Why This Belief?

For the record I'm not a literalist when it comes to the Bible.What we are talking about here though is do miracles occur. I think that we all would agree that the resurrection of Christ would be considered a miracle.Look at what science has discovered in the last very few years. Particle science is virtually a revolution in science. All of a sudden we have information passing over any distance at infinite speed, (instantaneous), particles that move from one location to another without being in between and so on.Here is a quote from the New Scientist. I can't see where the resurrection is any more of a miracle than what we can today observe with particle entanglement. The big difference is that particle entanglement is a constantly reoccurring miracle so science can observe it and experiment with it at any time. The resurrection was a miracle that happened once in the past and cannot be observed today.

Buddhism also deals with the infinite and eternal and the Buddha refused to say speak about whether a creator deity existed or not. Theism though very popular is not the only approach to these matters and though for centuries Buddhism was only in the east it is growing now in the European west by which I include the Americas.lfen

meaning? are you talking about language? symbolic systems? consciousness?If one is cryptic enough they become irrefutable simply because no one has a clue as to what they are talking about! You know, the sound of one hand clapping.lfen

Webster's unabridged gives three uses of probability. One of those uses involve mathematics and two don't. I have never at any time, have suggested that my conclusion was in any way mathematical. Neither you nor I are totally objective in our search for truth. We can both accuse the other of finding what we wanted to find and we could both be right. Either there is design or there isn't. One of us is right and one is wrong. At this time there is no proof of which is correct. We both apply our observations, our knowledge and our experiences in life to come to the conclusions that we have.I see design, you don't. When I came to the conclusion that I did some 25 or so years ago I probably would have preferred that design would be the truth. I would doubt that you were any more objective in your decision, but who can measure objectivity. However, because I might have preferred an outcome does not mean it isn't the truth.You say, "you found what you wished to find, not what is accurate". Once again you are dealing with certainties whereas I agree that I am expressing an opinion. As you are dealing with certainties where is your proof that I am wrong. You are getting my honesty. Name calling doesn't enhance your argument.

Are you saying that something that happens without us nowing how or why is a miracle? Under that definition everything is a mircle, isn't it? In 300 BC, when observers noticed that the planets where not moving in perfect circles (as there theory expected), was that a miracle...until we decided that the sun was what they revolved around and not earth. But still the idea of gravity is a miracle because we don't know exactly what is causing the two masses to attract to one another. If/when we figure out more indepthly how the particle entanglement works, or adapt our laws of cause and effect such that this fits into the whole picture, then is it not a miracle? What isn't a miracle then?To consider the miracle of the resurrection one still must accept that the bible is credible. Why does the bible consist of only those books and not include the book of mormon (to most people) or the Koran for that matter? Why not stop at the OT? This opens up a door of lengthy discussion, and I think that this will bring the thread off topic.If you found yourself on a deserted island with no memory and found yourself with many of the religious texts, would you still follow the teachings of the OT and NT? What would make you believe that Moses talked to God and not Joseph Smith or why not believe the Mahabharata for that matter? Granted there are some common threads in many of these documents, but I think you will agree that you can't follow the Mahabharata, the Bible, and the Koran. Can you? I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is the bible self credible or does society dictate that it is credible?

We have yet to quantify the measure or essence of a thought...or two. I mean that there is a source of wisdom. There is an origin of thought,and of consciousness, and of life. As a theologian, and through personal experience, I have found the origin to be God.
Human philosophy did not merely evolve. Intelligence has a designer, and His essence is captured in our best moments. I suppose that the mystery is our worst moments....what essence is THAT?

Oh? You didn't give the impression that you compared the likelyhood of one vs the other? What were you comparing, if not numbers?C'mon. There's no need to be ridiculous about this. You didn't compare anything, because you had nothing to compare. You simply decided that it was distasteful to you to believe in anything but ID; thus, you rejected the alternatives.So why all the dishonesty? Oh, I know that you aren't; not everybody is like you, GDR. Many of us are much better at evaluating evidence than you are. I came to evolution against what I wanted to believe; thus, you would not be right to accuse me of that. Where have I dealt with certainties? Which is why I didn't employ any. See what I mean about the lying?

Not everything can be judged by accuracy if human intellect is the limit of the definition of accuracy. In one light, the Bible is highly "innaccurate." This does not mean that all of the philosophers and theologians who espouse its wisdom are mere dummies. Anyone who believes that may as well go worship the human "wisdom" of Dawkins or Sagan! Which is another way of asking if human wisdom is the origin and standard of credibility or whether the expression and definition of God as defined in a religious book is the description of a belief and an origin NOT of human will. It can be said that theology is more of a faith issue rather than a logic issue. The credibility of Faith can be questioned yet never logically refuted.The Bible can be easily criticized and refuted based upon human wisdom as an origin of truth but this book can NEVER be refuted based upon the definition and belief in the God contained within.As an example, if one believes that the Bible had human wisdom as its origin, one then believes that human wisdom is the origin of all written knowledge or expression.If one believes that the Bible was authored by humans under the unction and impartation of the Holy Spirit, then one has a belief in a higher power as the origin.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-04-2005 11:14 AM

The teachings of the Buddha were about loving your neighbour and loving your enemy. His message was the same message of love that Jesus gave us. I wouldn't argue at all that Buddha had a real revelation from God and could be considered a prophet.Christianity is growing more quickly in Asia, Africa, and S. America than it is in the western world. In this post modern world there appears to be a new appetite for things spiritual, whether it be in the traditional faiths or in something else.

Hi, But Buddha taught that there is no God, it would be difficult to imagine him being a prophet. Lack of a proper education and poor living conditions can account for this.Brian

I have never said that evolution is false. I merely contend that it can't be proven scientifically whether or not the hand of God was involved or not. I believe that it was.
I'm gone for a few hours.

This can be a good thing. People are tired of the same old religious tradition void of any power. Tired of T.V. hucksters who insult human intelligence. It worrys me that people such as Benny Hinn can teach thousands of people overseas their own brand of spirituality. The Bible warns of danger from Post Modern anything goes spirituality. This admonition does not refer to any particular belief. In fact, this scripture could apply to men who abuse the Bible itself.The Bible can be a sound book if it is not abused through human misuse.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-04-2005 11:33 AM

That's not ID, then. ID is the position that it can be determined scientifically, and has been.Neither is evolution the position that the hand of God was definately not involved; it is simply the position that all life on Earth can best be explained by the interaction of natural laws.

Good clarification! Spirituality is used to accentuate spiritual matters. Science is used to accentuate natural phenomena.Dawkins is no more a spiritual person than Ken Ham is a scientist.If anyone disagrees, than we now have a spirit vs spirit argument.

Brian,Buddha founded a religion on an utterly different basis than the Abrahamic religions. I agree with you that he was in no sense a prophet. The core of his teachings were not revelations either but what he claimed he had personally learned and experienced and were things one could verify for one's self.I'm wondering though where you get that he taught there was no God? I'm going to have to give up my readings on the mythicist position on Jesus and go back to reading about Buddhism but it's my recall that Buddha refused to discuss or comment of the existence or non existence of a deity because he said it wasn't useful in the task of freeing oneself from suffering. I will admit, particularly to a Christian, that amounts to teaching there is no God, but it's one of the reasons I so admire the Buddha and think it one of the best religions in the world.Although I think the Abrahamic religions have all demonstrated strong tendenies to violence and I am frequently repelled by them on that basis alone I think I may admit to a greater exent than I've seen you do that they also have done good things, it's just that a very high price is paid for those goods things. Still I love the music of J.S. Bach and authentic gospel music.It may be not that God is evil or cruel, but that the incarnate aspect just loves good stories and good stories need conflict, antagonists, etc.lfen