(July 7, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Baqal Wrote: @Blackout
-This is what annoys me with a lot of theists, when they hear about a miracle or non explained event they automatically label it as 'god's work' precociously without considering there could be possible explanations for the phenomenon.
Theists tend to do this very often - use something they can't explain as evidence for what they can't explain without mentioning magic.

True. Once again it doesn't mean miracles can't exist, but they don't need to be caused by god. And most miracles will keep on being explained until there is almost no event to classify as a miracle.

I also find it amusing that all religious claim to have witnessed miracles, in other words christians claim the christian god made miracles (and Jesus), muslims claim allah made miracles, jews also state their god made miracles and they all appoint several people that were saved, recovered from a disease or show another event that can't be explained... This seems contradictory, how can all religious have miracles? If only one religion is the right one, shouldn't god just make miracles for the right worshipers? Unless all gods from all religions exist, a chance that seems absurd to me. Seems rather contradictory, why make miracles for all religions? And why do they all claim those miracles are evidence for their deity? What if I asked batman for a miracle and miracle happened? Would that make batman true as my god?

(July 7, 2014 at 12:49 pm)Baqal Wrote: @Blackout
-This is what annoys me with a lot of theists, when they hear about a miracle or non explained event they automatically label it as 'god's work' precociously without considering there could be possible explanations for the phenomenon.
Theists tend to do this very often - use something they can't explain as evidence for what they can't explain without mentioning magic.

@Blackout; @Begal

There is a difference between positing God as an explanation vs. using the circumstances as evidence for God. I did not mean to imply that if that is what you got from my post. There is evidence beyond the Bible to consider whether God exists.

(July 7, 2014 at 11:49 am)SteveII Wrote: Fidel--A logically sound Christian worlview must be open to where the science leads. If we have evidence that the earth is more than 6000 years old, then that is that. I was pointing out that the literal 6-day view is not the only one. Let me add that disproving the 6-day interpretation in no way disproves the existence of God nor other biblical claims.

There is nothing aside apologetics that indicates that the bible says anything other than 6, literal days. Indeed, had it not been for the general expansion of knowledge thanks to a variety of fields then we, much like people 5 centuries ago, would only be able to say that genesis indicates 6 literal days.

And whilst you are correct that it does not disprove any other biblical claim, for me, it goes a long way to adding doubt as to their reasonableness.

I applaud your reasonableness and your openness to the advancement of knowledge, and you are of course free to believe whatever you wish to believe.

(July 7, 2014 at 11:49 am)SteveII Wrote: While you might only desire facts, beliefs are not irrelevant. Philosophy and science go hand in hand.

I stand by my statement. Whilst philosophy has a place, it does nothing to actually explore reality and explain it, merely theorise on it.

(July 7, 2014 at 11:49 am)SteveII Wrote: You are right to say that science is not concerned with disproving the Bible. That would be a philosophical statement which science, by definition, cannot make. However, many people (including the first post in this thread) seem to think it does and has.

'Science' only reveals what it sets out to reveal. We all have to deal with the consequences of what it reveals.

J.K. Rowling doesn't believe Harry Potter saved the world. How do we know that the author of Genesis believed in what he was writing down?

There is so much about the bible that is esoteric, and therefore misunderstood - mostly by Christians.

(July 7, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Purplundy Wrote: J.K. Rowling doesn't believe Harry Potter saved the world. How do we know that the author of Genesis believed in what he was writing down?

We do not. Your point?

Xtians are so easily impressed by anomalies....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-s...ne-1263588

Quote:The miracle child: Sole survivor of plane crash which killed 156 people tells her unbelievable story for the first time

Quote:Amid the carnage and the other 154 people who had perished, miraculously one tiny passenger was still alive.

Cecelia Cichan was just four years old when she became the sole survivor of doomed Northwest Airlines Flight 255.

Now, exactly 25 years after the disaster that claimed the lives of her parents and six-year-old brother, she has spoken for the first time about her experience.

Quote:Cecelia suffered horrific injuries including a fractured skull, broken leg and collarbone and third-degree burns.

She underwent four skin grafts for the burns on her arms and legs.

So her whole family is wiped out, part of the other 154 - presumably worthless people - who died along with two more on the ground and she was critically injured. This is what idiots call a "miracle."

You know what a miracle would have been? If the plane hit the light tower, burst into flames and was safely brought to earth with no casualties. But I guess I'm harder to impress than jesus freaks.

(July 7, 2014 at 1:33 pm)Purplundy Wrote: J.K. Rowling doesn't believe Harry Potter saved the world. How do we know that the author of Genesis believed in what he was writing down?

To add to the above, while JK Rowling -may not- believe that Harry Potter saved the world - some of her readers might......and we'd treat them the same way I would propose treating people who, for whatever batshit reason, imagine genesis to be a documentary.

(July 7, 2014 at 1:50 pm)ShaMan Wrote: There is so much about the bible that is esoteric, and therefore misunderstood - mostly by Christians.

That is an easy thing to type in the text box but does nothing to explain. Please enlighten!

I wonder how could people understood it as equal to our day when the sun is not for the whole universe, and . . there is no sun in the beginning of time. May I know which planet people are referring as the basis of their argument?