Noah’s Flood Confirmed...?

[TheReasoner]

Forget it

 

[AV1611VET]

Here you go, Ar Cosc -- straight from an English-speaking faction of the world: Difference Between Miracle and Magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

So whatever I think of it, and to be frank I think it's more a case of very disturbed people with possible cases of demonic possession performing truly evil acts, if there's one thing it is NOT it's sleight of hand.

Did any of them walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead?

Anyone can kill an animal -- the ... trick ... is to bring an animal back from the dead.

 

[TheReasoner]

Forget it

 

[AV1611VET]

Just can your claims about it being 'natural'. As a best case scenario it's insane.

Let's get this straight, I believe there are two major differences between magic and miracles.

And if you don't like it, that's tough.

I don't really care to be subjected to your inquisitions or go through some kind of Internet pogrom about it.

I feel I've justified my belief, and that's good enough for me.

If you think that magic and miracles are interchangeable, then let's see you use 'miracle' where you would normally use 'magic'.

Otherwise lay off.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry I brought it up. Just... Don't go there.

I don't know what you're all bugged out about with guys dressed up as Goths and performing animal-slayings.

I'd say they certainly wouldn't try that on a bear or tiger.

Anyone can kill a poor defenseless cat or dog on a tree stump, while dressed for attention.

You want a real devil-worshipper?

They will open the door for you, call you 'sir', buy you a cup of coffee and discuss the Wall Street Journal, call you to see if you made it home okay, and give you the shirts off their back.

They'll quote anything from Jung to Einstein, and discuss ways to cradle a child in your arms to reasons children shouldn't arm themselves for war.

But inside their hearts -- whoa -- don't even go there.

 

[TheReasoner]

Forget it

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't know what you're all bugged out about with guys dressed up as Goths and performing animal-slayings.

I'd say they certainly wouldn't try that on a bear or tiger.

Anyone can kill a poor defenseless cat or dog on a tree stump, while dressed for attention.

How about a lamb, AV?

You want a real devil-worshipper?

They will open the door for you, call you 'sir', buy you a cup of coffee and discuss the Wall Street Journal, call you to see if you made it home okay, and give you the shirts off their back.

They'll quote anything from Jung to Einstein, and discuss ways to cradle a child in your arms to reasons children shouldn't arm themselves for war.

But inside their hearts -- whoa -- don't even go there.

In other words, just like fundies -- only polite.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about a lamb, AV?

How about a lamb, Nathan?

 

[TheReasoner]

Forget it

 

[Nathan Poe]

How about a lamb, Nathan?

I guess killing lambs is a-ok with you -- it being Biblical and all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess killing lambs is a-ok with you -- it being Biblical and all.

You're asking the wrong person here; I'm not a vegetarian.

 

[Delphiki]

Did any of them walk on water, heal the sick, or raise the dead?

Anyone can kill an animal -- the ... trick ... is to bring an animal back from the dead.

From the link you posted about the difference between miracles and magic:

magic is the act of a human being whereas a miracle is the act of God.
... Magic on the contrary is nothing but manipulation of nature of objects.

So by that definition, walking on water is magic, as it's a manipulation of the nature of an object (water), done by a human being (Jesus).

I think even Rick Ocasek would agree that's actually magic and not miracle.

YouTube - The Cars - "Magic" video (full version)


Heal the sick?

Hygea is a goddess of healing in ancient Greek polytheism. She introduced the idea of using soap and water for sanitary reasons in order to prevent complications in patients, something usually attributed to the book of Leviticus by Christians, which was written centuries after the idea of the goddess Hygea.

Raise the dead?

Aesculapius, Hygeas father (also a god of healing), rose people from the dead much to Hades' displeasure. Hades was worried that souls would stop arriving to the underworld, so he asked Zeus to kill him.

So here's a question:
Would you consider Hygea's ability to heal and Aesculapius's ability to raise people from the dead miracles? After all, they were acts of God(ess). Just not your god.

 

[sandwiches]

From the link you posted about the difference between miracles and magic:


So by that definition, walking on water is magic, as it's a manipulation of the nature of an object (water), done by a human being (Jesus).

I think even Rick Ocasek would agree that's actually magic and not miracle.

Heal the sick?

Hygea is a goddess of healing in ancient Greek polytheism. She introduced the idea of using soap and water for sanitary reasons in order to prevent complications in patients, something usually attributed to the book of Leviticus by Christians, which was written centuries after the idea of the goddess Hygea.

Raise the dead?

Aesculapius, Hygeas father (also a god of healing), rose people from the dead much to Hades' displeasure. Hades was worried that souls would stop arriving to the underworld, so he asked Zeus to kill him.

So here's a question:
Would you consider Hygea's ability to heal and Aesculapius's ability to raise people from the dead miracles? After all, they were acts of God(ess). Just not your god.

Diabolical plagiarism, yadda yadda yadda...

 

[Doveaman]

Nay. Cannot [currently] be explained does not necessarily mean cannot ever be explained.

How do you scientifically explain a physical child being conceived by a Spirit?

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” - Matt 1:20.

Absolutely not. why do you assume that things which follow natural laws are never of God's doing?

Why do you assume that I assumed such a thing?

False. There are conceivably several factors which could be highly relevant to the rate of decomposition.

Rate of decomposition has no relevance to the fact that there is no scientifically conceivable way to restore a three day old corpse to life. You therefore believe in what is scientifically inconceivable.

Nay. I have personal experiences which do back it, and I have various reasons to believe in God's existence. Specifically the Christian god.

Can any of your "personal experiences" and "various reasons" be scientifically demonstrated to verify the existence of the Christian God?

I don't understand why you insist that if something behaves according to the observed and testable laws of nature God is somehow excluded from the 'equation'.

I don’t understand why you keep accusing me falsely.

Why does God rely on Him circumventing His own creation?

Are you under the impression that God only create things that rely on the laws of physics? The resurrection of Jesus is God’s creation too. The resurrection demonstrates that the laws of physics must take a hike when the laws of Spirit is at work.

It's His creation, why should Him performing actions contrary to it be a requirement for His existence? To me that seems absurd.

Who said anything about it being a "requirement''? But one thing is clear, a three day old corpse coming to life is contrary to the laws of nature.

Yes, I do accuse you of not listening to what God says through His creation.

Which would be another false accusation on your part.

The minor events such as water to wine, walking on water and such which are currently not testable. These events may be freak events triggered by some unknown laws of nature being used by God.

So the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus are freak events now? This is not really helping your argument. Try again.

However, it is conceivable said events can be explained if we increase our understanding of the universe around us.

How can an increased understanding of the universe ever explain a physical child being conceived by a Spirit? How is it even possible for you or anyone to scientifically explain a Spirit?

There are, after all, freak events which at first glance appear to go against the very basic laws of nature which are well known and have been since Newton's time.

I suppose Newton could explain the freak event of a physical child being conceived by a Spirit, right?

Sorry doveaman but comparing single events of the nature like the resurrection to the creation of the universe is nonsensical as the events cannot be compared. For one, the resurrection is not currently testable.

I disagree.

If I proposed a scientific hypothesis that a three day old corpse can be restored to life this hypothesis can be scientifically tested and scientifically verified or falsified, and since it has been scientifically falsified then you have no scientific reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead. So why do you believe he did?

 

[Delphiki]

How do you scientifically explain a physical child being conceived by a Spirit?

Well, to get a scientific explaination you can do a scientific experiment.

Step 1: Find a spirit.

Good luck!

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you scientifically explain a physical child being conceived by a Spirit?

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” - Matt 1:20.

Considering Jospeh only got that message in a dream, the scientific explanation would be that he was trying to convince himself subconsciously that his wife hadn't cheated on him.

This would, of course, make Joseph exceedingly gullible, but considering his actions in Luke's Gospel, Ol' Joe wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed in the first place.

 

[TheReasoner]

How do you scientifically explain a physical child being conceived by a Spirit?

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” - Matt 1:20.

What part of 'cannot currently be explained' don't you understand?

Why do you assume that I assumed such a thing?

Because you make a lot of claims that so and so runs against the laws of nature and put a lot of your arguments and reasonings on top of that premise.

For example, you follow creationism. A ludicrous position to follow as it is falsified. You then, fallaciously, conclude that since creationism is falsified and Jesus' resurrection or the immaculate conception as freak events are currently inexplicable it makes just as much sense to believe in all of them.

What a lot of nonsense.

Currently we do not know of any physical way to reanimate dead matter. If a cell dies it dies, and as far as I know it cannot be reanimated. We could conceivably take it's DNA and do stuff with that but...
However, as paradigm shifts have demonstrated a lot of things we consider impossible and even contrary to natural laws can be proven possible later on. We can say there's a low probability that something is possible. Such as the resurrection or fertilization of an egg by a non-corporeal being. I agree. It is improbable that it is possible. But we cannot exclude the possibility.

When it comes to creationism though... That one we know is far off. That one we know is wrong. It is possible to falsify the claims related to creationism. Such as a young earth. But it is harder to falsify a single freak event which is currently unobservable.

 

[Ar Cosc]

And there's also the question about God's reasons. As Faith Guardian says, we'd expect a virgin birth, or a resurrection, even if it was miraculous, to leave no trace. A global flood, or 6000 yead old cosmos, on the other hand, would be expected to leave huge amounts of evidence. There are only two explanations. Either these things aren't true, or God deliberately made it look like they weren't true. Now why would he do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are only two explanations. Either these things aren't true, or God deliberately made it look like they weren't true. Now why would he do that?

He wouldn't -- and no, there are not 'only two' explanations.

The Farmer tilled the land, then made it ready for replanting.

When God lobs a grenade, He picks up the shrapnel afterward, then leaves a note behind saying He did it.