The :God logic)

[Goatboy]

Well, what about Christianity doesn't make sense to you? You've already told me that a loving God ordering killings seemed illogical, what else?

As bad as this may sound, nothing about it makes sense to me.

Walking on water - Physics tells us that is not possible.
Multiplying food - See above argument.
Resurrection after 3 days & moving boulder - See above + biology.
40 days without food/water - Biology tells us it cannot happen.
Restoring sight - Medically impossible then, highly difficult today.
Raising the dead - Same as resurrection after 3 days.
Born of a virgin - Not medically possible in humans under normal circumstances.
Water into wine - Would require alchemical knowledge.
Healing a paralytic - Not medically possible.
Calming a storm - Not physically possible.


Those are just His miracles. A list of other happenings in the Bible would include:

Talking fiery bushes
Living in a whale
Walls of Jericho
Parting the Red Sea
Staff into snake
Lot's wife turned to salt
Baldaam's talking mule
Elijah calling down fire
... ... ...


As you can probably tell, I am a very logical thinker. I tend only to believe what I can see or what can be scientifically proven. This is why many of the miracles in the Bible seem to me to be unlikely at best. Those that can be explained scientifically lose their credibility as miracles, and those that cannot be explained lose all credibility.

[sanddbox]

It comes down to this. Some of us have faith, some of us don't.

I've noticed a few things.

In GENERAL, atheists are more prone to being on the internet. Probably related to the whole logic thing.

In GENERAL, atheists tend to be smart. Of course, the same goes for Jews, so I guess that's rather debatable.

As always, it boils down to faith. You either have it or you don't, and sometimes you will temporarily lose it.

[Possumdude0]

As bad as this may sound, nothing about it makes sense to me.

If God can create the entire universe, including life itself, then how would it be illogical to believe that he is capable of doing the things you mentioned? God can use the laws of our universe as He pleases, even to the extent of ignoring them. After all, He created those laws. He existed before the laws that govern our universe, so it should be obvious that he exists outside those laws and thus is not bound by those laws.

Of course this argument only holds if you're willing to accept an intelligent creator. But once you accept an intelligent creator, it stands to reason that such a creator could do the sort of things that you pointed out seem insensible in the Bible.

As you can probably tell, I am a very logical thinker. I tend only to believe what I can see or what can be scientifically proven. This is why many of the miracles in the Bible seem to me to be unlikely at best. Those that can be explained scientifically lose their credibility as miracles, and those that cannot be explained lose all credibility.

With that attitude its no wonder that you don't find any credibility in miracles. You basically define credible events as non-miraculous, and then complain that there aren't any miracles that fit your definition of credible. You will never find a credible miracle if you believe that credible things can't be miraculous, you negate the possibility right from the start.

Are you justified in taking this view? That is an important question. Can a miracle be credibly believed? A miracle is not explainable by science, so how can we credit such a thing?

We cannot show how a miracle happened, but it is possible to show that the miracle did in fact happen. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel goes into detail about quite a bit of evidence for some of Jesus's miracles (including His ressurection). So if we can establish that an event occurred, and we cannot explain it scientifically, then we might need go with the idea that the event was a miracle.

Of course, it is easy to describe something as a miracle simply because we don't understand the science behind it. Just because something happens and we can't explain it doesn't mean that it is a miracle. We must avoid calling something a miracle when we simply don't understand what's going on.

I really need to go into more detail on this, because I haven't explained myself clearly, but I have to run out for a couple of hours now.

[sanddbox]

As bad as this may sound, nothing about it makes sense to me.

If God can create the entire universe, including life itself, then how would it be illogical to believe that he is capable of doing the things you mentioned? God can use the laws of our universe as He pleases, even to the extent of ignoring them. After all, He created those laws. He existed before the laws that govern our universe, so it should be obvious that he exists outside those laws and thus is not bound by those laws.

Of course this argument only holds if you're willing to accept an intelligent creator. But once you accept an intelligent creator, it stands to reason that such a creator could do the sort of things that you pointed out seem insensible in the Bible.

As you can probably tell, I am a very logical thinker. I tend only to believe what I can see or what can be scientifically proven. This is why many of the miracles in the Bible seem to me to be unlikely at best. Those that can be explained scientifically lose their credibility as miracles, and those that cannot be explained lose all credibility.

With that attitude its no wonder that you don't find any credibility in miracles. You basically define credible events as non-miraculous, and then complain that there aren't any miracles that fit your definition of credible. You will never find a credible miracle if you believe that credible things can't be miraculous, you negate the possibility right from the start.

Are you justified in taking this view? That is an important question. Can a miracle be credibly believed? A miracle is not explainable by science, so how can we credit such a thing?

We cannot show how a miracle happened, but it is possible to show that the miracle did in fact happen. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel goes into detail about quite a bit of evidence for some of Jesus's miracles (including His ressurection). So if we can establish that an event occurred, and we cannot explain it scientifically, then we might need go with the idea that the event was a miracle.

Of course, it is easy to describe something as a miracle simply because we don't understand the science behind it. Just because something happens and we can't explain it doesn't mean that it is a miracle. We must avoid calling something a miracle when we simply don't understand what's going on.

I really need to go into more detail on this, because I haven't explained myself clearly, but I have to run out for a couple of hours now.

When a theory is proposed, it is the job of the one proposing the theory to prove it true; not ask us to prove it un-true.

[Possumdude0]

When a theory is proposed, it is the job of the one proposing the theory to prove it true; not ask us to prove it un-true.

I'm not asking you to prove it un-true. I'm asking you to not assume it is un-true before you even think about it. I was also trying to explain that a miracle can be proven to have happened even though we cannot prove how it happened. My post wasn't an attempt to prove anything, only an attempt to show that we shouldn't dismiss something out of hand.

[almightybob]

Why doesn't any of this stuff happen today, when we could test it? Why doesn't God talk to people from burning bushes in the 21st Century?

Other things that in the past people didn't understand, and so attributed to various gods, include:
Lightning
Thunder
Tidal waves
The sun rising and setting
Earthquakes
Eclipses
Volcanoes

All of these, we now understand, thanks to science. None of them have turned out to be because of Yahweh, or Thor, or Osiris, or any other god you care to mention. But religious people ignore that and say things like "well yes in those cases, but how do you know evolution is true? It's just a theory! We don't see animals evolving just now, so you can't prove it! So open your mind to the possibility that Goddidit".

[Possumdude0]

Why doesn't any of this stuff happen today, when we could test it? Why doesn't God talk to people from burning bushes in the 21st Century?

Other things that in the past people didn't understand, and so attributed to various gods, include:
Lightning
Thunder
Tidal waves
The sun rising and setting
Earthquakes
Eclipses
Volcanoes

All of these, we now understand, thanks to science. None of them have turned out to be because of Yahweh, or Thor, or Osiris, or any other god you care to mention.

Technically speaking all of those things are still attributed to God. Just because we can explain something does not mean God didn't cause it. But at the same time, just because we cannot explain something doesn't mean it was miraculous (miraculous here meaning unexplainable by science).

So why doesn't God do all that Biblical stuff today? Why would He stop?

Why do you think He has stopped? Think of how long human history is, and how much direct interaction of the sort you're asking about occurs in the Bible. Even in Biblical times it wasn't an everyday occurrence. There were hundreds of years between the last events recorded in the Old Testament and the coming of Jesus. God is still watching over us, I've felt Him in my life and I've seen the effects of His action in lives around me.

But religious people ignore that and say things like "well yes in those cases, but how do you know evolution is true? It's just a theory! We don't see animals evolving just now, so you can't prove it! So open your mind to the possibility that Goddidit".

You realize that if you switch the positions of "animals evolving" and "Goddidit" in your last two sentences, you have the same kind of argument as the one you use in the first part of your post, right? You claim that religious people say they know evolution isn't true because they don't see it happening right now, but clearly you don't think this is a good argument against evolution. But just as clearly you think it is a good argument against God. Why is it a good argument against God but not a good argument against evolution?

[Goatboy]

My final word on the matter (because I can see this turning into a non-constructive debate) is this:

I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe Jesus was the son of God. Yes, if I were to assume God made the universe, then all the miracles would make sense. However, since I do not make that assumption, it is hard for me to believe that a man walked on water, rose from the dead, etc.

I used to make the same arguments for Christianity that you are making, but I found myself feeling rather foolish, almost as if I were lying.

[Spe-edS]

not trying to enter a debate here, just wanna post a few thoughts.

are there not a lot of representative numbers in the bible? 40 days,3 days, etc.
i grew up in a catholic environment (school, family, etc...), and was taught that stories from the bible should be interpreted with the writer and audience in mind; take the time frame into consideration. therefore when so and so says jesus survived 40 days/night w/o food/water, it was more of a representative number than a literal one.
are people today reading into religious texts as literal or symbolic?

also, what is lost in translation?
when i was younger, i brought up the question of science vs religion to friend (on evolution vs creation story (7 days)), and (i'm purdy sure this is total bs) they had told me that the literal hebrew translation for the word day, was period of time. they drew the connection that "god" may have created the earth over 7 "periods of time", thus corresponding with the extreme periods of time that a planet takes to form...
just a thought as to what we lose in the translation to english, or even just over time, from the original text.

i'm agnostic currently, basically because i view the things we can't explain as just that. unexplainable
in my opinion organized religion is flawed in that they are interpretations of man. gotta love the church of i don't know.

[sanddbox]

It depends. Some branches of religions take it literally, others don't.