What "miracles" and "healings?" There is no credible evidence for these. Also, there is still the unanswerable question: how did this god come into existence?
My little brother, for example. He fell through the upper barn floor onto a concrete pad, ruptured his spleen and was healed miraculously (and for a dash of extravagance on God's part
, instantly) in front of several medical professionals. One moment his abdomen was swollen as large and hard as a basketball so that he could hardly breathe, and the next he was
laughing on the exam table! They kept him in overnight for observation and would come in every hour or so to palpate his abdomen while muttering to themselves that this didn't make any sense. In the end they could find no natural medical reason for what happened. We beleive it was God.
God is understood (as best our finite minds can hope to understand the infinite God) to be self-existent, and thus never coming into being. It is a question rather like asking for the highest number.
Belief in a God is faith... and "faith", by definition, is belief without evidence (and belief without evidence can be argued as a form of gullibility or insanity, but that's another topic...).
Actually, belief is the fundamental function of the human mind. Before reason can do any work, it must have some material to work with. All arguments, ideas, opinions, reasons, etc. about the world are ultimately founded on irrational assumptions (or more precisely, pre-rational). Ask CP5670, he'll tell you the same. So really, faith is not irrational and silly, it is the foundation for reason.
Any religion that claims it's always been right shouldn't have to change to suit society. If it's so great then society will change to suit it.
Agreed. Of course, that is why the majority of churches in the world (as opposed to ones that occasionally show up in the news for doing the opposite) don't really. (Of course, all are influenced by their cultural milieu, but the core beliefs of any Christian or Jew or Muslim who realy is one will be the same.)
I'll return to this point later.
Well, that's not really credible evidence, as I said earlier; more general proof is needed before accepting this. (effect should be reproducible by anyone else under similar conditions) Also, an antimatter leg material portion would have to produced somewhere in reality as well so that the first law of thermodynamics is not violated. Besides, it is not hard at all to envision n-dimensions (including non-integer dimensions) or transfinite periods of time if you use math only and forget about common sense. (which is how the universe works) As I have said before, it could be just as easily said that the material universe "always was."
Essentially you are saying that you will not believe in miracles until they are no longer miracles. The entire point of a miraculous occurrence is that it is a transcension of natural "laws." There is nothing to say that a sovereign God who created the natural universe and stands beyond it cannot intervene in nature and do something unexpected if he so chooses.
For the question of credible evidence, I ask you how much evidence is necessary to get you to believe it? Obviously you don't know me, so I wouldn't be surprised if you were doubtful regarding my own testimony, but whose would you believe? Or would you say that no amount of testimony, regardless of the source, is sufficient to convince you? In such a case, one is really begging the question, arguing that "Miracles cannot occur, because if one did occur, that would be a miracle, which cannot occur."
Are you joking or serious here? Are you saying, "God answers all prayers... but the answer is always NO."? Because if a God existed, that's the only probable scenario.
What miracles? My best friend has personally seen God heal people whose legs were not of equal length. He saw the short leg grow out to equal the longer one before his eyes.
Then your friend is lying, or was tricked. Isn't it curious that all these supposed faith healings NEVER EVER occur in front of credible witnesses or recording devices?
Well, actually they do, and have, and will continue to, but it is often the case that even when presented with evidence, people will still not believe that what they are witnessing is a case of divine intervention, for they have already concluded that God doesn't do these things. "Surely there must be another explanation" they say to themselves. "No matter how much it seems that this is an act of God, it must not be, becasue such things do not happen." See above.
The thing I want to add to this discussion is that religion is not about moral principles, or merely proposing that an unknowable, unprovable God exist. In the case of Christianity, at least, the whole point of the religion is certain historical occurences. If this stuff actually happened, if God is actaully real and not our collective imagination, if this is the case, then the consequences are vitally important, and if it is not true, then they consequences are equally important. As Paul so succinctly put it:
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead,
1Corinthians 15:17-20
Of course, if it really is true, if Jesus really was who he claimed to be and really did rise from death, then the consequences on our lives our tremendous and far-reaching. Such consequences are rather hard to accept at times (much of the time, actually), to be entirely honest, I often don't like them. To be entirely in control of my own destiny and do whatever I want and have no higher authourity to be responsible to seems quite attractive in a lot of ways, all things being equal. If one does not want God interfering with one's life, it is easiest to simply disbelieve in him and go on one's little way.
But all things are not equal. God either is, or isn't. And if he is, we find ourselves in the very uncomfortable position of dealing with a God who talks back. God turns out to be an active agent, who loves and commands, helps and punishes, saves and will one day create anew, and in all sorts of ways seems very much invovled in the actual goings-on of history and human life. The whole idea seems quite distasteful to us, really. We would far prefer that he stop mucking about in things and just disappear.
Of course, there is an out. Perhaps God isn't. All these supposed occurences of of historical mucking about by God could just be lies or myths. One can certainly choose to disbeleive them. It the simplest matter in the world: just disregard and dismiss any so-called evidence that would point towards a God who was mucking around in the world again. One can even come up with all sorts of arguments why it is perfectly reasonable to believe the postulate that "God does not exist" to make oneself feel secure in one's choice. Of course, these arguments are ultimately open to the criticism that they assume God's non-existence as part of their proofs, but they nevertheless do a remarkable job of convincing us that our original choice to disbelieve the God-hypothesis was a good one.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have to choose whether to believe in God or not, whether to recognise the Commandments and the Resurrection and the healing of little brothers' ruptured spleens as the actions of God or to dismiss them as so much fluff and garbage. We have to decide which option we are willing to believe.
For myself, I want to believe what is real. If reality turns out to be a living, breathing God, then so be it. I'll love him and follow him with all my life.
What do yo choose?
