Hello again Mark.
I think if you look at any miracles in the Bible, all of them could be explained away logically. If they were as undeniable as reported then surely there would be some record outside the Bible? Your search for substantial natural phenomenon is mirrored by common anti-theist dogma stating the opposite. No one has yet ever successfully asserted miracles happened. This is proof enough for now.
Call that solipism if you wish. I call it realism.
So... Gold & jewel encrusted Detroit. I would say that it could happen, that God could do it, but God would also make it explainable by science. To my mind, this is entirely consistent with what the Bible says. Proof I think is on my side.
I don't see how anyone's definition alters the facts. Significantly the idea ties in exactly with Biblical accounts.
Why hang so much on the article of faith question? An article of faith is far more, in my opinion. It's a core definition, which this is far from being. I have said, quite strongly I think, that I don't think miracles, for one, can be supported by hard evidence.
From precendence, I would suggest that in the future, God would do the same as he has done in the past, yes. This is why the Bible strives to understand his nature, so that we can know what God is like. He can of course also do anything at all, including things that the Bible says he's already done, plus infinitely more. He is neither incapable nor unwilling. He is observed to be following this rule. It would be inconsistent if he did not.
Yes absolutely God is constantly revealing himself. He speaks directly but not in any way that would leave you in no doubt that he exists, because that wouldn't be in line with scripture. You wouldn't need faith. If he did, then the Bible would need to be thrown away and a new religion created. That goes for most if not all other religions too. Monotonously it follows the logic.
Now let me get this straight. You're telling me what Christianity is? Orthadoxy.. you talking Catholicism? Dull dishwater? I take it you have a need for chastisement and threats of hell & high water. It doent surprise me that you truly fear the real thing, but I think it beneath you to level that at me. I concede no ground at all. You have concluded that I have, but I have countered every notion.
Kind regards.
I think if you look at any miracles in the Bible, all of them could be explained away logically. If they were as undeniable as reported then surely there would be some record outside the Bible? Your search for substantial natural phenomenon is mirrored by common anti-theist dogma stating the opposite. No one has yet ever successfully asserted miracles happened. This is proof enough for now.
Call that solipism if you wish. I call it realism.
So... Gold & jewel encrusted Detroit. I would say that it could happen, that God could do it, but God would also make it explainable by science. To my mind, this is entirely consistent with what the Bible says. Proof I think is on my side.
I don't see how anyone's definition alters the facts. Significantly the idea ties in exactly with Biblical accounts.
Why hang so much on the article of faith question? An article of faith is far more, in my opinion. It's a core definition, which this is far from being. I have said, quite strongly I think, that I don't think miracles, for one, can be supported by hard evidence.
Mark Wrote:...and since it is an article of your faith that god is either incapable or unwilling to give any such evidence, the implication is that he cannot or will not do any of the listed things. Do you agree?
From precendence, I would suggest that in the future, God would do the same as he has done in the past, yes. This is why the Bible strives to understand his nature, so that we can know what God is like. He can of course also do anything at all, including things that the Bible says he's already done, plus infinitely more. He is neither incapable nor unwilling. He is observed to be following this rule. It would be inconsistent if he did not.
Yes absolutely God is constantly revealing himself. He speaks directly but not in any way that would leave you in no doubt that he exists, because that wouldn't be in line with scripture. You wouldn't need faith. If he did, then the Bible would need to be thrown away and a new religion created. That goes for most if not all other religions too. Monotonously it follows the logic.
Mark Wrote:I don't recall, does it say in the Bible that some people who saw Jesus resurrected nevertheless doubted it?Thomas, one of Jesus' main men, doubted it.
Now let me get this straight. You're telling me what Christianity is? Orthadoxy.. you talking Catholicism? Dull dishwater? I take it you have a need for chastisement and threats of hell & high water. It doent surprise me that you truly fear the real thing, but I think it beneath you to level that at me. I concede no ground at all. You have concluded that I have, but I have countered every notion.
Kind regards.
