RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   
  Topic: Miracles as an argument for theism< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
J. O'Donnell



Posts: 98
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,23:18   

I do not believe Miracles occur, because they would on some level bend free will such as if God intervened to stop someone from committing suicide [as an example]. Let's take a hypothetical though;

In this scenario, two cars have crashed into one another in a horrific smash, with one individual who is drunk and another who was just driving in the wrong place at the wrong time.

1) The drunk driver is killed instantly and so is the unfortunate person in the other vehicle.

2) The drunk driver is thrown clear of the vehicle and survives with minor injuries, while the other person is killed instantly.

3) The drunk driver is killed instantly, while the other person is merely thrown aside and not injured severely.

4) Neither is killed or harmed in any manner by the smash.

Which of these constitutes a 'miracle', for whom and for what reasons? Do none of them? What about if both were atheists? Both were christian? Both were muslim?

--------------
My blog: Animacules

   
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2008,23:44   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2008,22:49)
My point is that a logical, complete message should be enough.

No miracles required. No faith required.


Well, I think that history shows us that for most people, logic and reason aren't enough.  People have to be trained to be logically rigorous, trained to realize that they have to live without utter certainty.  If you aren't of a mind to accept that as "enough", then that won't be enough.

I think that you are assuming that all religious people use faith and miracles as kind of a poor man's version of reason and evidence.

And while there are a lot of silly people who do this, its not universal.

But that's true of every human endevor.  People, left to their own devices will get things wrong, and things get wronger very fast.  There are even the occasional obnoxious atheist who demonstrates this, as much as that fact makes atheists cringe.

It is a daily task to stay aware of one's own worldview, to make sure it isn't careening towards stupidity and hurtfulness.  The problem with religion it drifts very easily into a mode where it deprecates and scorns the only methods people have of monitoring that: criticism and reality testing.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,00:59   

Quote (swbarnes2 @ Feb. 28 2008,23:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2008,22:49)
My point is that a logical, complete message should be enough.

No miracles required. No faith required.


Well, I think that history shows us that for most people, logic and reason aren't enough.  People have to be trained to be logically rigorous, trained to realize that they have to live without utter certainty.  If you aren't of a mind to accept that as "enough", then that won't be enough.

I think that you are assuming that all religious people use faith and miracles as kind of a poor man's version of reason and evidence.

And while there are a lot of silly people who do this, its not universal.

But that's true of every human endevor.  People, left to their own devices will get things wrong, and things get wronger very fast.  There are even the occasional obnoxious atheist who demonstrates this, as much as that fact makes atheists cringe.

It is a daily task to stay aware of one's own worldview, to make sure it isn't careening towards stupidity and hurtfulness.  The problem with religion it drifts very easily into a mode where it deprecates and scorns the only methods people have of monitoring that: criticism and reality testing.

No, a divinely crafted message could be simple, complete and axiomatically persuasive.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,11:08   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2008,22:49)
Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 28 2008,22:45)
Richard, I'm not sure you can have it both ways.  Either resorting to miracles to prop up faith is a sign of weakness or not needing miracles but relying on faith is a sign of weakness seems to be mutually exclusive.

false dilemma..

My point is that a logical, complete message should be enough.

No miracles required. No faith required.

Call me confused, but I don't see how you can have a belief in God and not rely on faith...

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,11:21   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,11:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 28 2008,22:49)
Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 28 2008,22:45)
Richard, I'm not sure you can have it both ways.  Either resorting to miracles to prop up faith is a sign of weakness or not needing miracles but relying on faith is a sign of weakness seems to be mutually exclusive.

false dilemma..

My point is that a logical, complete message should be enough.

No miracles required. No faith required.

Call me confused, but I don't see how you can have a belief in God and not rely on faith...

If he's omnipotent, and wanted you to know, you'd know.
Plus, you could meet him.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,13:45   

That requires making an assumption about his intentions and I'm not prepared to make that assumption.

Also, there is a certain school of thought that says faith is required because if not the choices to follow God would be easy.  If he's obvious and accessable then there's no reason to doubt him and too much pressure not to stray.  Almost like what O'Donnell says, there'd be no more free will.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,13:48   

Allow me to spell out Richard's point in a little more detail.

The typical theist believes the following:

1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God wants every one of us to know him and accept his message.

If these four statements are true, what can we conclude?

2a. If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what conditions are required to convince each of us to believe in him.
3a. If God is omnipotent, then he is capable of bringing about those conditions.
4a. If he wants us to believe in him, then he will provide us with those conditions.

