What is your view on the presence of the divine in history?

[More Than A Feeling]

In your personal opinion, has God or any other divine entity ever manifested in or caused something to happen in history (e.g. Jesus, according to standard Christian doctrine)? If so, what is the standard for measuring whether an event or manifestation was divine? Could it or is it likely to happen again? What motivated the manifestation or action? Can we do things that make it more or less likely that such an event would occur? Any thoughts anyone has on this or related matters are most welcome!

[lastknowngood]

1. Andy Devine or just Devine?

n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

4. You made me check to see if I had misspelled

You tricky person, you.

[smirkymonkey]

14. Just Divine.....

[TechBear_Seattle]

76. Nothing says divine like a 300# drag queen

:rofl:

[sweetheart]

2. All of history is about the divine awakening of humankind

And for all that divinity, we're left today navel gazing.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. Things always look better in the rear view mirror. n/t

[Zhade]

5. There has to be evidence of it to consider a view.

NT!

[Tace]

6. Questions Of God Always Involve Semantic Difficulties

But, my view is that "The Divine" is present everywhere, all the time.

[Gregorian]

7. Before the New Testament and after it.

Since I don't recall where it is in the bible, you can pretty much take this post with a grain of salt.

If I recall, there is a place in the bible where it is mentioned that miracles will no longer be performed on earth.

There was the virgin birth. And the Ten Commandments. But at this point in time, being after the birth of Christ, I am of the understanding that there are no miracles.

But having said that, one has to wonder. But that is about all we can do. No one knows. And I suspect no one ever will know. I always suspect those who claim to know.

And like the argument that is often heard regarding the beneficence of God. I believe earth is the domain of Satan. A once perfect place where miracles were commonplace, now only showing glimpses of beauty and perfection.

[dweller]

8. transfiguration of Jesus

has always struck me as an event that is taken for a manifestation of his divinity, until one compares the imagery to other cultures, for example Buddhism.

just my opinion.
dp

edit for examples:






and of course,

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Numerous times, during the life of Christ

and the one that impresses me the most is the Pentacost. I can take or leave the concept of the virgin birth, but something got to those 12 men and they all ended up dying martyrs. I think whatever happened, it wasn't a group deceit because that would not be worth dying for. These men believed they had witnessed the resurrection and been touched by the Holy Spirit.

[greyl]

13. People's Temple Christian Church

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1509317

Why do you believe they weren't martyrs?
According to the legends, Jesus volunteered to be murdered. He sent Judas on assignment, and practically committed suicide.


The 19 September 11 hijackers.
Why do you believe they weren't doing God's work? If your standard of divinity is "they believed it was worth dying for", what reliably sensible framework do you use to discriminate between real martyrs and those who are the subject of group deceit?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Excellent points

and I have no easy answers for them. Mass hysteria surely exists.

My only argument is that in the Jim Jones case, Jones was still there to "lead" them to suicide and according to reports, he did lead them. The 19 "martyrs" (and really, by straight definition, they were) were influenced (inflamed?) by a faith and a culture over a thousand years old and one that is practiced by billions.

I agree Christ "committed suicide." He gave himself up for death he knew was coming. But the Apostles did not have the benefit of him being still around to lead them, nor did they have an established culture/religion to encourage them. They were swimming upstream, really, and died for it. Something convinced them they were right. I choose to believe it was the Pentacost.

[greyl]

21. The 19 hijackers weren't Muslims. They were Islamists.

Muslims are as harmless as you are. Islamists are not.

Yes, mass hysteria (or delusion) most certainly exists. I doubt anyone here would argue that point.
The problem is getting people to be honestly introspective enough to learn their way through their own levels of delusion, denial, and arrogance.

Adherence to the idea that Undying Faith Without Reason is a good thing(even the best thing) doesn't protect children and other humans from falling prey to bullshit, hysteria, and delusion. How could it?
On the other hand, critical thinking and awareness of the rules of logic just might work.

[greyl]

41. to clarify what I mean by "Islamists":

...
BILL MOYERS: Islamist. Help us to understand the distinction you make between Islam and Islamism.

MARTIN AMIS: Well, Islam is the great religion that has been the donor of countless benefits to mankind, that led the world in civilization throughout the Middle Ages, gave us algebra and all kinds of intellectual breakthroughs of all kinds, plus an example of tolerance that nowhere else in the world could offer at that time. A level of tolerance and respect for justice. That is Islam.

Islamism started after the First World War when the last empire was lost, the Ottoman sided with Germany in First World War. And then, you know, if you can stand way back from it all. You can imagine Islam very much reduced. It's coming towards modernity. And instead of advancing down that road, it turned round and the great leap backwards began. That's Islamism. But when Islamism got going instead of saying, "Okay, to come into modernity, we need to put slightly less emphasis on Islam." And the great leap backwards said, "No, we would need total emphasis on Islam."

BILL MOYERS: Fundamentalism?

MARTIN AMIS: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: That's what it is.

MARTIN AMIS: Radical fundamentalism, Islamism. That's what it means.

BILL MOYERS: And you say it's a modern phenomenon?

MARTIN AMIS: Yes. Islamism should be thought of as a wave. And it's the latest wave. And it has made stupendous gains over the last five years and ten, 15 years. And this is its central twist is the reward of suicide bombing. The other great theme is when Islam was expanding, and it had an absolutely fantastic 500 years of nation after nation coming under Islam. And they could always point to that. And it has been called the argument for manifest success, where you have God's blessing because look at this extraordinary victory story that you're living through.

So if what you believe in is the argument for manifest success, you're suddenly confronted by the argument for manifest failure. "And then what? Why has God apparently favored the infidels?" And this is a conundrum wrapped in an enigma for the Islamic soul.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/print/faithandreason106_print.html

du thread

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. I missed this before I responded.

Agreed.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. Now wait a minute

I agree they were Islamists, but that is a subset of Muslim, correct?

Now, do you think a person can think critically and still be a person of faith? Because if you don't, that basically says there are a whole LOT of idiots out here, and have been since we jumped out of the trees.

Also, remember that your definition of "reason" and mine might be very different. Yours might involve scientific instruments, dissertations, and formal proof. Mine involves critically examining and analyzing events in my personal life and those of my family, and placing them where they make the most sense to me, which is in a continuum of faith. I guess there has to be a lot of flexibilty involved, which is a part of creativity. I have spent my life in the creative arts, so that fits.

[Finder]

50. I think many think critically until it comes to religion/faith...

What makes a person worship Jesus rather than Hercules, for example?

The standards for evaluating religion are lower than evaluating most other things for many.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

51. Hercules?

Well, I never went to Hercules church or prayed to him or anything. I'm willing to give it a try, though.

Maybe Jesus IS Hercules in a later incarnation?

[Finder]

53. Check out the Temple of Hercules in Rome...with pic

http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-020.html

Like many other buildings from ancient Rome, the fact that the round Temple of Hercules is still with us is due to its having been converted into a church. By 1132 CE it was known as St Stephen ‘of the carriages’. The upper part of the cella wall along with the original roof and marble entablature have been lost. The upper part of the cella was replaced with brick and concrete during the 12th Century. Claridge states that ‘further restorations (and a fresco over the altar) were made in 1475’ and there is a plaque in the floor dedicated by Sixtus IV. There are very good remains of the fresco which are pictured below. Whether this is the 1475 effort or is from a the 17th Century when the temple was rededicated as St Mary ‘of the Sun’ I am not certain but as can be seen from the following picture the fresco is quite well preserved.


Jesus and Hercules have lots in common.

[Evoman]

57. Lol..maybe you should think about praying to Hercules.

Why don't you try it out for a week and then compare your a)health b)wealth and c)% prayers answered that week to the rest of you life.

The church of Hercules may yet have a new convert.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

64. Hercules! Hercules! Hercules!

My favorite line from the Nutty Professor movies.

[Finder]

26. Add Heaven's Gate and Waco to that list of "martyrs."n/t

[jgraz]

77. Well, Michael Cimino's career certainly didn't survive it.

[Finder]

25. But did the 12 exist? Just like Jesus there is no evidence...

We have imaginary people talking about imaginary people. Not one eyewitness account or contemporary document exists.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

54. Well, we have four gospels

and while I know there are doubts about the existence of Christ, I think some of the 12 got more press. Like Peter in Rome.

[Finder]

59. No evidence of Peter in Rome or his existence outside the Bible. n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

60. I'm not so sure about that

This is an article from BBC. I think it is very plausible that he did exist. We have his writings, both in the Bible and in heretical texts. Interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/disciples_2.shtml

[Finder]

62. Stories and writings by Simon Magus were attributed...

to Peter(and Jesus in some cases) in the second century. Stories which put Peter,Paul and Simon being at odds and using magic against each other were created to discredit the Simonian religion and legitimize christianity. Simon Magus is the source of the doctrine of the trinity in a sense since he taught that he was the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Today, Simon Magus is still known as the father of gnosticism.

In the gospels(written after the time of Simon)Peter is named Simon before Jesus supposedly changed his name.

Simon Magus is also said to have had himself buried with the promise of rising in three days...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

65. So how did that work out for him?

[Finder]

66. Well his bones are still at the Vatican so he was wrong.lol n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. Don't you just wish we knew the real story on this stuff?

And are those really his bones?

[Finder]

68. Many know the real story...

Scholars, Cardinals, Pope, Antiquity experts, anyone who has researched, etc...

The problem is so many religions today depend on believing the mythology to be fact that the truth could have a negative impact for many.

The positive aspects of religious communities in many places still outweigh the negative.(Sociologically)No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Many churches have organized(UU for example)without myth taught as fact and other sects have dropped absurd doctrinal requirements(some methodist churches)and I am sure others will adapt as well. Eventually, deism will replace theism. I hope/think the individual philosophies will survive...

As far as who the bones belong to...to most they will belong to whomever the Vatican says or infers they belong to.lol

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. Even the best researched

events are still viewed through the fog of the centuries, so I don't think anyone really "knows" for sure. Educated opinions, yes.

Explain the difference between deism and theism. I always thought of the terms as interchangeable?

[Finder]

70. Deism is based on reason, whereas theism is based on faith...

Deists do not believe in the supernatural or personal deities...only the possibility of an "Architect of the Universe" or "Creator" or as the founders called it--"Nature's God."

Theists believe in god/gods with a theological set of beliefs/doctrines. Their deities are usually supernatural.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

73. Hmmm

I think I'm a deist with theistic tendancies!

Seriously, I do understand that dogma is a human construct. If I get to heaven and find out that the Christ story was a bit exaggerated, I won't be astonished. But I would be astonished to find there is no creator.

But the thing is, I'll never find that out because I'll be dead. But that's okay.

Lately I've been wondering about "I know that my redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, and though worms destroy this body, yet IN MY will I see God.

I'd kind of like to have more description of IN MY FLESH. Are we talking the flesh I have now? Or when I was 10? I'm not sure I want this one. It's getting really saggy.

[Finder]

75. I too think you are a deist...

by definition and one who follows Christian philosophy.

I long for the day when the big three are seen as viable philosophies rather than dogmatic systems requiring myths to be defended as fact.

[immoderate]

71. If I may...

Theism is the belief in a god or gods that is present yet transcends the universe. It's very general, and can apply to any god figure.

Deism: (from the dictionary) "a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe."

Deists believe that the Creator "got the ball rolling" and then sat back.

--IMM

[kiahzero]

10. My answers

Has any divine entity ever caused anything to happen in history? Depends on your notion of causality, but I'd say probably; belief in the divine certainly has. I don't think we can look back judge whether any event within the laws of physics is divine or not, and I don't think that there are any manifestations that would fall outside of that. The people involved might know, but justification for them is not justification for anyone else, so it would be pretty much impossible for anyone after the fact to go back and say, "That was the presence of the divine."

Could it happen again? Of course.

What motivated it? That would require knowing the mind of an unknowable entity. And without knowledge of what motivates it, we can probably do things to make such manifestations more likely, but we would have absolutely no idea what those things would be.

[Evoman]

11. God is one of those things, along with ghosts and magic,

that we see less of as techonology and record keeping advance. Why is that? It seemed to me that there was a lot more hauntings before video cameras came along, a lot more demons around before we developed medicine and psychiatry, and a lot more Religous miracles before science came along.

If ghosts really exist, then we should all KNOW they exist. I mean, somebody crashes a plane into a building or somebody shoots up a school, we have utterly clear survelliance tapes and camera phone pictures. From different angles. A regular ghost haunting comes along and we get a fuzzy, shaky picture and wind noises.

If god really exists, we should have gotten better at detecting him, not worse. I mean...we can see distant galaxies, we know the entire wavelength of light, we can see bacteria on the head of a pin with amazing resolution using Electron microscopes....but god is remarkably absent except in the minds of his believers.

God did not require people 2000 years ago to believe in him with no evidence...he started bushes on fire, he parted seas, he sent locusts. But then, all of a sudden, we began to start understanding the universe and BAM...no more miracles (with the exception of Mary Salt Stains or Jesus in Nachos and dog butts).



When god showed himself, he really showed himself....now he hides in shadows. As we advance techonologically, he hides better and better. If he could show himself then, why not now?

The answer is simple. The Christian God does not exist. Neither do the Hindu gods. Neither does the Muslem god. In fact, in all probablity, there is no god. People in the past believed in him because they had no other way of explaining natural phenomena. Something unusual happened, all of a sudden it was gods work. A person had a schizophrenic delusion..it was either god or a demon.

I have little doubt that if scientists (scratch that...ANY 21st centure person) existed back then, they would debunk EVERY single miracle attributed to god easily. Burning bushes...talking snakes...resurrected human beings....c'mon...seriously.

Evoman

[Dob Bole]

17. This assumes that God is detectable in our physical universe...

meaning that he absolutely can't exist outside of it, or at the indeterminate quantum level of our own universe. For the ancients who believed that the Sun was a god, they are easily disproven. For Eastern religionists, who believed that the universe is eternal, Hubble's discovery of the Big Bang proved that the universe indeed had an origin. And for Deism, popular with the founding fathers... it was killed by Darwin's theory of evolution.

Western monotheistic religions, on the other hand, can't be disproven by science (Call it "you can't disprove a negative," or whatever you want, but it's true) because they have always maintained that the universe had a beginning, that God can't be detected in the physical universe, and that he manifests himself when he wants to.

[Evoman]

18. Why can't he be detected by science?

I keep hearing this over and over and over. And I don't understand how anybody can possibly make that claim. The bible doesn't say anything about god being undetectable by science, does it? No. Why then do believers automatically spout that nonsenses that god is outside nature or the universe. How do they know?

It just smacks of, "I don't ever want you to disprove my god, so I'm gonna make him outside known laws". And I don't understand how anybody can make that claim.

If god has an effect on the universe, we should be able to detect it.

[Dob Bole]

20. No, the Bible doesn't say anything about God being undetectable by science...

because the Bible says absolutely nothing about modern science. It was written thousands of years ago. But you already knew that.

The purpose of science is to test and discover what is around us, but "known laws" have their boundaries. There are definitely Newtonian laws operating the mechanisms of our universe (all of which support life, according to the Anthropic principle) on our level of awareness. But on the quantum level, these laws completely break down. For example, if you fire 100 photons into a mirror, 95 will reflect and 5 will pass through. However, if you could examine each one, the structure of each photon is exactly alike, and the predictablity of which 5 will pass through the mirror is absolutely impossible to ascertain. It is indeterminate. We can see the patterns happening, but cannot predict them.

Unpredictability is built into the structure of matter itself. This counters materialism, which sees the entire universe a giant predictable Newtonian machine. The future course of evolution itself is therefore, unpredictable. Theoretically, even Neo from the Matrix could affect the course of our universe undetected...but that is of course, a religious step.

A lack of predictability bothers materialists a little, but not as much as the Anthropic principle, the concept that every constant in the universe appears to support the existence of carbon-based life forms. Stephen Hawkings has said that this has "religious implications," and the only way to counter it is to say that there must be tons of other parallel universes without life: a religious step that likewise cannot be tested.

A belief in God requires religion. Duh. But a mechanism to contain the Western concept of God still exists. On the other hand, if you believe (like Dawkins) that the existence of science counters the existence of God, then you too are religious in a way. (Atheism is an 'ism,' after all.) So you have a stalemate, an even choice. You either choose a philosophy that includes God, or you choose a philosophy that doesn't.

[greyl]

22. Belief in gods does not require religion. nt

[Dob Bole]

23. You're right...

I should have said 'religious belief' or 'faith.' Belief in any form of gods does not necessarily preclude a complete religious system.

[greyl]

31. Did you mean to say "preclude"?

Belief in gods doesn't require a shred of a religious system, let alone a complete one.

[Evoman]

24. You use the word Religious too liberally....which is not uncommon in this forum.

But in the interests of preventing a flame war, we won't get into the atheism is a religion bullshit.

Anyways, atheism is irrelevant to my previous comment. My point is simply this: how can believers make the claim that science cannot find proof for god or that they are "different spheres"? What is this idea based on?

Maybe god does exist....and maybe science is capable of detecting him with time. The probabilities at this point are low, and every year they seem to get lower. But nevertheless, it may be possible. The most religious person in the forum does not have an IOTA more knowledge about god and his mind and existence then I do. One of my favourite things to do on this forum (that some may have noticed) is to randomly put characteristics or thoughts in gods mind i.e "God hates the elderly churchgoers, thats why he makes them live longer...he wants to keep them as far away from Heaven as possible for as long as he can".

Why do I enjoy doing this...simply because I love making shit up, and knowing that the religious people who do the same have no more basis of knowledge than I do. How can they possible know I'm not right?

Thats my point here....people talk about "God is separate from nature" like they actually fucking know. Just because you have "faith" it doesn't mean you can just make up shit and pass it off as truth.

[Dob Bole]

28. What? I'm too liberal?

This is Democratic Underground ;)

Seriously, though, I didn't talk about "different spheres" or anything nearly as magical-sounding, just hard science. While you 'make shit up' I'm not nearly as energetic...my claim that God exists outside of our understanding comes from Western religions' traditional view that God exists outside of our understanding.

To you, the idea is shit. But it can't be disproven by science as long as quantum physics is completely indeterminate. Therefore, your conclusion must always be "I think it's shit" and not "here's absolute proof that it's shit."

Personally, I don't think that anyone's ideas are shitty. I can live with the fact that other people have different philosophies than I do, without having to antagonize them. Can you?

[Evoman]

32. I think lots of peoples ideas are shitty.. (actually, the better word is bullshitty).

I can certainly live with the fact that other people have philosophies different than mine, but I have little qualms about ridiculing ridiculous ideas.

I also don't get your points about quantum physics....what does the indeterminate nature of quantum physcis have to do with god, or being "outside of our understanding"? What does the movements of quantum particles have to do with a superbeing? Does he affect our universe my randomly moving around electrons? Is that how he started a bush on fire? If there is a super being capable of burning bushes and making snakes talk and impregnating virgins, he meddles in our physical world and should be detectable. Which brings up another point...why do so many christians defend a deist/pantheist god, but postulate the christian god?

Talking about god with a christian is like having a sword-fight. The christian starts of from a starting position of believing in Jesus, and God being a loving being who helps us out. Then the atheist comes out with a few half-hearted swings. All of a sudden, the christian drops back to a deist fighting position, into a "Quantum Physics and Unknowable God" stance. The atheist stops gaining ground...after all, he does't know 100% that god doesn't exist, but by that time the atheist has chipped off more armour, bit by bit. The atheist then says..."fine, I will let you go."....and the Christian goes RUNNING top speed to his original position and claims victory.

Back to the point I made about "miracles" in response to the OP. No, there have probably never miracles. Quantum god or no quantum god.

