What Are Miracles...

[Little Rik]

There is no such a thing as a miracle but there are natural phenomena that can happen if you have faith.

http://jamie-monk.blogspot.com.au/2011/0...urite.html

[Faith No More]

The thing is that no one would be satisfied. Worst case scenario, you would claim that we don't have the science to debunk it yet.
Why would God spend time drying up oceans when there are already Christians everywhere working to spread his message?
It's not about getting you to look at him; Christianity is about God getting people to meet him halfway.

So, rather than demonstrate miracles, god is content with his followers spreading his message through fallacious arguments and appeals to emotion? If god exists, he isn't asking for people to meet him halfway. He is asking for complete intellectual surrender.

What you're looking for is an account of the day his voice boomed down from heaven, but that is something that you simply won't get.

No. What I'm looking for is something more substantial than a believer pointing to something that exists and claiming that is proof of god without any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate why. What I am looking for is something other than philosophical concepts that can't be demonstrated to exist without an appeal to the existence of the very deity you are trying to prove. What I'm looking for is something that doesn't require discarding rationality and reason to accept.

[ronedee]

No. What I'm looking for is something more substantial than a believer pointing to something that exists and claiming that is proof of god without any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate why. What I am looking for is something other than philosophical concepts that can't be demonstrated to exist without an appeal to the existence of the very deity you are trying to prove. What I'm looking for is something that doesn't require discarding rationality and reason to accept.

What is "rationality"?

Something "we" have sorted out through methods invented by man?

[wiki] "Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions."

The word "assumptions" comes up more than "rational" in its definitions!

The definition also goes on to explain that once a rational decision is made, it is "irrational" to change that decision!!!!!

Actually reading about "rational behavior", becomes very "irrational" to me!

...it goes on to say: "The only rational decision that can be made has to be devoid of any emotions or feeling....."

LOL! It also says, that if I "assume" something is correct based on whatever led me to this decision...as long as I deliver it in an unemotional manner...it's rational!

Hmmmmm. I, being of sound mind and through careful thought and consideration think there is a God!

See how rational I am?!

So, rational is the wrong term because there is too much "assumption" involved! And you and others are quite "emotional" in your delivery!

[The Grand Nudger]

I, being of sound mind and through careful thought and consideration think there is a God!

If you could provide some of this (b-mine) - then it would be a little easier to discuss, wouldn't it? If "careful thought and consideration" is as ethereal as the conclusion - we're going to have some problems.

Maybe just a sample, what careful thought?

What was considered?

[Consilius]

The thing is that no one would be satisfied. Worst case scenario, you would claim that we don't have the science to debunk it yet.
Why would God spend time drying up oceans when there are already Christians everywhere working to spread his message?
It's not about getting you to look at him; Christianity is about God getting people to meet him halfway.

So, rather than demonstrate miracles, god is content with his followers spreading his message through fallacious arguments and appeals to emotion? If god exists, he isn't asking for people to meet him halfway. He is asking for complete intellectual surrender.

Are you going to insist that, out of every Christian on this planet, not one of them has presented a logical argument for Christianity?
At the same time, I can't rationalize everything about Christianity. There is nothing beneficial evolutionarily about martyrdom or turning the other cheek. A thing about being met halfway is that some of it makes sense, and some parts of it, not so much.
What the Bible preaches is hope in what cannot be seen. People love other people because of these parts of their relationships: when they are there for you when you have no reason to expect them to. The human-divine relationship is the same. Nobody is certain about if the god they worship is there or not, but some of them are pretty sure.

What you're looking for is an account of the day his voice boomed down from heaven, but that is something that you simply won't get.

No. What I'm looking for is something more substantial than a believer pointing to something that exists and claiming that is proof of god without any attempt whatsoever to demonstrate why. What I am looking for is something other than philosophical concepts that can't be demonstrated to exist without an appeal to the existence of the very deity you are trying to prove. What I'm looking for is something that doesn't require discarding rationality and reason to accept.
[/quote]
Please, think of a SINGLE event that, if it happened right now, would undoubtably prove God's existence. I can ASSURE you it doesn't exist.

