The Greater Miracle

I understand your point and I don't deny it. Religion involves acknowledging that there is an intelligence greater than our own and that we are limited by our five senses and our four dimensional universe. Certainly my faith is a faith, and even though in your terms my faith isn't rational or logical I don't think that the idea that all that we observe coming from a completely material and natural causes is rational or logical either. We just have to choose with irrational and illogical choice to beleive in. I pretty much agree. If there is an "intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs" then it can be said that every breath I take is a miracle. As I said, I don't pretend to know how much God intervenes in this world.Let's draw a parallel with a car. Mankind designed and built a car. You get in and start the engine, put it in gear and drive away. Once you've done that the engine is turning over, and the wheels are turning without intervention. All it needs is a few directions from you.I would say then that most of the time we see what we call natural causes for miracles but sometimes God does things that surprise us.

In most ways I don't pick and choose. I don't have to. None of us are going to be able to explain everything. I am content that the changes in DNA that have driven evolution could either be a initiated process that was designed to progress naturally, or that it was a process that also involved intervention along the way. (I'm inclined to believe that the rapid rate of evolution during the cambrian period indicates that there was intervention but feel free to disagree. )By the way, you are right on the money when you point out that water evaporating and condensing in order to keep life going is a pretty miraculous part of the creation.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I've answered by attempting to frame the question in a way that makes sense. On its own its like asking about angels on the head of a pin. I have yet to see a physical event that hasn't had a natural explanation. When mundane things happen all I, or you, can do is observe what happened and if we like we can look for a natural, or scientific cause for what happened. It is unknowable to us whether there was a supernatural cause that might have precipitated what seems to have occured naturally. The only definitive thing I can say is that I don't know but frankly I see the whole point as irrelevent.

Cute. He was also a man who walked among us. You know what the differences are. Paul didn't write any of the OT, the gospels and about half of the rest of the OT. For that matter he wouldn't be considered particularly rich or powerful anyway. He had position in the church but whatever wealth and power he had, he had a lot less of it after his "road to Damascus" experience. Too true. The big problem with the church is that its made up of imperfect people like myself. That's a misrepresentation of the Christianity but I'll leave it at that. We would agree that the Christian faith has been manipulated by many for hundreds of years for personal gain, which is the exact opposite of what the church should stand for. I completely disagree with this. The fact that he did oppose both politically and theologically the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders was the reason He went to the cross when He did. The Pharisees were about militarily regaining control of the Jewish homeland and their temple. Jesus was telling them to "love their enemies', "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile" and so on. The Pharisees believed that to be made right with God required going to the Temple with an offering, whereas Jesus made that unnecessary.Their idea of what a messiah should be differed radically. They wanted a messiah that would lead them against Rome whereas Jesus saw His messianic mission to be one of a suffering servant. They put prayerfully put together a canon that incorporated the teachings that were predominate in the early church. I grew up going to church but I walked away from it in my teens and was an agnostic for about 20 years. During the time I worked in a very secular environment and if I was going to be impacted by culture I would still be an agnostic. Agnosticism was certainly the primary religion in my culture. Mithra was again a mythological Persian god that was not someone who walked on Earth as one of us. The concept of resurrection then means altogether something different.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

That's helpful. I can agree the that things happen on their own. Actually I am probably different in my thinking than most of my fellow Christians. I have been influenced by John Polkinghorne. His contention is that God has created us in such a way that the future is open. He may be all knowing in the sense that He has awareness of all that is and was, and how that might impact the future, but He isn't actually aware of what you or I might specifically do or have happen to us tomorrow. I find that view consistent with the grand narrative in the Bible, (from creation to new creation), and with Chrisitian experience. (Now I'm open to attack from all sides. )

There is no problem, although it doesn't neceesarily make the conclusion correct either. Fair enough. I'll go along with that.

This is what I believe I have been saying all along. We can look at what evidence we do have from our own sense of self, religious texts, science,what others have to say etc. and then draw our own conclusions so that we can say "it seems like this is what happened". It is a matter of faith, but for those of us that do spend time thinking about it and trying to sort out what we believe is truth, it isn't a blind faith. It is an informed faith even though some of us will come to opposite conclusions.Edited by GDR, : sp

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Hi MichamusI've read and own the book "Don't Know Much About Mythology" by Kenneth C. Davis. I found it interesting. I agree that my Christianity is a faith. I have no empirical truth. As Bob Dylan said, "you've got to serve somebody". I have chosen to serve the Judeo/Christian God as represented by Jesus Christ.In my view the Christian story makes sense of the world that I live in both historically and spiritually. I find it not only consistent with what I know of science but complementary as many actual scientists will agree.You have obviously chosen to serve a secular god. Maybe you're right and maybe I am. Neither of us are likely to convince the other, but after 30 years as a Christian I know what I have experienced and I know what I have learned in the intervening years. My knowledge and understanding of my faith has evolved over the years and I expect that it will continue to do so.I guess the only other thing I can suggest by answer is to read my post to Rrhain right above this.

I have no argument with any branch of science and frankly I'm even inclined to view science as a theological pursuit, in that through it we can learn about the creator by learning about the creation. I just disagree with you on the idea that the only evidence that is to be considered is scientific.

I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter). So what? We keep learning new things and we change our beliefs in the face of new evidence. Learning and adjusting one's views is usually a good thing.

I agree with following the scientific method as a way to learn about the creator. I'm a creationist in that I believe the God of the OT created all that is. How he went about it is sometyhing I'm interested in scientifically but not theologically. If God chose to use an evolutioanry process, (which looks to be the case). that's fine with me. That's quite a list. Actually I'm thinking more along the lines of the fact that we can reason. Reason had to come from somewhere. What is reason in the first place? If it comes from simply unguided biological mutations then why should we trust our reason. It seems to me likely that reason had to exist prior to reason coming into existence on Earth. Can I prove it sientifically? No. Is it evidence worth considering. I think so.Where do emotions come from? What is an idea. Is an idea material? If not what is it. I think it's worth considering as evidence.You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Scientists often believe or disbelieve theories in the scientific world, just as Einstein initially rejected a great deal of QM based on his view of things. I was an agnostic until I changed my views based on philosophical and theological evidence. Since accepting the Christian faith, I have changed my views on many aspects of the faith. The evolutionary process is either a designed process or completely materialistic. Science can't determine which it is. Science assumes, (quite rightly), that the process is strictly a natural process. As to whether it is a creative process or not is subjective so as I say, "you can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine". I'm not the only Christian let alone the only Theist around. Of course my views are largely formed through discussion and consensus with others. I have no doubt that there are things that I believe that are wrong. (The trouble is, I don't know which things those are.) Over time my views will likely be modified again. (When I get to the next life, I'm definitely going to all the lectures. ) In the meantime, Christianity makes more sense to me of the world, spiritually, philosophically, and theologically than do other forms of religion or secularism. Sure science can research the chemical reaction in the brain but it isn't telling us why that chemical reaction was triggered in the fist place.I'm out of time. Going to church. Edited by GDR, : missed a quote

I agree. I never suggested it was a problem.

But we seem to disagree on the nature of evidence. We would agree on evidence that is scientific but you reject what I consider to be evidence that is philosphical or theological. I agree that I'll accept evidence when experiments tell me I'm wrong as per your first paragraph. I'm curious to know what you consider evidence that points in another direction.

I agree that I wrote that poorly. My intent was to point out that scientific theory is often subjective. Scientific evidence is objective although the analysis of the evidence could well be subjective. I agree Sorry. I shouldn't reply when I'm short of time. Essentially then we agree on this point. I'd add though that just because we can come to a subjective conclusion even though we know that objectively we can't be sure.We all have a world view. That world view is based on faith, whether it be Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Wiccan or whatever else we choose. We live our lives in the knowledge that our world view cannot be tested objectively. We all have a world view that in the end is subjective. As I said before in quoting Bob Dylan, you've got to serve somebody. I choose to serve God as represented by Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. In my opinion my particular faith makes sense of the world historically, philosophically, scientifically and experientially more than anything else I've encountered, but again,I agree that my point of view is subjective but so is everyone else's point of view in this regard.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.