of religion, some willing suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, you hit the first miracle, and throw the book out. -Will
blazer2000x Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 God can easily make a miracle within the realms of science. (I kind of missed your point)But it will not be defined as a miracle, just a rare happening.
bumab Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 Does it turn into wine instantaneously? (I honestly don't know, if it does than your argument is valid) Certainly not. My only point was to say that no laws of nature were broken, or even threatened. Reasonableness (if that is a word) is certainly stretched, however! But my point was simply an argument against a miracle is not an argument against God, it's an argument against causality.
Biochemist Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 I think the bible contains enough stories that run counter to logic that it requires faith to take it on its word. There is nothing that seperates one cultures myths from anothers, and yet one is true, the rest are false? ..This argument is either circumferential or sideways. I said above that not all things are taken on faith, and that the elements that are not faith based are critical. You seem to be saying that because one might take anything by faith, that it throws everything else into the faith bucket. My point above is that Christiantiy is different in that the resurrection (as a historical fact) moved people to take things by faith. The fact basis was as important as the faith step. Paul (1 cor 15) assumed that the resurrection was true, and that Christianity was meaningless without it. This makes Christianity different than other religions. It is not just that we have a different set of ideas we take by faith. We have a set of facts (e.g., Jesus rose) that move to make some decisions based on faith (the resurrection meant something very important). It was entirely possible (and, in fact likely) that some folks saw Jesus post resurrections and did not become Christians. That is, they accepted the resurrection but did not believe that it mattered. Lastly, running counter to logic is not generally a good enough reason to reject an argument. Irreconcilable facts occur in science regualrly (e.g., the dual-slit experiments in quantum physics) or even in mathematics (e.g., 3-space shapes that have finite volume and infinite surface area- such that you could fill them with paint and not cover the inside surface). I think logic is important, but it is only an indicator of reality, not a confirmation.
Hawkens Posted July 15, 2005 Report Posted July 15, 2005 God is the stain left in underwear when you do not wipe properly. And I can show proof that god exists. Should I post it?WOW! And I thought this was a mature forums. It's sad to see that you are willing to seal your fate with that statement. You can't even prove there is no God or that a rock gave birth to all the life on this planet. All you can do is speculate. I guess that's how scientists at one time figured out the world was really flat. The Bible gave clues of the Earth being round. What do you think inspired Columbus? The only way your going to prove that there is no God is to sell us your Evolution from a Rock Myth.
C1ay Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 I guess that's how scientists at one time figured out the world was really flat.No, it's how scientists showed that the universe, not the heavens, does not revolve around the Earth. Of course, the church couldn't bear the thought so they sentenced Galileo to lifetime house arrest.
Erasmus00 Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 My point above is that Christiantiy is different in that the resurrection (as a historical fact) moved people to take things by faith. The fact basis was as important as the faith step. Paul (1 cor 15) assumed that the resurrection was true, and that Christianity was meaningless without it. This makes Christianity different than other religions. It is not just that we have a different set of ideas we take by faith. We have a set of facts (e.g., Jesus rose) that move to make some decisions based on faith (the resurrection meant something very important). It was entirely possible (and, in fact likely) that some folks saw Jesus post resurrections and did not become Christians. That is, they accepted the resurrection but did not believe that it mattered. Except you have to take that the resurrection occured on faith. Think of it like this: I have personally seen a woman sawed in half, and put back together. Probably fifty other people were eye-witness to it. Some may have even written about it. However, odds are I was tricked, and the women was never really cut. Logic dictates I assume a trick. The same logic applies to the resurrection. You have to take on faith it wasn't a trick. Also, that doesn't seperate Christianity from any other religion. Every religion has a set of "facts" (i.e. miracles performed by the religious founder) behind their faith. But I assert they all believe in miracles as an act of faith. Lastly, running counter to logic is not generally a good enough reason to reject an argument. Irreconcilable facts occur in science regualrly (e.g., the dual-slit experiments in quantum physics) or even in mathematics (e.g., 3-space shapes that have finite volume and infinite surface area- such that you could fill them with paint and not cover the inside surface). I think logic is important, but it is only an indicator of reality, not a confirmation. The dual-slit experiment is not an irreconcilable fact. It just points to a different understanding of matter. Miracles are, almost by deffinition, irreconcilable facts. -Will
bartock Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 have u guys seen Modern Science Finds Godhttp://www.islamis-world.net/SNG/index1.htm
Biochemist Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 Except you have to take that the resurrection occured on faith. I don't think you read my post. I do not take the resurrection by faith.
Biochemist Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 Every religion has a set of "facts" (i.e. miracles performed by the religious founder) behind their faith. I did not know that there were seminal miracles in Islam or Hinduism. What are they?The dual-slit experiment is not an irreconcilable fact. It just points to a different understanding of matter. Miracles are, almost by deffinition, irreconcilable facts. Most folks do find the dual-slit experiments illogical, but true. Feynman did. But if that is too obtuse, go back to the math example. Take the 3-space shape bounded by the standard hyperbola, xy=1. Spin the quadrant I curve around the x-axis, and measure the hyperbolic horn shape from, say x=1 and greater. This shape, occaionally called "gabriel's horn" has infinite surface area but finite volume. Ergo, you could fill the shape with paint and yet not cover the inside surface. Do you find that illogical?
blazer2000x Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 This is something that someone else stated of God, and I restated to point at evolution in another thread. Here I propose it as a set of questions. Please tell if I state something incorrectly.1. The big bang theory says there was a small ball of compressed matter that exploded into all the known universe. Correct?2. It also states that ball existed for eternity, it was always there. Correct?3. If it was always there, then there is no way it could have reached the big bang. It could never reach any point in anything at all because there would always be an infinite amount of time before that event occured. Correct?4 Possible evolutionalist answer: It goes in a loop, contracting then exploding, contracting then exploding, always has been, always will be. Incorrect. After the eleged big bang, the universe has been expanding, not contracting, and it continues to do so. Correct?5. So, what is the explanation for how that matter could always have existed?
Erasmus00 Posted July 16, 2005 Report Posted July 16, 2005 I don't think you read my post. I do not take the resurrection by faith. And I don't think you read mine :) If a group of people witnessed a ressurection today, you'd almost certainly think they must have been tricked in some way (same as if they witnessed a lady sawed in half, the statue of liberty dissapear, or spoons bent with mental powers). At some point, you have to have some faith, either in the witnesses, or the subject of the resurrection to lend some credibility to the story. -Will
blazer2000x Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 Well of course. But two thousand years ago illusions weren't anywhere near as good as they are today. You know all those wierd spells and stuff that are in movies and books? People actually used to use those. They seemed to work a long time ago for some reason.
Boerseun Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 Well of course. But two thousand years ago illusions weren't anywhere near as good as they are today. You know all those wierd spells and stuff that are in movies and books? People actually used to use those. They seemed to work a long time ago for some reason.Two thousand years ago, witnesses weren't half as good and trustworthy as today's, either. They were plenty gullible and superstitious, and the confidence-tricksters of the day used it to good effect. The people have a warm, fuzzy feeling after, and the con men had a bucket full of loot and a big smile.
Biochemist Posted July 17, 2005 Report Posted July 17, 2005 Two thousand years ago, witnesses weren't half as good and trustworthy as today's, either. ...Interesting answer. Any evidence?
Recommended Posts