Miracles

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by O71394658

That's where faith comes into play.

The main point being, something greater than you made it happen.

It still doesn't provide for any reason to believe anything in particular is the cause.

[george]

i think of god sort of as the well spring of all things that are aware in the universe, as well as his being the universe itself.

pretty much a creature nothing like us at all physically, with the "created in his imimage" sort of thing being our sentient nature.

and that our existence in defiance of all the rest of creation (we create, while the universe is always seeking entrophy) is more than miracle enough.

[O71394658]

Originally Posted by CaptainBubba

It still doesn't provide for any reason to believe anything in particular is the cause.

Well, the absence of logic and scientific reasoning I think would count.

[CaptainBubba]

That just means we don't know what caused it. You can't infer anything from that with any degree of certainty besides the fact that we don't know what caused it.

This is your line of thought if you belive god is responsible for the apparent miracles:

Science and logic cannot explain them at this time ~ It must be my very specific explanation which I've concieved without the use of any scientific or logical thought.

[O71394658]

If you claim that I can't claim it was God, then you have to show me how it wasn't. Give me an example of a supernatural event which has been explained away...

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by O71394658

If you claim that I can't claim it was God, then you have to show me how it wasn't.

How could you possibly have arrived at that statement? Seriously.

Ok I'm gonna try to explain this as simply as I can:

If something occurs which we can't explain with any modern science or logic that does not explain what caused it.

Your assumption that it must be your idea of god that did it is pulled from absolutely nowhere. There is no correlation. Its like making up a fiction story. It has no relavance to the real world. For all you know, since we don't know what caused it, it could be, as I said before, anything "supernatural".

As for your quoted statement: I'm saying it makes no sense to claim it was your idea of god because there is nothing to suggest that it was. The burden of proof lies with those who attempt to say something is. If you provide no reason for it to be your god then I can rightfully say that you have given no reason why it is your god that performed the miracle.

Originally Posted by O71394658

Give me an example of a supernatural event which has been explained away...

O.K. The sun rising, the ocean, the sky, the moon, living things, clouds, lightning, fire, etc.

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, just like that huge ass laser seen here (http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/) that can't even PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR DETECT THAT GRAVITY EXISTS! I guess since science can't prove gravity's existance, gravity can't exist.

[CaptainBubba]

No, it can't detect gravitational waves. I can detect gravity at home with a scale.

Besides, gravity is a highly debated subject of the scientific world which still hasn't been even nearly explained to any sufficient extent to gaurentee any absolute conditions concerning it in the context of the whole universe. Much like light.

There is no law of gravitational waves. It is still extremely open to scientific attempts to prove/disprove it, as is every other facet of science.

I guess since science can't prove gravity's existance, gravity can't exist.

Even if science couldn't prove that it existed, gravity could still exist, just like Burantadego, the Mexican food god, could exist.

[O71394658]

Hahaha.

If something occurs which we can't explain with any modern science or logic that does not explain what caused it.

OK. But, the problem is, for me it does. Most things work in balance, in a set order. If something happens, like a miracle, in which things are thrown out of order, then as a religious person, I would most likely view it as "the hand of God" or whatever the fuck you want to call it. When a piece of the Eucharist turns into a piece of flesh when a priest holds it up at an atler and says that is is NOT the Body of Christ, I wouldn't see how the fuck else the "supernatural" can intervene. Looks like God to me. I believe it was a Work of God. That's faith. If you don't, fine. You're inclined to believe whatever you want.

[CaptainBubba]

The point is that there are infinite other ways to explain it if you choose to just decide on an answer that you're just going to make up.

You might as well say you did it.

[O71394658]

You see, bro, you say there are an infinite number of ways to explain it...then give me one. Explain it for me. What biological law that we don't yet know about has prevented the flesh, exposed to all the biological and chemical processes of the atmoshphere and the earth, from deteriorating. Why did a piece of bread turn into a human heart in front of hundreds of people? I'd love to hear one of your infinite explanations. :/

[CaptainBubba]

because Mareleshina, a bowl of mystical clam chowder from galaxy z flapped her wings 345609 times.















Get what I'm saying now?

If you don't understand what caused it then you should leave it at that. Making assumtions solves nothing, and though saying god did it may seem like a viable solution its just as useful as my explanation provided above.

[O71394658]

That's where we don't see eye-to-eye.

I DO most definitely fucking understand what caused it.

Because you don't believe in my explanation, you don't see my explanation as a viable option...or just another silly option out of INFINITE possiblities.

[CaptainBubba]

So your saying that your explanation is more legitamte than mine? Why? What evidence do you have supporting your explanation that I don't have for mine?

[Sethomas]

Vox, that website didn't refute any of the points I made. It doesn't make sense to say that all the blood was ink, because a biological examination of the blood was done in the first place confirming it to be human type A/B. Blood doesn't always dry the same color, it depends on one's level of iron. That article didn't even touch the issue of the negative imagery, which is a huge fucking deal. It says that the blood shouldn't have flowed downwards, which ignores the fact that it would have stopped flowing at all shortly after death. And still, that article claims it is the product of the 14th century. Look at any example of 14th century art and try to convince me that painting methodology existed to portray facial depth as seen in the image. Accurate portrayal of the face didn't come about until the late 1400s, and it took even longer to hit France.

Being such an extreme historical anomaly, saying that the Shroud is a fake requires no less faith than saying it's real.