Does God only work through Magic?

[KUSA]

Of the three which mouse had it 'right?'

None of them did. Even after the third mouse's complete observation of the inner workings of said piano he was not any closer to the source of the music than the other two. In the end the third mouse could only describe the mechanism use by the source of the music to produce it. 'Science' or rather the idea that 'science' disproves or removes God from how things work is that third mouse.

You conveniently leave one thing out of the story. The fact that the mouse could have easily saw the person playing the piano.

I could tell you a story about an invisible gardener but I won't.

[TubbyTubby]

That seems to be a 'learn-ed' man's silly perception. That once 'science' can explain a 'natural phemona' works it can no longer be of God. My question to you is why is that? Why can't 'science' be the how God does what He does, rather than the so called 'proof' their is no God?

Why should a natural event be attributed to a god? What was the process that leads you to that conclusion?

Three mice were sat in their penthouse one day when an earthquake shook the building. The first mouse decided to go find out what caused it. He went down to the basement in the lift (bit of a lazy mouse this one) but couldn't really find anything other than an old dusty book, "Mouse God, creator of the world". He went back upstairs to tell his mates that the shaking was because Mouse God was battling the evil Chesire cat in his evil underworld lair.

This didn't really satisfy the second mouses thirst for facts so he studied geology for 20 years and developed a hypothesis about how plates subside and move across the surface of mouse world based on precise measurements he set up.

First mouse was not impressed, seems like a lot of complicated guff when my answer is perfectly suitable still.

Third mouse, however, was impressed and funded deep sea explorations, and complex seismic models that confirmed the hypothesis and observed data from measuring propagation of shockwaves around mouse world. Second mouse then tested his hypothesis against this data and the theory was proven 50 years later.

First mouse, still not impressed, "yeh but you still can't prove that Mouse God is not battling the Chesire cat in his underground lair can you?"

[TubbyTubby]

I know one about three blind mice as well Drich, want to hear it?

[KUSA]

Poor Drippy. He thought he had another angle to peddle his god to us but it turned out to be the same tired bullshit.

[Whateverist]

That seems to be a 'learn-ed' man's silly perception. That once 'science' can explain a 'natural phemona' works it can no longer be of God. My question to you is why is that? Why can't 'science' be the how God does what He does, rather than the so called 'proof' their is no God?

Way ahead of you.  That is why I favor admitting that 'supernatural' is an empty set.  If there is know-how behind everything your god does that only shows that our knowledge of the natural is incomplete.

So do we have a deal?  Science cannot falsify god and god is not supernatural.

[Minimalist]

Drippy, glad to see you are still as stupid as ever.

Careful....Osiris may fry your ass.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

That once 'science' can explain a 'natural phemona' works it can no longer be of God. My question to you is why is that? Why can't 'science' be the how God does what He does, rather than the so called 'proof' their is no God?

Why would god want us not to believe in him? Why only show your interventions through the means of natural events? Which is more likely, that these so-called divine interventions are actually natural events, or it is god's pathetic attempt at getting our attention? If god knew that these scientific processes would come about, why not leave a series of strong evidence that couldn't be refuted of his existence? Why not reveal yourself to the world in a manner that couldn't be denied? We know you won't actually think about these questions, but these are the type of questions that go through our heads. Questions, a rational mind uses to try and figure out if a claim about the supernatural is true or not, since we have no means of actually testing it.

Your questions are an attempt to solidify your already, practically unshakeable beliefs. You're taking what we know in the natural world, and trying to mold all of these facts around your god belief as best as you can to try to convince yourself that he exists. Nice try.

[Longhorn]

Their is a 'preacher' story I once heard that illustrates this idea well. It is about 3 mice who lived in the home of a master pianist. here is the summary:
 When the fist mouse in he thought the house was just magical and would produce wonderful music on it's own.

Then the second mouse came along did not accept the magic house answer and went exploring and found the piano, he went back and scoffed at the first mouse and said it wasn't magic it was this big black cabinet that was producing the music.

Then the third mouse came along and not satasifed with what the first to mice found went to this big black cabinet and went in side when the music was playing to see row after row of tightly wound strings being struck by a series of small wooden hammers. He watch this process of hammers hitting strings for hours. Now full convinced he had found the absolute source of the music he went back and ridiculed the first two mice for their ignorance, and then went on to describe the inner workings of the piano in great detail.

Of the three which mouse had it 'right?'

None of them did. Even after the third mouse's complete observation of the inner workings of said piano he was not any closer to the source of the music than the other two. In the end the third mouse could only describe the mechanism use by the source of the music to produce it. 'Science' or rather the idea that 'science' disproves or removes God from how things work is that third mouse.

Great. Now change the pianist into an octet. Did you become a polytheist?

Now change the piano into a clockwork piano. Did you become a deist?

You begin your argument with 'god exists' to reach the conclusion that 'god exists'. It's utter nonsense and can be used to 'prove' any religion ever in existence. Stick to preaching, cos logic ain't for you.

Look, Dripsy. As long as I have to hear about this god from you, he's only getting less valid. Take a break and let his omnipotent ass make his case for himself, k?


Oh, right......

[Minimalist]

Why can't 'science' be the how God does what He does, rather than the so called 'proof' their is no God?

"Science" seems to work just fine without your fucking god.  'God' on the other hand seems fairly inept all by himself.

For example:  When humanity imagined that "demons" drove people crazy your lame-assed god ran around driving out demons.  Now that we know about mental illnesses you want to give your 'god' credit for developing Prozac.  Why couldn't 'god' create Prozac instead of running around like a fuckhead driving out demons?  Why is your god constrained by the technology of the society of the time?  Why is your god such an inept putz?

And then, why are you such an inept putz for not seeing through him?

[Anomalocaris]

And then, why are you such an inept putz for not seeing through him?

Because he is a drich?