A question for atheists

[Mijoy2]

Hitetlen:

As I read some of the posts, I suddenly remembered a very interesting event, something, I personally experienced. We were out on the nearby lake, a small party enjoying the approaching sunset, with some gorgeous clouds in the sky (this is important).

All of a sudden, we saw two Suns, not even close to each other, the angle was about 30 degrees in their respective directions. It was simply astonishing, we did not even know which one was the “real” one. The phenomenon lasted for about 5 minutes and then slowly disappeared. Of course there was only one Sun, the other one was a most convincing optical illusion. As we watched the “second” Sun to fade away, we realized that we did not really see the Sun at all (not even the first one), it was just the light coming from behind the clouds which gave the illusion of seeing it.

But the illusion was very strong and the light quite beautiful. I would not be surprised if someone in a more superstitions age would have sworn (quite honestly) that there were two Suns on the sky and declare it a “miracle”. Moreover, I was not alone, and everyone in our party confirmed that they also saw it.

So, as you see, this event (more or less) conforms with the “miracle” of Fatima, some seemingly inexplicable celestial event seen by several people (not seventy thousand of course, though I don’t know how many other people were out on the lake - it is quite large), a very convincing event at that.

So, this is the story of a “miraculous” event, I personally witnessed. You can believe me, or not, as you please.

There is a pretty big difference between your miracle and the miracle at Fatima. The miracle at Fatima was predicted. (not to mention much more dynamic).

If you were to gather together a group of people before hand, and tell them to come to the lake and they will witness a miracle, the coincidence factor of your two suns would be greatly diminished. The event would be much more intriguing certanly.

Yeah, it could be a coincidence, but it would be about as likely as me saying before hand, as I walk in my driveway, “I predict there will be a painted red 1913 penny under my right front tire”, and have it true. I’d be pretty convinced God put the penny there. Although I might wish I had said a hundred dollar bill instead.

 

[Nullasalus]

Hitetlen:

I have to say “no” to both scenarios, meaning that they are not “miracles”. The second one is obvious: observing reality means that there is no supernatural involved. As a matter of fact, regenerating lost limbs is quite frequent in nature. The little worm called planaria is able to recuperate from being sliced into two halves.

Observing the first one I would have to assume that our knowledge is insufficient. As Arthur C. Clarke said once: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. To assume that a bona-fide miracle occurred we must contend that the event cannot be explained - now or ever - by using natural observations. In other words, something happened in nature, which cannot happen in nature - and that is a logical contradiction.

Well, then the problem is coming down to the definition of miracle.

For me, I don’t necessarily demand that something ‘miraculous’ be materially inexplicable, simply because - if there is a God, infinite in wisdom, conception, power, and all that - I don’t see why a universe would be created with such a wide, complicated array of rules, and yet they need to be violated and invalidated for that God to achieve anything.

I think it’s conceivable - easily so, in fact - for God, eternal life, the resurrection and all these things to exist, but be fundamentally natural, even if God Himself is ultimately inconceivable (infinite, so you can learn about God, but your learning will never be complete.)

So you and I are in agreement on one point - there didn’t need to be anything miraculous or defying reality for the resurrection to occur. What we apparently disagree on is what that means insofar as the reality of God and metaphysical factors go.

 

[Magicsilence]

Hitetlen:

I have to say “no” to both scenarios, meaning that they are not “miracles”. The second one is obvious: observing reality means that there is no supernatural involved. As a matter of fact, regenerating lost limbs is quite frequent in nature. The little worm called planaria is able to recuperate from being sliced into two halves.

Observing the first one I would have to assume that our knowledge is insufficient. As Arthur C. Clarke said once: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. To assume that a bona-fide miracle occurred we must contend that the event cannot be explained - now or ever - by using natural observations. In other words, something happened in nature, which cannot happen in nature - and that is a logical contradiction.

Is it just me, or do all atheists have “that same tone of voice (or typing)”. Its like a cross between a boring university lecturer, a bored microbiologist, and perhaps a slightly cocky geek.

Now, 2000 years back, were the average male had no education at all (but yes, were intelligent and wise in some cases from daily experiences) would have been a hundred times worse than some people we have today. Their lives were so poor and crumby that they were willing to believe in anything (assumption, no proof provided. You fail to recognise that the Jews of the time of Christ CRUCIFIED him because they thought he was attacking their religous beliefs. Clearly people DID NOT just believe in anything. Is there just an assumption that people 2000 years ago were in general much more stupid? I encourage you to read some of the works of the saints and see the intellectual genius that flows through their works. Faith with reason! Now that’s a refreshing change), and death was likely not much worse than what they had.(Which was …life… go figure…) However there were people like Jesus who knew how people think, was 'righteous" and did not like what was going on in the Jewish culture. The pharosies (pharisees) were manipulating the people for personal gain, and steared them away towards rituals and pointless practices that Jesus believed were not essential and actually strayed the people away from the true purpose and meaning of their religion. I tend to go with d) as you probably could have guessed. He was a devout jew, just not the kind the pharosies wanted. He attempted to reform the practices of the people, and stear them in the right path. He and his apostles believed in it so much that they were even willing to lie and die for what they believe in. (Big problem here, what the apostles preached was the doctrine of Jesus Christ as GOD, not a little reform, it was absolute HERESY to say that someone was God who wasn’t. Not only would the apostles have been preaching a lie and gravely sinning against their God, remember they were devout Jews, they would ALSO have been advocating worshipping a false God.) If you don’t think that is possible, you basically say that it is no biggie when men, fighting for what is right and what they believe in, die for their cause.(No biggie? People die for things all the time, but in those cases they are dying for a cause that they have been told about by others, or an ideology that was handed down to them. The apostles were given their faith from Jesus Christ. Who would knowingly die for a lie that could only push people into error? MAYBE some people would die for a cause that they thought to be true, and even that is rare. You are asking us to believe that the apostles made up a falsehood and knowingly died for it. This, is illogical.)

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[freesoulhope]

MIlitant atheists and militant Bible Theists.

A militant Theist, will not consider the world is billions of years old.
they most definetly will not believe that evolution is a possibility or that somethings that are written in the bible are ficticous storys based on real events and real realitys.

For example, I believe ( in light of scientific realitys)that there was an adam and eve, but the story maybe a fictional or symbolic representation of what happened, and that the world is billions of years old, rather then being created within six days.

Where as, a militant bible theist will not compromise, even if reason and logic including evidence, demands it.

Most people who take on this attitude, (from personal experience) are those who believe bindly.They are “mostly” people who cling on to there faith because of a deep suffering. Therefore, anything that would make their beliefs seem unreasonable or unlikly to be true, becomes a snarling beast, and instead of trying to understand it, they attack it. However, I’m not saying that all militant bible beliving catholics are like this, Or that evolution is true. Its just that, some people feel that its either one or the other, and that the bible is a purely literal writing. For some, “faith” is like a football team, they do not study their faith, they just support its existence.

SIZE=4]
A militant A-theist Has decided that nothing is worth believing unless they have had a first hand experience, or it has been verified by the natural sciences.

As far as there concerned it is impossible for a miracle(something that breaks the natural laws of physics) to Ocurr, since this means that God exists, which serious damages the foundation on which their pride rests. If you dedicate your life to something, nomatter what it is, if something come along that puts it a little out of shape, most people will close their eyes to it, because they are ruled by pride rather then truth.

A militant atheist, is not intrested in philosophical truth or Good reason, unless it rules in their favor. Otherwise it has to fit to the standards of “Empirical Evidence”, since reasoning doesn’t rule in their favor. The idea that thier is a god just cannot be the case, and many will hind behind the veil of materialism to justify their unbelief. Some might say that " why should i believe in anything other then what i can see" and by this they feel justified in their refusal to repent and give up the freewill to God. Why? when you can be your own God. Have you ever heard the saying

“id rather be free and a king in hell, then be a slave in heaven.”

Some atheists are more open, and have a number of beliefs. Some believe in a universal force, or somthing to that affect. Some people just need to experience.

The truth is, those who seek God will find God. Those who decide they have the truth, have had their deserts and do not deserve God, they dont want God, Otherwise they would seek him regardless of doubt.

The only atheists that do not seek God, but in mercy of his love are awakend from their coma by a “miracle” ( a face to face), are those that are chosen by God to serve a purpose. Like Saul in the bible.

 

[freesoulhope]

My point is, in both sides of the camp, Some dont have a good or reasonable reason to believe. They just have faith that what they think is the truth.

I have been studing tiresomely, Partly because i desire a particulor truth, but i also want the truth. The more i search, the stronger my faith. If my faith in the existence of a God is wrong, then there should not be so much evidence(Good reason) in favor of it.

I believe there is Good reasons for people to believe in God, that are hard to argue agaisn’t unless you dimiss “Good reasoning” as a suffcient reason for believing in God. Secondly Christianity is based on the fact that Christ rose from the dead. This is the defining reason people believe in jesus as the son and God. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity, is a lie and is not worth the time of day.

Christianity is based on a promise that Jesus( on the understanding that he was the lord) would rise from the dead, “a miracle”.

Why would a group of wittnesis continue a belief system that failed to keep its promise? This is unlikly, especailly in the face of death. Christianity isnt based on just faith( as you know, some of the apostles had little faith or corage) Its based on “Revelation” as in, God revealing the truth, not us finding it. Christianity is a continuing fullfillment of promises. This is what Christianity is relient upon as a religion. Nobody with roots in judaism would follow a dead lie.

The impact it has had on are society cannot be taking lightly and Quickly fogged of as a myth if you are trully looking for the truth. Especailly in light of the fact that there are three conflicting arguments from Three different major religion in respects to one person “Jesus Christ”. Muslims say that the crucifiction never happened, but judaism claim that he was crucified, becuase they along with the Romans under “pontious pilate” had him crucified. Their is historical eveidence to the fact.

The ironic thing is that, the base of christianity is now situated in Rome, the heart of the Roman empire!. God is trully great.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Rand Al'Thor:

Pax tecum!

Lincoln never said he was the Son of God, so that is an erroneous analogy. You see, you still have not touched on some key points. If Jesus was a devout Jew, then that means he believed in God. If Jesus was a devout Jew, then that means he believed in the Old Testament Scriptures. If Jesus was a devout Jew, then he believed that claiming to be the Messiah when you were not was blasphemy. And Jesus certainly did claim to be the Son of God–the Jewish historian, Josephus, wrote that in his histories of the Jews. Jesus was not crucified because he told people not to follow the pharicees. In fact, in the Bible he actually told people to follow what the pharicees said, but just not what they did. Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the Son of God; he was crucified on the charge of blasphemy. If Jesus were simply a “good Jew” then he would not have claimed to be the Messiah.
Along these lines, you would have to believe that Jesus never rose from the dead either, so again we have the senario of the Apostles actively preaching what they know to be a lie. These Apostles would have also been “good Jews”. Now Jews back then didn’t have a deep understanding of Heaven and hell, but they certainly knew that to blaspheme was to incur God’s wrath. So then we have the Apostles knowingly incurring God’s wrath upon themselves, and if the Gospels are to be taken as accurately recording what Jesus of Nazareth taught, then they had heard about hell from him. So now we have 12 men (13 including Paul) going around knowing that blasphemy is a sin that will lead to hell but preaching what they know to be blasphemy. No “good Jew” would do something like that because they believed in God and believed that they would have to answer to God when they died.
Do you begin to see the holes in this?

** On a slightly different track, let me ask you a question if I may. Do you believe that the universe is infinite and/or self-sustaining? I would actually like all the atheists in here to answer this.**

In Christ,
Rand

Just making sure this is seen…

 

[Hitetlen]

Rand Al'Thor:

On a slightly different track, let me ask you a question if I may. Do you believe that the universe is infinite and/or self-sustaining? I would actually like all the atheists in here to answer this.

Infinite how? It has no boundaries, for sure. The universe is not like a balloon in a big room, it is everything there is.

Self-sustaining? Yes.

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Infinite how? It has no boundaries, for sure. The universe is not like a balloon in a big room, it is everything there is.

Self-sustaining? Yes.

What do you base you understanding on? Surley not emperical evidence?( sorry about the spelling) Why do you think the universe is everything there is, when in fact you cant see everything that is?

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitetlen:

Infinite how? It has no boundaries, for sure. The universe is not like a balloon in a big room, it is everything there is.

Self-sustaining? Yes.

You have to know everything to make an “unsupported” statment like this, and believe it. You would have to be God. :tsktsk:

 

[Hitetlen]

freesoulhope:

You have to know everything to make an “unsupported” statment like this, and believe it. You would have to be God. :tsktsk:

No, I don’t need to be God, simple lingustics will suffice: the word “universe” means: “everything there is”. Simple, eh?

 

[freesoulhope]

Hitelen, i have a Qeustion. Just a bit of fun, i just want stretch your mind across time and space…

Why should an absence of light promote a dark void? what i mean is, why is space a dark void( please dont say its because there is no light, try giving me a different anwser).