Does HE want to communicate or not? If it's about testing faith and freewill, why perform the evidence-less large miracles in any religious text at all? What about the freewill of those who'd actually witness those things? Why would a omniscient, omnipresent god need to test anything in the first place?

"We cannot know the mind of god. So let me tell you all about the mind of god for the next two hundred pages."

(November 26, 2016 at 9:28 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 26, 2016 at 5:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Who cares about miracles, anyway? At best they demonstrate there's some external being which feels the need to occasionally meddle in our affairs. It doesn't tell us what this being is or what its motivation is. There's nothing I can do about it until it decides to communicate in a sensible way.

They don't even demonstrate that. The most that can be drawn from them is that something supposedly happened. What the cause of that something might be is instantly shrouded in mysticism, often with a political aim, and divorced from external investigation. The believers are insistent on believing it no matter what, and how dare you persecute them for it.

And where do we draw a line, when anything dogmatically expedient is automatically a miracle? The book says the Sun stopped in the sky - it's a miracle! This baby is the only survivor of a 'plane crash - it's a miracle! I read a third-hand account of something that supposedly happened somewhere a century ago; all the explanations are silly - it's a miracle! My headache went away after I prayed - it's a miracle!

You're absolutely right of course. I was being a little generous and granting a free non-sequitur, I didn't phrase that well.

(November 26, 2016 at 5:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Who cares about miracles, anyway?

A legit miracle would be a game-changer, confirming that there are things that can be ascribed to the supernatural. Most religious texts describe stuff that could --if performed today-- be tested to the degree that we should be able to rule out natural causes. A man able to walk on water, or turn water into wine, or restore sight to a blind person or movement to a paralyzed person, or take a few fish and loaves and feed thousands and then recover more left-overs than he started with... someone who did all of these things and could do them in any setting and under any circumstances? That would change the way we view the universe and reality itself.

Most of the miracles that occur today can be ascribed to luck or circumstance, but they don't describe things that do not have natural causes. Those that do cannot be agreed upon even by the devoutly religious; if you read of a miracle occurring to someone who is not of your denomination or faith, you are likely to doubt its veracity or believe that it's an example of the devil trying to mislead people. Many are passed along even when the only witness is the person reporting the event. Others are believed and passed along as miracles even when a natural cause is discovered. There may seem to be an overwhelming preponderance of miracles in today's world, but a closer look indicates a very different definition of the term is being used.

Yeah, they do like their sleights of hand, don't they?

(November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am)Tonus Wrote:

(November 26, 2016 at 5:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Who cares about miracles, anyway?

A legit miracle would be a game-changer, confirming that there are things that can be ascribed to the supernatural.   Most religious texts describe stuff that could --if performed today-- be tested to the degree that we should be able to rule out natural causes.  A man able to walk on water, or turn water into wine, or restore sight to a blind person or movement to a paralyzed person, or take a few fish and loaves and feed thousands and then recover more left-overs than he started with... someone who did all of these things and could do them in any setting and under any circumstances?  That would change the way we view the universe and reality itself.

Most of the miracles that occur today can be ascribed to luck or circumstance, but they don't describe things that do not have natural causes.  Those that do cannot be agreed upon even by the devoutly religious; if you read of a miracle occurring to someone who is not of your denomination or faith, you are likely to doubt its veracity or believe that it's an example of the devil trying to mislead people.  Many are passed along even when the only witness is the person reporting the event.  Others are believed and passed along as miracles even when a natural cause is discovered.  There may seem to be an overwhelming preponderance of miracles in today's world, but a closer look indicates a very different definition of the term is being used.

I can provide a video of a man walking on water, but somehow I feel it will be taken less seriously by Christians than a verbal account of the same thing.

The mind is as fragile as it is strong.

Some people are strong enough to face reality without the supernatural comforts, yet too many others are so weak they must ignore reality for the supernatural comfort.

Faith is no more than a drug of convenience for believers.

Bring your Catholic brethren back with you! We just loooove Catholics, oh yes..



No but seriously, invite them on over for discussion? I quite enjoy theists' views on things and
how they bring up morality and existential conversations!