Joined: Sep. 2007
I must say I truly didn’t understand this thread. How can miracles be a problem for God? By definition, if he exists he is supernatural and thus can act supernaturally. On what basis can one rationally argue that they (miracles) are some sort of admission of defeat? The only basis I see is to declare them to be unnecessary for any god worthy of the title, and then, ipso facto, their mere postulation demonstrates god’s ineptitude.
It seems rather a stacked deck, and a silly one at that. As any theist must, I assume that God supernaturally manipulated space-time to create the universe. If you don’t believe that, then I don’t know what would make you a theist—instead, at best, you’d be worshipping an advanced though thoroughly natural creature.
To me, once I accept that God can create the whole friggin’ universe (perhaps by setting the big bang in motion, or some precursor thereof), the classic miracles (circumventing the natural laws to impregnate a virgin, turn water to wine, or play games with time for Joshua’s military advantage) seem like child’s play. And the purpose was to further his plan of redemption—for which he is under no obligation to carry out at all let alone to be required to use only secondary (natural) means.
That said, I suspect you guys are sensing some deeper theological problem with miracles, one which, blissfully, I am too shallow to grasp.
And, by the way, JDog is absolutely correct when he wrote:
| It's an effin miracle that so many people have believed in Big Sky JuJu for so damn long, with what is really no reason to at all.|
As any good Calvinist knows, it is indeed a miracle that anyone believes.
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris