Sorry Faith but you continue to misrepresent the Bible.
The stories in the Bible, particularly the New Testament, are at best hearsay, reports by anonymous writers that are often contradictory where the tales of the events tend to evolve with every retelling. it is not evidence that could be admitted in any courtroom.
There have not been MILLIONS of converts to Islam or any other religion even over the long centuries, as there have been to Christianity.
That is a really stupid false assertion Faith.
Islam began with a group even smaller than Christianity and expanded rapidly to include most of the civilized world and over an area far larger than Christianity. It expanded by add new converts.
Buddhism began like Christianity with one teacher and students yet expanded by adding converts.
Those are facts Faith, not your fantasies.
If there are more than a million Muslims or a million Buddhists then once again reality shows you are wrong.
AbE:
An interesting aside is that there are currently about twice as many Muslims worldwide as Protestant Christians and many Protestant Christians are active opponents of teaching Biblical Inerrancy, Creationism, Young Earth and Special Creation.
It seems Faith does not represent a major religious force in the world.
This is currently an area of active study. What came before the Big Bang isn't known. "Essentially nothing" is only one of the possibilities. No hint of any miracles has yet emerged from any observation or theoretical analysis. But they'll keep looking and thinking.
i'm not talking about anything before the BB. As I understand it there was a point where time=0 and the question of what was before that is meaningless.
A singularity is as close to nothing as you can get and from minimal understanding it was essentially energy anyway and without a physical dimension. From that comes the universe as we know it today. Looks pretty miraculous to me.
Percy writes:
Not the origin of life? Just the evolution of "sentient life," by which you must mean us? Well, okay. Where do you see the miracle? We're pretty much just like other mammals. Some have bigger, sharper teeth, some are faster, some have thicker fur, and some have bigger brains, like us. The evolution of our brains is an area of very active research.
When asked for a miracle to study you suggested "Creation" in your Message 1107, then when asked to be more specific you produced the two suggestions I considered above, and both are already areas of active research.
But you interpreted the request backwards. When I asked in Message 1106 if you had any miracles for us to study, it wasn't a request for suggestions for where to look for miracles. It was a request that you point us at an actual miracle that we already *know* (supposedly) is a miracle we can study.
We know that creation exists and I claiming that as a miracle that as you keep saying is being studied.
Percy writes:
This is just one man's opinion of the top 10 miracles, and feel free to select your own miracle for study from anywhere you like, but at least this list provides you a starting point.
As you well know the Biblical claims of miracles are, if they happened, one time events and aren't available for study. I have answered your question, and selected a miracle by giving you what is the biggest miracle of all, which is being studied and you simply reject it.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
The fact that it doesn't look miraculous to some people who actually study these things should be the clue. As should the fact that lightening and a million other naturally explained events (like speciation to pick a Christian biggy) seemed like miracles to until relatively recently should also make you think.
The not yet fully explained is not necessarily miraculous - it's a god of the gaps argument. If you rely on them your argument retreats further and further away as we learn the truth.
The miracles we normally mean when we talk of miracles are those in the bible or those claimed by popes to create saints or by healer.
The big philosophical problems like why there's something rather than nothing need to wait - mostly because we don't know what 'nothing' is yet; it seems like a human invention.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
It will be a miracle if I even have any faith in this whole argument which raises science up to be the infinite questioner and judge of what should be believed and accepted.
Some people require a belief in at least some form of certainty.
Science was never intended to answer philosophical questions about faith and belief.
In any case, science is not equipped to conclude anything.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
In any case, science is not equipped to conclude anything.
Not quite. Science is based on conclusions. If every time in the past a given experiment gives the same results, science concludes that it is most likely that the next time that experiment is done it will still give the same results.
Science advances when we discover that a conclusion was wrong.
It will be a miracle if I even have any faith in this whole argument which raises science up to be the infinite questioner and judge of what should be believed and accepted.
Science has proven to be the best way of explaining the world around us. If there's another world somewhere else we have no way of knowing about it - including faith and believe.
Some people require a belief in at least some form of certainty.
Yes but it's a false certainty, built on nothing. It should give you no certainty at all.
Science was never intended to answer philosophical questions about faith and belief.