Yet not all of us believe in him, and so at least one of those four assumptions must be incorrect.

A Calvinist like Heddle would argue that #4 is incorrect, because God does not want all of us to know him.  Only some of us are predestined to be saved; the rest are predestined to suffer eternal damnation.  This position is at least logically consistent, though it paints God in a rather unflattering light.

Others argue that #4 is incorrect because God only wants us to believe in him if we freely choose to do so.  According to them, if God provided overwhelming evidence of his existence, then he would in effect be forcing us to believe in him.  We would all be deprived of our free will, contrary to God's intention.

This argument falls apart on closer examination.  Suppose God only presents evidence strong enough to convince half of us that he exists.  Well, according to the logic of the argument, half of us are then being deprived of our free will.

In fact, the only way for God to preserve everyone's free will, by that argument, is for him to make sure that nobody is convinced by the evidence.  Quite a different picture from the one that most theists paint.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,14:15   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 29 2008,13:48)
Allow me to spell out Richard's point in a little more detail.

The typical theist believes the following:

1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God wants every one of us to know him and accept his message.

If these four statements are true, what can we conclude?

2a. If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what conditions are required to convince each of us to believe in him.
3a. If God is omnipotent, then he is capable of bringing about those conditions.
4a. If he wants us to believe in him, then he will provide us with those conditions.

Yet not all of us believe in him, and so at least one of those four assumptions must be incorrect.

A Calvinist like Heddle would argue that #4 is incorrect, because God does not want all of us to know him.  Only some of us are predestined to be saved; the rest are predestined to suffer eternal damnation.  This position is at least logically consistent, though it paints God in a rather unflattering light.

Others argue that #4 is incorrect because God only wants us to believe in him if we freely choose to do so.  According to them, if God provided overwhelming evidence of his existence, then he would in effect be forcing us to believe in him.  We would all be deprived of our free will, contrary to God's intention.

This argument falls apart on closer examination.  Suppose God only presents evidence strong enough to convince half of us that he exists.  Well, according to the logic of the argument, half of us are then being deprived of our free will.

In fact, the only way for God to preserve everyone's free will, by that argument, is for him to make sure that nobody is convinced by the evidence.  Quite a different picture from the one that most theists paint.

Keiths:  I think what you are saying is known as the Epicuras Paradox:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.

If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.

If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" —

Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

Which just goes to show, they knew Skeptic was full of shit,  2500 years ago.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,14:31   

I would just add:

5) Man must choose

That satisfies the equation especially in light on the story of the Garden and it's essentially what the whole New Testament is about.  Who can say why God doesn't overwhelm us with proof to make it easy for us, maybe he thought trees would be enough.  Maybe this whole process is a learning experience and it would cheat you out of the growth that you're going to undergo.  I don't really know nor do I care because it's beyond my capability of answering in this life and therefore a waste of time.  Maybe you should ask him when the time comes, I'm sure he's got a pretty good answer for you.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,14:39   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,15:31)
I don't really know nor do I care because it's beyond my capability of answering in this life and therefore a waste of time.

Seems like that could wrap up several discussions, actually.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,15:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,14:31)
I would just add:

5) Man must choose

Adding a premise doesn't solve anything.  We already know that at least one of the four original premises is wrong.  You need to reject one (or more) of them.

Quote
Who can say why God doesn't overwhelm us with proof to make it easy for us, maybe he thought trees would be enough.

If he thought trees would be enough, then he's not omniscient.  You've rejected premise #2.

Quote
Maybe this whole process is a learning experience and it would cheat you out of the growth that you're going to undergo.

But people still die as unbelievers.  Why does God withhold this "learning experience" from some, but not others?  

Quote
I don't really know nor do I care because it's beyond my capability of answering in this life and therefore a waste of time.

You don't care that you're embracing a logically inconsistent position?  It doesn't matter to you whether what you believe is true??    

Quote
Maybe you should ask him when the time comes, I'm sure he's got a pretty good answer for you.

If I get the chance to ask him, I will.  In the meantime, truth matters, and I'll continue to argue against the kind of irrationality you're surrendering to.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,15:24   

keiths skeptic doesn't give a damn, logic is just opinion to him.

anyway
Quote
If I get the chance to ask him, I will.


If such a beast exists I am going to slap the absolute fuck juice out of this sonofabitch.  

A)  He'll know it was coming
B)  It won't hurt such a god-beast one eensy weeny little bit
C)  Drinks all around, in Hell.  A shitty little bar in a shitty little town that is also where Sternburglar-story goes to try to drink himself to Bolivia.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,15:36   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 29 2008,15:24)
keiths skeptic doesn't give a damn, logic is just opinion to him.

anyway
 
Quote
If I get the chance to ask him, I will.


If such a beast exists I am going to slap the absolute fuck juice out of this sonofabitch.  

A)  He'll know it was coming
B)  It won't hurt such a god-beast one eensy weeny little bit
C)  Drinks all around, in Hell.  A shitty little bar in a shitty little town that is also where Sternburglar-story goes to try to drink himself to Bolivia.

Hey, stand in line - and no cuts!

I think I'm getting to him first, and he's got one hell of a lot of 'splainin' to do...

I'm gonna be more pissed at "Him" than a red-headed ID Supporter with a bad report card.

The list of "The Lord" being a total dick is varied and long-term throughout history.  And, conveniently enough, some of "His" earliest supporters were dumb enough to write it down!  Every murder and incitement to riot...  attempted murders, incest, the list goes on, and that sum-beatch is toast.

Christ on a Crutch, even GW and Cheney aren't that effing dumb!  Writing it down!?!

So, yeah dude.  You got him when I'm through with him.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,15:44   

Idiocy.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,15:48   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,16:44)
Idiocy.

Irony.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,15:53   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 29 2008,13:48)
Allow me to spell out Richard's point in a little more detail.

The typical theist believes the following:

1. God exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God wants every one of us to know him and accept his message.

If these four statements are true, what can we conclude?

2a. If God is omniscient, then he knows exactly what conditions are required to convince each of us to believe in him.
3a. If God is omnipotent, then he is capable of bringing about those conditions.
4a. If he wants us to believe in him, then he will provide us with those conditions.

Yet not all of us believe in him, and so at least one of those four assumptions must be incorrect.

A Calvinist like Heddle would argue that #4 is incorrect, because God does not want all of us to know him.  Only some of us are predestined to be saved; the rest are predestined to suffer eternal damnation.  This position is at least logically consistent, though it paints God in a rather unflattering light.

Others argue that #4 is incorrect because God only wants us to believe in him if we freely choose to do so.  According to them, if God provided overwhelming evidence of his existence, then he would in effect be forcing us to believe in him.  We would all be deprived of our free will, contrary to God's intention.

This argument falls apart on closer examination.  Suppose God only presents evidence strong enough to convince half of us that he exists.  Well, according to the logic of the argument, half of us are then being deprived of our free will.

In fact, the only way for God to preserve everyone's free will, by that argument, is for him to make sure that nobody is convinced by the evidence.  Quite a different picture from the one that most theists paint.

Plus, with regard to authorship, omnipotence and omniscience - he made you knowing all the choice you would make, so really he made them, because he could have made you *any* you that would make *any* set of choices.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,17:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,14:31)
I would just add:

5) Man must choose

That satisfies the equation especially in light on the story of the Garden and it's essentially what the whole New Testament is about.  Who can say why God doesn't overwhelm us with proof to make it easy for us, maybe he thought trees would be enough.  

If He thought that, then clearly God is not omniscient.

 
Quote
Maybe this whole process is a learning experience and it would cheat you out of the growth that you're going to undergo.  I don't really know nor do I care because it's beyond my capability of answering in this life and therefore a waste of time.  Maybe you should ask him when the time comes, I'm sure he's got a pretty good answer for you.


But Skeptic, what if the Zoroastrians or the Hindus are right, and you got everything wrong?  :angry:

[EDIT: SHIT! Keiths beat me to point #1!]

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,17:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,15:44)
Idiocy.

Skeptic, won't you tell us what unicorns really look like?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,18:26   

If so you won't see me running up to the Hindu gods bitch slapping them and demanding an explanation.  I can accept that I may be wrong but I choose not to be stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what does omniscient and omnipotent really and from who's perspective?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,19:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,18:26)
If so you won't see me running up to the Hindu gods bitch slapping them and demanding an explanation.  I can accept that I may be wrong but I choose not to be stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what does omniscient and omnipotent really and from who's perspective?

skeptic - I think you just don't get it, and probably never will be able to break yourself free from your conditioning.  I feel sorry for you dude.    

Regarding your "demanding an explanation" comment.  I think you misunderstood.  The time for "explanations", (read as "excuses"), is long gone.  That sucker is toast for a whole lot of past crimes.  

You said:  "Just out of curiosity, what does omniscient and omnipotent really and from who's perspective?

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I recommend an on-line dictionary for the definitions if you are having trouble understanding the terms.  I am not sure why it matter "from who's perspective".  

Are you suggesting that "God" might have a different perspective from me?  Well, since he exists only in your mind, I can't see as how this means anything at all to me, unless you listen to Him when he tells you to stone the Idoloter... you're not hearing any voices are you?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,19:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,18:26)
I can accept that I may be wrong...

Can you?  You've been shown that your position is internally inconsistent, and that adding the premise "man must choose" solves nothing--yet you don't seem any closer to actually acknowledging your error.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,19:28   

LOL, that was a good one Keiths.

Being the compassionate guy that I am I hope for you guys sake that I am wrong.  I actually occupy the most practical position as I have nothing to lose whereas you guys have everything and more to lose.  Good luck and we'll see how it turns out.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,20:31   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,20:28)
LOL, that was a good one Keiths.

Being the compassionate guy that I am I hope for you guys sake that I am wrong.  I actually occupy the most practical position as I have nothing to lose whereas you guys have everything and more to lose.  Good luck and we'll see how it turns out.

Pascal's wager?  Holy crap, you're scraping the bottom now.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,20:35   

Sorry, not familiar with that one.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,20:36   

There is nothing new under the sun.

ETA:  It's the weakest argument you could possibly make short of "Denyse O'Leary said so".

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 29 2008,21:39

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,21:08   

Quote
Being the compassionate guy that I am I hope for you guys sake that I am wrong.  I actually occupy the most practical position as I have nothing to lose whereas you guys have everything and more to lose.  Good luck and we'll see how it turns out.




Hey, that is the most practical position!!!  Not to mention, evidence free!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,22:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,18:26)
If so you won't see me running up to the Hindu gods bitch slapping them and demanding an explanation.  I can accept that I may be wrong but I choose not to be stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what does omniscient and omnipotent really and from who's perspective?

omniscient = knows everything
omnipotent = can do anything

It's not hard, Skeptic. A dictionary coulda told you that.

[insert badly-needed eye-rolling emoticon here]

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 29 2008,22:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 29 2008,19:28)
LOL, that was a good one Keiths.

Being the compassionate guy that I am I hope for you guys sake that I am wrong.  I actually occupy the most practical position as I have nothing to lose whereas you guys have everything and more to lose.  Good luck and we'll see how it turns out.

Really? You're a piss-poor Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Zoroastrian/Yazidi, Skeptic. I don't see why you're in such a great position. Do you, like, know something we don't?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,07:26   

Feb. 28 2008,22:45  Skeptic said:


" From the comments I've seen on this board I'd have to rate over-all Bible literacy at a D (and that includes Ftk, Dave and Hero)."
****************************************

As you know, I have a thread here titled "Zero resurrected ".  I checked through it and
couldn't find your posts or comments.  I invite you to justify my "D" grade.


Skeptic, I am neither a Christian or skeptic.  I fall somewhere in the middle.  I believe in
a creator and I believe he wrote all the bible, not just the new testament as you suggested.
I find a plan of salvation in the OT which you and other Christians overlook.  It is quoted
in one of my posts.
****************************************
Now, back to the topic of miracles:
I'll re-post my first comment on this thread, since it was not addressed:

Like chance, an unusual event, some might call a miracle, doesn't have to break any law  of physics.
Beating the odds can always be attributed to either skill or luck.  Like Tiger Woods says, " The more I practice, the luckier I get."
And the realist says, "It's not hard to walk on water if you know where the stumps are."
******************************************
Pilot asked Jesus to do a miracle to prove he was God's son.
Sometimes he shows me something, even when I don't ask.

Story # 337 on my website:

AAAAASK                                      
           Columbus Day, 1996, while driving down Garden Street, I thought, “Lord, you said, ‘Ask, and it shall be given.’ I’ve got it all. What else could I want?  Your plans work out so well.  I dare not ask for anything.”  I glanced at an auto tag ahead of me.  It said, “AAAAASK”.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2008,07:45   

hero, God didn't write the Bible nor does he claim he did.  Man wrote the Bible as inspired by God.  That leaves interpretation open not just at the point of the writer but the reader too.

D-

  
  179 replies since Feb. 26 2008,09:23 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]