[Dob Bole]

37. I'm no deist...

As I have said, evolution removes the possibility of a God who created the universe and then abandoned it. And I don't believe that snakes talk...you must be used to debating conservative Christians, or Mithrans maybe.

My point was and is, if the forces that shape our universe are indeterminate, then the question of whether a living being could shape it is also indeterminate. You have the option of believing in God or not believing in God, but from a scientific standpoint, you'll only get neutrality. Religion and science answer completely different questions for us.

Science: What's around us?

Religion: Do we have a purpose? Is there a reason for my existence, and so on...

For example, thanks to science I can read your last post with the miracle of contact lenses. But thanks to religion, I can disagree with your post on moral grounds because I don't think that people SHOULD ridicule others. The first state is positive, and the second is normative. On every matter except the question of our origins, in which both atheists and theists mistakenly believe that evolution can kill God, religion and science occupy these two very different realms of thought.

[Evoman]

40. Then my question to you is.....How can religion answer its questions?

Science at least has an active process for answering the questions it poses. What great answers has religion come up with? Well, seeing as how there are about a gazillion religions and each one says something different, then none of them can be taken seriously. What tools does religion have for answering the question, "Do we have a purpose, and what is the reason for my existence"? There are no tools...theologians just talk up into the sky, or read a 2000 year old book written by primitives.

As a reponse to this "But thanks to religion, I can disagree with your post on moral grounds because I don't think that people SHOULD ridicule others." all I have to do is show you theists on here who have been rude, and atheists who haven't (and there are both), to show you that religion seems to have very little effect on a person personality. Maybe its not your religion which stops you from being rude...if you lost your faith tommorow, would you come on here and start calling me a fucking asshole? No, probably not.

[Dob Bole]

43. That's really my point.

Science cannot answer normative questions. Religion has no internal mechanism for answering positive questions. That is why both exist.

To answer positive questions, we have geology, biology, astronomy, physics, and to a lesser extent, the social sciences. We can't do any better than that.

To answer normative questions, we have theology, philosophy, ethics, and to a lesser extent, the social sciences. We can't do any better than that, either.

I've enjoyed this discussion with you. I hope you have too, and I wish you the best. The habits of my digestive system have prompted my nervous system to trigger an impulse that I possess due to natural selection, that is necessary for my survival. Yet I am being called away to answer other, more normative questions like "What should I eat for lunch?" and "Should I grab extra without paying for it? Why?"

In other words: "I'm hungry. Peace Out!" :)

[Finder]

74. Deism is compatible with evolution. n/t

[immoderate]

72. You're misreading Dawkins and the others.

Dawkins emphasizes that it's not an even choice. He says that it is not evenly likely that unicorns exist or not, and there is the same evidence for the existence of god.

As for the anthropic principle, there's a bit of irony wrapped up in that. If it didn't "seem" like the universe was designed to support carbon life forms, we wouldn't be hanging around wondering about it. If other types of universes can exist, they may very well, but we can't be there to marvel at them.

--IMM

[trotsky]

27. To analyze this reasoning,

you have to first answer the question: Do you believe that various miracles as described in the bible really happened? Was the Red Sea really parted so that Moses and millions of Jews could walk across it? Did a bush really start on fire and speak to Moses? Etc.

If you believe those events happened, do you think if you had been standing there with a video camera from our age, would it have been able to record video evidence of those events?

If you answer yes to both questions, then Evoman makes a brilliant point. You will have admitted that your god readily interfered with the world *in scientifically measurable ways* at one time, so why doesn't he now? And why have miraculous happenings trailed off in both frequency and scale as our scientific knowledge has increased?

[Dob Bole]

29. Well, according to the Sci-Fi channel, ghosts CAN be recorded on video...

and my wife gets really angry every time she watches "ghost hunters" and I skepticize their every move.

I agree, that if God existed fully in our physical universe, like ghosts and magic are claimed to, then he/she would be recorded with my webcam and I could charge tons of money for people to see him on my website. That would make the deity in question very angry.

But, as I argued, I do not believe that to be the case.

[trotsky]

30. You didn't answer my first question.

Do you believe miracles as described in the bible really happened?

[Dob Bole]

33. Sure.

But that's a matter of faith...it's indeterminate. Modern miracles can be put to much more scrutiny, but as a historian all I have to go on is that thousands of manuscripts, most written after the fact, say that they did.

But to completely rule out past miracles because we have cameras today and didn't at that time is, once again, a strawman. Certainly a "miracle," if and when it happens, would happen physically. That would seem to be a no-brainer, since a miracle that didn't actually happen could be called, at best, an illusion.

[Evoman]

34. So why have the miracles stopped?

Why did god give nice big, physical proofs of his existence back then and now he just gives you half-hearted dog butt jesi?

Maybe your faith is misplaced. Doesn't it seem probable that if miracles aren't happening now, that they probably weren't happening then? Why have faith? Why not just go with the simplest and most likely explanation...that people back then were exposed to natural phenomena, and not understanding them, called it a miracle?

[Dob Bole]

39. That's what you say.

The state of past miracles is, as I said, indeterminate. Such is also true with many modern miracles, as patients with colon cancer do not walk around with tripods sticking out of their butts. We know that people we've prayed for go into remission, but not the underlying cause of the remission.

In many cases, ancient miracles probably did have logical explanations. But that is a question of probability, and not proof of cause.

"The simplest and most likely explanation" is that you do not believe in God because your worldview requires it, and I believe in God because my worldview requires it. Do you have scientific proof that Democrats are nicer than Republicans? How do you quantify "nice?" The truth is, you didn't spend years testing rain gauges before you voted for Democrats...you voted for them because you favor their view of government, even though the possibility that they are "better" than Republicans in the future is unpredictable.

So it is with the atheism vs. theism argument, which is absolutely unresolvable. You will continue to ridicule people who do not share your general view of the world, and I will not.

Or will I? That question too, is indeterminate.

DB

[greyl]

42. The atheism vs. theism argument IS resolvable.

If it weren't, I don't think individuals would be able to identify which of the two to call themselves.

I think you'd agree that, of the two, one must be incorrect.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

48. It will be resolvable

when the sweet chariot picks us up and delivers us. Thing is, if you're right we'll never know.

[greyl]

49. On what grounds do you believe that?

Why be so sure that the pinnacle theological question is answered upon ones death? If there is a God, why is it imperative that It reveal Itself, like some secret to a card trick, when ones life on Earth is DONE?

Why wait to juggle the ideas that can lead to decisiveness? If this is the only life and world we will ever know, why not get busy living in it as such?

[Evoman]

44. Your wrong.

I've never voted for the Democratic Party in my life.

[trotsky]

52. So when does the answer "I don't know" become "Goddidit"?

You have an example - spontaneous remission of cancer. OK, disregard for the moment that millions of people (and their families) have prayed for remission but died a slow painful death anyway. Let's only consider those select few for whom the prayers supposedly "worked" and remission was granted by god. Right now, no, we don't know every reason why sometimes cancer goes into remission. But is there any evidence at all that would tell you we'll NEVER know? There have been a LOT of territories staked out by your theological predecessors as "god's domain, we'll never understand" that now we DO understand. Are you drawing the line here at today's technology and saying we'll never get further? Seems a fool's bet.

In many cases, ancient miracles probably did have logical explanations. But that is a question of probability, and not proof of cause.

Considering that we see MANY things with our very own eyes every day that a person of biblical times would view as a miracle, yet we have naturalistic/logical explanations for all of them, I'd say the probability is about 99.99999999% on our side. Of course the other "proof of cause" is that the miracle was made up. Or a distortion of an old naturalistic event after being retold orally for umpteen generations. You can't prove that those aren't the case, either.

By the way, just a correction - my worldview doesn't "require" me to not believe in gods. Just give me some evidence and I'll be happy to accept them.

[trotsky]

35. So why don't miracles occur today?

Or at least of the ones that are purported to occur, why have they decreased tremendously in frequency and intensity, and why do they all also have perfectly mundane alternate explanations?

Why doesn't your god interfere miraculously anymore?

[greyl]

36. Maybe one just did. ;) nt

[trotsky]

38. I be-leeeeeeeve!

Praise Koresh!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. NO YOU DON'T!

Yuk. Koresh.... sheeeeeeesh.


I know you're kidding, but it's so DISTURBING!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

55. Or maybe it's a giant

parlour game and the trick is only those who believe in the face of no proof get the gold ring?

I don't know. I just know that my proof is personal rather than replicable, but that's enough for me. And most of the Xtians I talk to have the same sort of personal experiences. We aren't looking for physical proof.

InterestING anus there. See, God is EVERYWHERE.

[Evoman]

56. Or maybe it a giant

parlour game and the trick is that you have to be a wealthy, white capitalist to go to heaven. After all, god really seems to love white people. He also seems to have a soft spot for capitalists...after all, he took over God corp., kicked out the other gods, and set himself up as sole ruler.

Or its a giant parlour game and the trick is to be a scientist and not go to church. Maybe god hates religion, hates church, and hates christians. Maybe regular churchgoers go to a special hell, where they spend the rest of their days drowing in a sea of bile juices.

Or its a giant parlour game and people whos name start with A get to go.

I don't know...does it make sense to you that a divine being, being omnipotent, would place a special emphasis on believing something or faith in the invisible? If there is a god, and belief is what he cares about, I think hes a stupid god.

My point is simply that I can make up whatever I want, and I have no more or less credibility that your average christian.

[Random_Australian]

61. My average Christians use a pantheistic hidden God for their

interpretation of morality independent of scripture!

So there!

*pokes tongue out*

:)

(Meaning, they think about what morality is and how they wish to act from a scientific perspective, and then interpret Jesus accordingly)

SO THERE!

:D

Always wanted an excuse to do that - well after you mentioned those things what you aren't supposed to mention anyway.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

63. I personally don't believe that "God"

has emotions. We have given "him" all sorts of human characteristics in order to make "him" understandable. I think "he" is so past our finite ability to understand we are lost. The whole paternal thing is just a human construct.

Somehow I think we are here to learn lessons. I think we get assistance in that. Whether it is "God" or a guide, I don't know. I believe if you learn your lessons you get to go home and you don't have to wear this corporeal body anymore. (ahhhhhh) I also think if you don't, you have to try again. I'm not quite sure how that works, whether there is actual reincarnation or not. But I believe life on earth is a trial period, kind of like when you throw a baby in the pool and see if it can swim.

I personally sense God in the form of the Spirit, everywhere. But he/she/it is not like my Daddy, getting mad when I mess up. I just feel supported...assisted, in a rather neutral way.

But the bottom line? I don't really know. Those are my theories at the moment.

[TheBaldyMan]

12. There have been a great many events attributed to divine action

Hurricanes & Typhoons, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, comets more recently 9/11 was attributed to fags and atheists in America.

However this is positively mediaeval in outlook and can only be held by a deeply comartmentalised mind, a mind that refuses to acknowledge plain facts.

[Chulanowa]

15. Never

Gods don't really bother with humanity. They might serve as inspiration, or fuddle around with the lighting or whatever, but there is no towering pillar of flame, Ares does not lead armies, and so on.

They're provincial absentee landlords, basicly.

[TRYPHO]

58. Exactly (the opposite of) my view!

Gods don't really bother with humanity.
--
I believe that "God" is a total interfering busybody. I've mentioned this to my staff and they laugh at me but I cant help it, its what I believe or perhaps "feel" to be true. My favoured example is based on the fact that I always, annoyingly, drop things. I do it so often I now think it is related to God rolling two die, and whenever 7 comes up, boom, I drop another packet of tablets or my pen or a letter or whatever. God's such a joker.
And then I get payback in equally small ways, but I'm on to him/her/it. I know the games he/she/it is playing, and when I die I'll be about the only person who goes to wherever it is, and says, mate, you never had ME fooled for a minute!

It makes picking things up off the floor more bearable if nothing else.

TYPHO

[bryant69]

19. Yes, Faith, Yes, Love, Maybe but not a prodcutive activity.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com