A tool can be used for many purposes. One thing science is doing is clearing away the scrub that any god could be hiding in. That's why Faith is so upset with it and has to reject it.
It's also finding the parts of our very natural brain where beliefs reside and why we have them.
It's also very good at defunking much of the bollox inside religious belief itself souls, contraception, discrimination, miraculous sacraments etc etc.
Science has only just got started, you aint seen nothin' yet.
In any case, science is not equipped to conclude anything.
wtf??? You always surprise me with these bizarre and totally wrong statements. I suppose you must harbour these false ideas to protect your beliefs.
Science's whole job, its whole purpose is to form conclusions, to know stuff, to create knowledge. Sheesh....
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
i'm not talking about anything before the BB. As I understand it there was a point where time=0 and the question of what was before that is meaningless.
A singularity is as close to nothing as you can get and from minimal understanding it was essentially energy anyway and without a physical dimension. From that comes the universe as we know it today.
Well, remember this is an area of active study. What you describe is just one possibility, the one from over a half century ago. See the Wikipedia article on the initial singularity for a description of some of the problems, and mentions of some other possibilities such as colliding branes. Possibly no current hypothesis is right. Some cosmologists are even beginning to question inflation. But we don't want to turn this into a discussion of cosmic origins. The thing you said that's most relevant to this thread is:
Looks pretty miraculous to me.
My answer would have run pretty much along the same lines as Tangle's in Message 1131, so I'll be brief, but I would have used the same example. What would a caveman say upon seeing lightning? "Looks pretty miraculous to me."
Basing claims of miracles upon natural phenomena guarantees constant retreat as the sphere of human knowledge expands. The definition of miracle is not, "That which we do not at present understand." In the history of science there has never been a natural phenomenon that once understood was found to be a miracle. You're operating with very thin odds when you place your bet that this one particular natural phenomenon, the origin of the universe, was a miracle. At present nothing we see when we gaze out into the cosmos looks miraculous, so why not just accept the origin of the universe as a miracle based upon faith rather than as a miracle that can be scientifically studied, because the entire history of science is one of resolving phenomena we don't understand into natural phenomena that we do.
As you well know the Biblical claims of miracles are, if they happened, one time events and aren't available for study.
How can you say this? You just offered the origin of the universe as a miracle for scientific study, and the origin of the universe is the first miracle in the Bible. Which way is it? Is the origin of the universe "available for study" or not?
As you well know the Biblical claims of miracles are, if they happened, one time events and aren't available for study.
As I reminded Faith, Jesus appeared to people after the resurrection time after time, so obviously miracles are not "one time events". Besides that, things that actually happen leave evidence behind. Most evidence from 30 AD hasn't survived until today, but it is claimed that miracles continue to happen and that they are witnessed by millions. Fine. Where's the evidence of these miracles, the recent ones? I gave you a list of contemporary miracles at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles, so select one of those and let's see if science has anything to say about it. Or select any other contemporary miracle you like.
I have answered your question,...
Not really. You have attempted to end the discussion, but you haven't answered the question.
= FaithThere have not been MILLIONS of converts to Islam or any other religion even over the long centuries, as there have been to Christianity.
That is a really stupid false assertion Faith.
Islam began with a group even smaller than Christianity
It didn't even begin with a "group," it began with Mohammed, period. He'd been sitting in a cave listening to a demon that called itself "Gabriel," whose doctrines he then combined with his very inadequate understanding of the Bible to create the Koran. When he tried to get people to accept it he got a few family members but that's all for some number of years, until he got the bright idea of killing people who wouldn't accept it. That sure speeded things up.
and expanded rapidly to include most of the civilized world and over an area far larger than Christianity. It expanded by add new converts.
Converts t the point of the3 sword, jar, not people who were persuaded by the message. And what it did was displace the Christianity that had covered the Middle East to that point. Which was probably God's judgment on Chrsitianity for its deviation into the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism, which was formally created about the same time though it had been devolving in that direction for a few centuries. See History of Romanism by John Dowling.
For a brief history of Islam see this quick video presentation, or even just a few minutes at the beginning, by Brigitte Gabriel who has studied the history of Islam:
That's the one where she did the blitz history of Islam, but there are lots more videos of her at You Tube.
