(August 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 14, 2013 at 10:17 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm not quite following you... all I basically said was that you've stated that miracles are objectively a natural thing. Therefore, it doesn't matter what my "explanation as a non-believer" might be, because whatever the *true* explanation is will be reducible to natural processes, according to you. This means that asking how exactly water gets turned to wine and why humanity hasn't stumbled onto such a process a rather fitting couple of questions relative to your stance on miracles.
I'm saying miracles have to be ambiguous or they would disprove God.
Natural processes are anything but ambiguous. Does this mean God is now disproved, or will you be forced to go back to the traditional view of miracles
On a similar topic, how is it that the supernatural acts exclusively naturally? Causal relations would tell me that *somewhere* the supernatural action turned natural. Care to give an account of this phenomenon?
Quote:The only real thing is faith, and the rational position. See Jesus affirming this all of the time. If you believe because you see it, then your faith is pretty worthless, and your potential to act because you understand why you believe is severely limited.
God playing hide and seek is why faith amongst the human race is lacking. Consequently, God's hide and seek game is why souls by the billions are being dumped into "hell", whatever it might be. If you're willing to accept the current scenario just so that you have an excuse for your unjustified faith.. well, I dunno, I'd be speechless.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle