14 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mark Adkins"Science can't actually explain anything. It's all smoke and mirrors. And religion is another kind of delusion."
I'm an atheist and a solipsist. I see miracles all the time (i.e., I observe phenomena that cannot be explained by existing so-called natural law), but since I regard science to be as baseless as religion, my attitude toward them is not the same as would be the case were I attempting to interpret them from within the framework of "natural law". I rega ...[text shortened]... y explain anything. It's all smoke and mirrors. And religion is another kind of delusion.
Then how do you know what you're talking about?
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by Nemesio
"Okay, then what are the criteria of faith that a believer needs to believe in in order to be a
true Christian?"
Nemesio
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
14 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwOkay. It doesn't say anywhere that any believer has to believe in the literality of a single
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
solitary miracle that Jesus performed.
So I was right. Thanks for confirming it.
Nemesio
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadMiracles by definition are supernatural, so yes, they defy known physical laws.
A question for theists.
Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics? Would they be detectable as such if placed in a scientific experiment?
My reasons for asking are:
1. In discussions about Genesis and Noah etc, I find people who believe those stories to be true often try very hard to justify them as being ...[text shortened]... t it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy view of ID at least a very high level view of it is that the laws
If they are not violated then ID is not evidence for a violation! ID is a direct claim of violation, it is a claim that the observed facts can not be explained by the laws of physics.
of physics in and of itself cannot produce what we see today in life
without direction. Much like house being built, all the raw materials
could be there, but by themselves they will not form into a two story
house with a wrap around porch, laundry room, electrical outlets all
in the right place with the proper wiring and plumbing make it all
useful. The building requires design, the building requires specific
effort, the building require more than a handful of things that do not
just happen, and ID as far as I'm concern only suggest evolution does
not just happen, it does not go beyond that, it does not know who
did it.
Kelly
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by josephwHow do you (claim to) know that science or religion knows (or doesn't know) what it's talking about without having some independent means of evaluating each?
[b]"Science can't actually explain anything. It's all smoke and mirrors. And religion is another kind of delusion."
Then how do you know what you're talking about?[/b]
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by Nemesio"Okay. It doesn't say anywhere that any believer has to believe in the literality of a single
Okay. It doesn't say anywhere that any believer has to believe in the literality of a single
solitary miracle that Jesus performed.
So I was right. Thanks for confirming it.
Nemesio
solitary miracle that Jesus performed."
What? What does that have to do with:
Originally posted by Nemesio
"Okay, then what are the criteria of faith that a believer needs to believe in in order to be a
true Christian?"
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI don't (claim to) know that science or religion knows (or doesn't know) what it's talking about without having some independent means of evaluating each.
How do you (claim to) know that science or religion knows (or doesn't know) what it's talking about without having some independent means of evaluating each?
Do you?
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by josephwYou just asked me how I know that science and religion are both nonsense given the assumption that they are. You seemed to be implying that I could not "know what I am talking about" without accepting one or both. I can. Is that plain, and if not, what the devil are you trying to say?
I don't (claim to) know that science or religion knows (or doesn't know) what it's talking about without having some independent means of evaluating each.
Do you?
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by vistesdActually, you are culpable for your behavior. Period. If you are sentient, claims of being forced to do what you do are false, and you are culpable. If you are non-sentient, pleas for mercy are irrational (mercy for whom?). I KNOW that I am sentient, and I KNOW your behavior. (And in fact, it is not strictly necessary for you to misbehave even though you are non-sentient.) I will have mercy on myself, and condemn you. Bad "robots" will be treated harshly.
...since you are the singular consciousness on here who understands anything (being the singular consciousness on here), I am merely a distorted aspect of said consciousness compelled, so to speak, to play my role.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by josephwDo you recall chiding Rev. Kirk with this comment:
[b]"Okay. It doesn't say anywhere that any believer has to believe in the literality of a single
solitary miracle that Jesus performed."
What? What does that have to do with:
Originally posted by Nemesio
"Okay, then what are the criteria of faith that a believer needs to believe in in order to be a
true Christian?" [/b]
Typical liberal clouding the issue.
So you don't believe in miracles. Jesus didn't heal. The dead weren't really dead when He brought them back to life. The blind didn't receive their sight. The lame didn't walk. A miracle isn't really a miracle. It's only what you want it to be. Heavens, let's not be caught believing God actually intervenes in the affairs of man! That just might cost one his pension. 😕
He is under no obligation to believe any of that stuff since, evidently, he believes the thing you
quoted from Romans. Why would you belittle him, then? He's a believer, he just believes differently
than you do.
Nemesio
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead,
A question for theists.
Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics? Would they be detectable as such if placed in a scientific experiment?
My reasons for asking are:
1. In discussions about Genesis and Noah etc, I find people who believe those stories to be true often try very hard to justify them as being ...[text shortened]... t it violated the laws of physics yet they ridicule fellow theists who believe in Noahs flood.
I think your question begins with a false assumption. You may or may not recognize it. I'll try to explain. Consider the word, 'supernatural', literally meaning 'above nature'. I view miracles as supernatural events. I believe God is a supernatural being. He created what we call nature, the natural world, time, space, the laws of physics, etc. but is not Himself limited by them. Hence, the creation of the natural world is the result of His supernatural action. To view miracles as violations would be based on the assumption that nature is all there is to begin with.
It seems to me you are just trying to play a 'gotcha' game.
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBut do you agree with me that ID is essentially a claim for evidence of a miracle (a violation of the laws of physics).
My view of ID at least a very high level view of it is that the laws
of physics in and of itself cannot produce what we see today in life
without direction. Much like house being built, all the raw materials
could be there, but by themselves they will not form into a two story
house with a wrap around porch, laundry room, electrical outlets all
in the ...[text shortened]... olution does
not just happen, it does not go beyond that, it does not know who
did it.
Kelly
15 Apr 08
Originally posted by dizzyfingersNot at all. No such assumption is required nor did I make it. In fact my question makes it clear that I am not making that assumption.
To view miracles as violations would be based on the assumption that nature is all there is to begin with.
It seems to me you are just trying to play a 'gotcha' game.
It seems to me that you are not only trying to read more into my question than I put there but also trying to avoid the issue.