Dr. Bill Warner is another who exposes the realities of Islam but most of his videos are much longer and I couldn't pick out one I thought was the very best for an overview, but HERE'S the You Tube page for your perusal.
Buddhism began like Christianity with one teacher and students yet expanded by adding converts.
To be a Buddhist adept at meditation like the Buddha himself is way out of the range of most people's abilities. If you are depending on reaching Nirvana for your salvation, you have to be one of the very very few. but Buddhism has a basic cultural side too that involves worship at shrines, and converting to that is mostly a matter of exchanging one cultural religion for another. If you know any actual historical facts about its spread please describe them.
Christianity spread on the other hand by persuading people of all cultures to the salvation offered by Christ, through the revelation of His deity and character.
Those are facts Faith, not your fantasies.
I've given no fantasies and as far as I can see you've given no facts.
If there are more than a million Muslims or a million Buddhists then once again reality shows you are wrong.
Islam was spread by the sword, that can rack up an enormous number of "converts" in a very short period of time, certainly not by persuasion. And then of course it multiplied from generation to generation in families because unlike Christianity it doesn't require any special true conversion like being born again.
AbE: An interesting aside is that there are currently about twice as many Muslims worldwide as Protestant Christians and many Protestant Christians are active opponents of teaching Biblical Inerrancy, Creationism, Young Earth and Special Creation. It seems Faith does not represent a major religious force in the world.
I do indeed represent the historical beliefs of orthodox Christianity, especially as laid out in the Protestant Reformation after the centuries of Roman Catholic deviation from the truth. And I have pointed to various organizations where the orthodox faith is still carried on in great numbers. But Islam and Catholicism both outnumber us, as hereditary systems would be expected to do.
Some people require a belief in at least some form of certainty.
Yes, that's the problem - too much certainty.
It was certain that the earth was flat. It was certain that the earth moved around the sun. It was certain that all life forms were instantaneously created in their present form. All certain. All wrong.
And look at all of the people throughout history who were so certain of their convictions that they were prepared to kill anybody who disagreed.
As I reminded Faith, Jesus appeared to people after the resurrection time after time, so obviously miracles are not "one time events".
Each appearance was a one-time event, Percy, that didn't leave anything but witness evidence. You can't study something that leaves only witness evidence. At least according to you. If you took that evidence seriously you could indeed study it, but you don't.
Besides that, things that actually happen leave evidence behind.
What evidence would you expect to see after the Red Sea had closed over again, that actually would demonstrate that a miracle had occurred? Or after the pillars of cloud and fire that had guided the Israelites were no longer present? Or after the manna had all been consumed. Or after the wet sacrifice was consumed by God's fire on Elisha's altar? Or after the poor widow's pots of oil had all been used up that had been miraculously filled? Or even the full pots of oil for that matter? What would you see that would prove to you that a miracle had occurred? Wouldn't you need to believe the woman herself? Or have been there to witness it yourself? Likewise with all Jesus' miracles. Can you name even one that would have left any kind of physical trace, as opposed to merely the witness testimonies, to tell you a miracle had occurred? Say you saw the wine Jesus had turned to water. Would seeing it prove that miracle had occurred? Or say you saw Lazarus alive after Jesus had raised him, and even the smelly cloths he had been wrapped in. Would that prove to you he had been brought back to life from death? Can you think of even one miracle that would leave a trace that would convince you that a miracle had occurred?
Most evidence from 30 AD hasn't survived until today, but it is claimed that miracles continue to happen and that they are witnessed by millions. Fine. Where's the evidence of these miracles, the recent ones? I gave you a list of contemporary miracles at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles, so select one of those and let's see if science has anything to say about it. Or select any other contemporary miracle you like.
I guess I missed that. Why don't you select one and explain how it wouid have left the traces that would prove to you there had been a miracle?
Under Roman Catholicism a few European tribes were converted at swordpoint or by the conversion of the tribe's king, but it was very rare, not the standard operating procedure we see in Islam's history.
Everything about Islam contradicts Christianity. Gabriel was a demon because God would send no true angel to contradict His once and forever revelation.
™ Version 4.2