What Are Miracles...

[Ryantology]

any 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.

Whether religions agree on a core message has nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.

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.

1. My assertion comes from what is likely to be right. I have no desire for any specific version to be correct. Whatever is, is.
2. How is it that my assertion cannot be proven? How do you know this? The fact that it cannot today is irrelevant. Yours cannot be proven, ever, and it is that way on purpose. If you described your God in any way which did not rely entirely on him being impervious to observation, you would have no basis to continue believing.

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.

My parents are neither black nor lived in Mozambique. Therefore, it would have been impossible for me to have been born as a black child in Mozambique. I am the product of a combination of genetic material from two very specific human beings. I came from a single of my father's millions of sperm cells and a single of my mother's hundreds of eggs. I could not have come from anyplace else. Any variation of that, even down to it being a different sperm or egg cell from the same people, would have produced a person who is not me, as happened four years later when my little sister was born.

More bias. I am a Christian because I feel no atheist has provided a sound logical argument.

Good for you.

It doesn't matter if someone DID present a sound logical argument? When Christians say that, you give it a label…BIGOTRY.

It is not possible to produce a sound logical argument for a supernatural creator god. The basis for any such argument comes from logic which cannot be checked or verified in any way.

[Consilius]

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)

The objective of theism is that both need to coexist. If we are going to analyze God as simply a potent force, we lack the Christian message. If we're going to make the Bible a book on philosophy, we do not have enough conviction for an actual religion.
Much of the Bible HAS been proven to be true and Christians DO believe in a God,
and at the same time what we actually LEARN from Scripture is what we bring into the way we lead our lives.

[The Grand Nudger]

The goal of natural selection is to get a species to survive and reproduce.

There is no goal.

If we all died for our girlfriends, they would have no means of passing on our genes. According to evolution, this is stupid.

So long as we laid the pipe before we laid down our lives, it would be just fine. Consider those unfortunate males of other species for whom copulation is their final act.

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.

How can evolution account for sacrificing ones life for a mate? By the brute force of numbers.

[Drich]

What are miracles?

Quite simply put they are direct interactions between man and God. I know they are defined as unexplainable phenomena, that are attributed to God. (Sorta as a default when nothing else can explain an event.) but, in reality when they happen (to you or whom ever they are directed toward) your understand does not simply default to God as there is no other explanation. God if only for a moment opens your eyes and ears and you see and hear Him. That is the actual miracle, not the magic act most think of when that word is used.

If you are looking for things or signs to be miracles, then you will never experience one. That is unless you see Chris angel or maybe the amazing Jonathan...

[Ryantology]

What are miracles?

They are like 'communications from God': malfunctions which take place in the brains of people who don't know or won't accept that they are malfunctions.

[Consilius]

The goal of natural selection is to get a species to survive and reproduce.

There is no goal.

If we all died for our girlfriends, they would have no means of passing on our genes. According to evolution, this is stupid.

So long as we laid the pipe before we laid down our lives, it would be just fine. Consider those unfortunate males of other species for whom copulation is their final act.

Ah, but say we didn't? If a man died in protecting his girlfriend without copulating with her first, his genes would never be propagated. Would you condemn his actions? Should people die for others only when they are certain that their genes will be propagated?

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.

How can evolution account for sacrificing ones life for a mate? By the brute force of numbers.

By 'dying for a mate' I mean 'dying to protect somebody that you claim to love'.

---

What are miracles?

They are like 'communications from God': malfunctions which take place in the brains of people who don't know or won't accept that they are malfunctions.

Nope. Those are hallucinations, or at least that is what you would call them. The thing with a physical miracle in this age is that science can always find an excuse for it without God. That is why they don't happen.
What DOES happen is that, in those rare moments that good is manifested in the universe, it hints at an ultimate good that exists. Those are the miracles.
Mothers surviving cancer happens because of doctors and encouraging family members and strong-willed women, but when things like those happen, they can also be attributed to pure chance. Or so some would say. But it cannot be denied that surviving cancer is a good thing, and will forever be. That leads to the notion that good is unchanging and works in the lives of people.
That is the best miracle you can ever hope to get. Nobody is helping you cross oceans any time soon.

---

[quote='Consilius' pid='454132' dateline='1370145067']
any 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.

Whether religions agree on a core message has nothing to do with whether or not it is correct.

When similar conclusions are reached in isolation, they are more likely to be valid.

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.

1. My assertion comes from what is likely to be right.

As does mine.

I have no desire for any specific version to be correct. Whatever is, is.
2. How is it that my assertion cannot be proven? How do you know this? The fact that it cannot today is irrelevant.

Your excuse for something that you cannot prove is that it will be proven in the future. Atheists can be saying this 100 years from now.

Yours cannot be proven, ever, and it is that way on purpose. If you described your God in any way which did not rely entirely on him being impervious to observation, you would have no basis to continue believing.

Nope. We cannot pinpoint God's geographical location, or calculate how many virtues get you a new car. Besides, the debate which is going on between theists and atheists about the origin of the universe is purely theoretical. And as far as that goes, neither argument has been definitely proven true.
In the Bible, as far as I see, God is entirely in support of providing evidence. In Romans, he says, "Look for me in the created universe." What he doesn't say, anywhere, is "If you try to look for proof I exist you will be damned."

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.

My parents are neither black nor lived in Mozambique. Therefore, it would have been impossible for me to have been born as a black child in Mozambique. I am the product of a combination of genetic material from two very specific human beings. I came from a single of my father's millions of sperm cells and a single of my mother's hundreds of eggs. I could not have come from anyplace else. Any variation of that, even down to it being a different sperm or egg cell from the same people, would have produced a person who is not me, as happened four years later when my little sister was born.

I am going to drop that specific argument because it presumes you believe in a soul or an unchanging form of your existence, which you don't.
Let's put it this way. There could have been a miscarriage. You could have died in infancy. Many do. You could have a life-threatening genetic disease and be on life support in a hospital right now. You could have been killed in a domestic accident or a natural disaster. Who do you ascribe to being where you are right now?

More bias. I am a Christian because I feel no atheist has provided a sound logical argument.

Good for you.

You resorting to sarcasm shows how you refuse to accept the equality of both sides.

It doesn't matter if someone DID present a sound logical argument? When Christians say that, you give it a label…BIGOTRY.

It is not possible to produce a sound logical argument for a supernatural creator god. The basis for any such argument comes from logic which cannot be checked or verified in any way.

You just said that it is impossible for Christians to give a logical argument. Now say you did. You wouldn't listen to them because you have already mentally defeated every theoretical Christian that comes to your door.
The thing about logic is that it does not require being checked. If you drew on the faces of hospital patients, they would probably be mad at you. Is my answer invalid because I haven't experimented with amputees?

[CriticalBen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI

An overall interesting debate, but for you question, Hamza answers it like this: A miracle is something that happens without a connection to something that could have caused it. That's btw an argument he uses for Islam in the debate.

[Consilius]

According to science, everything has a cause. If it doesn't, they make the excuse that they just haven't found it yet.
Things like crossing seas and fire in the sky are simply attributed to science.
A miracle will never satisfy anybody. Ever. It can never serve as proof of God's existence.
The REAL miracles are a little more subtle than that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, but say we didn't? If a man died in protecting his girlfriend without copulating with her first, his genes would never be propagated. Would you condemn his actions?

Of course not. It would be unfortunate for him, but unfortunate things happen.

Should people die for others only when they are certain that their genes will be propagated?

What people should and shouldn't die for is largely up to them. Regardless of whether or not they think they should - it can be a good idea as judged by another, or a bad one. Looking to genetics for "shoulds" is going to be fairly rough. They might illuminate the situation for us, but ultimately other things are going to be applied before we get any "shoulds" out of it.

By 'dying for a mate' I mean 'dying to protect somebody that you claim to love'.

The answer is the same. Brute force of numbers.

[little_monkey]

The REAL miracles are a little more subtle than that.

Care to elaborate?