[Ryantology]

If anything in the Bible turns out not to be true, it can only then be taken as a metaphor or a misunderstanding from the people who wrote it before modern science existed.

A lot of the Bible has turned out not to be true. The vast majority of the Genesis story has been disproven, and that is the basis for the entire narrative which follows. If the fundamentals are incorrect, just how wrong does does the rest of it have to be before you admit to yourself that God himself is a metaphor or misunderstanding?

I should also say that universe made without God is also an unproven assertion that is under heavy debate. I'm not going to enter into that debate with you.

It is an unproven assertion which is almost certainly true, and science will demonstrate this in time. Yours is an unprovable assertion based upon your desire for it to be true and nothing else. Your assertion has been designed, specifically, to be unprovable, so that no advance in science can ever rob you of your fantasy. You can't ever prove it, therefore, it can never be demonstrated to be factual and it is just wasted breath.

The detective who finds the kidnapped child could have been born in a Third World country. He could never have had access to formal education. He could have had his moral corrupted by a pair of drunken parents, f they had not killed him before he reached puberty. This detective could have been incompetent and not know how to do his job well. This detective could have been on a corruption case in D.C. while the kidnapping occurred in West Virginia.
Nobody does it alone.

Almost nobody accomplishes anything without the help of other people. There is no evidence for, or need of, a God in this scenario. Other people are enough.

Are you going to insist that, out of every Christian on this planet, not one of them has presented a logical argument for Christianity?

Not one. Ever. It doesn't matter even if someone did. A sound logical argument is suggestive. By itself, it proves nothing.

[Faith No More]

Are you going to insist that, out of every Christian on this planet, not one of them has presented a logical argument for Christianity?

No, but I will insist that every argument that I am aware of hasn't been logically sound.

There is nothing beneficial evolutionarily about martyrdom or turning the other cheek.

Not everything that is a result of evolution benefits evolution directly. Many times traits come about that are by-products of other beneficial traits.

Anyways, can you prove that evolution cannot account for those things?

Nobody is certain about if the god they worship is there or not, but some of them are pretty sure.

I appreciate the admittance that people can't be certain that god is there or not, but many of the theists that come here claim to know that their god exists.

Regardless, conviction of the human mind that something is real has no bearing on its actual existence. This is why many people put so much emphasis on verifiable evidence.

Please, think of a SINGLE event that, if it happened right now, would undoubtably prove God's existence. I can ASSURE you it doesn't exist.

I can think of one right off the top of my head. God popping over and saying, "Hi."

[Consilius]

If anything in the Bible turns out not to be true, it can only then be taken as a metaphor or a misunderstanding from the people who wrote it before modern science existed.

A lot of the Bible has turned out not to be true. The vast majority of the Genesis story has been disproven, and that is the basis for the entire narrative which follows. If the fundamentals are incorrect, just how wrong does does the rest of it have to be before you admit to yourself that God himself is a metaphor or misunderstanding?

Many religions tell stories about the world's genesis, but at the heart of it we have a God who makes the universe, and a rebellious mankind that is responsible for sin. That is all that is needed for the Christian salvation story. I agree that what is in the Bible up to the story of Abraham is probably not historical account—even the scripture writers weren't there at the time. The contents of Genesis is oral tradition with obscured facts because the value that Christians place on it lies in their message. Whether or not these things actually happened is simply a perk.

I should also say that universe made without God is also an unproven assertion that is under heavy debate. I'm not going to enter into that debate with you.

It is an unproven assertion which is almost certainly true, and science will demonstrate this in time. Yours is an unprovable assertion based upon your desire for it to be true and nothing else. Your assertion has been designed, specifically, to be unprovable, so that no advance in science can ever rob you of your fantasy. You can't ever prove it, therefore, it can never be demonstrated to be factual and it is just wasted breath.
[/quote]
What a typical atheist would say. It's all bias. Watch me do the same:
A universe that came out of nothing is an unprovable assertion based on your desire to be right. YOUR assertion has been designed so that it cannot be proven (not to mention that it has NOT been proven in a lab) so that nothing can rob you of you thinking that your right. YOU can never prove it, therefore, it can never be demonstrated to be factual and is just a wasted breath.

The detective who finds the kidnapped child could have been born in a Third World country. He could never have had access to formal education. He could have had his moral corrupted by a pair of drunken parents, f they had not killed him before he reached puberty. This detective could have been incompetent and not know how to do his job well. This detective could have been on a corruption case in D.C. while the kidnapping occurred in West Virginia.
Nobody does it alone.

Almost nobody accomplishes anything without the help of other people. There is no evidence for, or need of, a God in this scenario. Other people are enough.
[/quote]
Where you are born, according to atheism, is a result of chance. Christians say it is God laying out a path for a person. Explain how you not existing in the body of a black child in Mozambique is a product of you or your parents' effort.

Are you going to insist that, out of every Christian on this planet, not one of them has presented a logical argument for Christianity?

Not one. Ever. It doesn't matter even if someone did. A sound logical argument is suggestive. By itself, it proves nothing.
[/quote]
More bias. I am a Christian because I feel no atheist has provided a sound logical argument.
It doesn't matter if someone DID present a sound logical argument? When Christians say that, you give it a label…BIGOTRY.

[The Grand Nudger]

Strange notion, that the message is more important than factual accuracy in the case of a narrative about a god. That -would- certainly seem to be the case -if- your god were a metaphor...you know, a message.

What am I left with here, factual accuracy is unimportant and I think the message delivered blows...tits on a boar man.

(that "all thats required" bit is a pretty hefty leap btw. If that's required...you're going to have to produce it, else you've omitted what you deemed a requirement)

[Consilius]

Are you going to insist that, out of every Christian on this planet, not one of them has presented a logical argument for Christianity?

No, but I will insist that every argument that I am aware of hasn't been logically sound.

There is nothing beneficial evolutionarily about martyrdom or turning the other cheek.

Not everything that is a result of evolution benefits evolution directly. Many times traits come about that are by-products of other beneficial traits.

Anyways, can you prove that evolution cannot account for those things?

The goal of natural selection is to get a species to survive and reproduce. If we all died for our girlfriends, they would have no means of passing on our genes. According to evolution, this is stupid. To Christians as well as to many non-Christians, this can be described as touching, or righteous, or selfless. It would get positive reviews in general.
But feel free to explain how evolution can account for these things. I would find it interesting.

Nobody is certain about if the god they worship is there or not, but some of them are pretty sure.

I appreciate the admittance that people can't be certain that god is there or not, but many of the theists that come here claim to know that their god exists.

Regardless, conviction of the human mind that something is real has no bearing on its actual existence. This is why many people put so much emphasis on verifiable evidence.
[/quote]
No belief system is united. Some will make others look stupid. Like Westboro Baptist. I'm sure a number of atheists didn't read "On the Origin of Species" correctly. Even Abraham had no need for absolute certainty of his god, it could have been a hallucination or a desert demon tricking him. That is why Christianity is a BELIEF and we use annoying words like 'faith' and 'hope'. Strong relationships are formed on uncertainty.
In line with this Christian evidence for God is light, making theism a belief involving faith, hope, and love.

Please, think of a SINGLE event that, if it happened right now, would undoubtably prove God's existence. I can ASSURE you it doesn't exist.

I can think of one right off the top of my head. God popping over and saying, "Hi."
[/quote]
You would claim you heard someone else. The scientific community would claim you are delusional. Even the Christians would say that you are simply insane. Stuff like that, even if it DID succeed in making you a theist, would simply imply that God is there, not that he is omnipotent or gracious. It simply isn't an option.