God Salts Reality With Miracles

AV1611VET · Aug 13, 2011

Take a good look at one of my favorite pictures:

What I would like to point out with this, is that, when explaining how things could have occurred in the Bible that go against scientific paradigms, there HAS to be a time when God is invoked somewhere along the chain of events, or science will win the debate hands down.

Take a look at the picture again and notice that the miracle is embedded in the middle of a chain of events; but in the past, where that miracle is placed makes a big difference.

For example, at the Creation event, the miracle should be placed at the beginning of the chain.

In the case of the Flood, you have the miracle in the middle of the chain.

And in the case of the Rapture, you have the miracle at the end of the chain.

I hope this helps in future discussions about where God fits in the big picture.

Skavau · Aug 13, 2011

That's nice.

Do we know that said miracles happened and that said miracle will happen?

AV1611VET · Aug 13, 2011

Skavau said:
That's nice.

Do we know that said miracles happened and that said miracle will happen?

It doesn't matter to the point of this thread.

Let me repeat:

At some point in time, a miracle HAS to be invoked along the chain, or science will win hands down.

Skavau · Aug 13, 2011

That's only a concern for you, I guess. Jolly good for the spirit but not a coherent way of knowing what actually happened.

Are you seriously suggesting though that you simply force yourself to believe in miracles because the alternative is that science will 'win' (whatever that means)?

AV1611VET · Aug 13, 2011

Skavau said:
That's only a concern for you, I guess.

It's not a concern -- it's a way of explaining, in equation form, how these debates [should] go.

To sum that picture up in one word: Goddidit.

Skavau said:
Jolly good for the spirit but not a coherent way of knowing what actually happened.

Maybe not, but that again, is a secondary issue. We don't know all the ramifications of how Columbus came here, or exactly how gravity works, etc. -- we're just content to believe the documentation and let it go at that.

Skavau said:
Are you seriously suggesting though that you simply force yourself to believe in miracles because the alternative is that science will 'win' (whatever that means)?

No.

Skavau · Aug 13, 2011

AV1611VET said:
It's not a concern -- it's a way of explaining, in equation form, how these debates [should] go.

It is an assertion, not an explanation. You just insist that miracles should be accepted historically and presumed for the future because you don't like the fact that otherwise a naturalistic explanation has to be invoked or the events in the alleged miracle disputed. There is no reason for anyone to accept anything you have said here.

To sum that picture up in one word: Goddidit.

So you keep saying, yet you have to actually convince someone that this is the case for anyone to care.

Maybe not, but that again, is a secondary issue. We don't know all the ramifications of how Columbus came here, or exactly how gravity works, etc. -- we're just content to believe the documentation and let it go at that.

If that were so, then science would have stagnated a long time ago. It hasn't, it shouldn't and it won't. For it do so would even contradict what science is.

No.

Then why assume miracles?

Lillen · Aug 13, 2011

I was dead, but came back to life, thanks to Jesus!!! That's a miracle!

Jazer · Aug 13, 2011

AV1611VET said:
At some point in time, a miracle HAS to be invoked along the chain, or science will win hands down.

What do you mean by science. If science represents the natural laws, then science is the winner. My understanding of a miracle is that something has gotten away from God plan and intention and He restores everything back to the way it's suppose to be. Miracles are hard to prove because you can not always show that there was ever a problem in the first place.

Nathan Poe · Aug 13, 2011

AV1611VET said:
It doesn't matter to the point of this thread.

Let me repeat:

At some point in time, a miracle HAS to be invoked along the chain, or science will win hands down.

Win what? I didn't realize you were competing for something.

Tell us, AV, what do you get if science "loses"?

roach · Aug 13, 2011

AV1611VET said:
It's not a concern -- it's a way of explaining, in equation form, how these debates [should] go.

To sum that picture up in one word: Goddidit.

Maybe not, but that again, is a secondary issue. We don't know all the ramifications of how Columbus came here, or exactly how gravity works, etc. -- we're just content to believe the documentation and let it go at that.

No.

AV1611VET said:
Take a good look at one of my favorite pictures:

What I would like to point out with this, is that, when explaining how things could have occurred in the Bible that go against scientific paradigms, there HAS to be a time when God is invoked somewhere along the chain of events, or science will win the debate hands down.

Take a look at the picture again and notice that the miracle is embedded in the middle of a chain of events; but in the past, where that miracle is placed makes a big difference.

For example, at the Creation event, the miracle should be placed at the beginning of the chain.

In the case of the Flood, you have the miracle in the middle of the chain.

And in the case of the Rapture, you have the miracle at the end of the chain.

I hope this helps in future discussions about where God fits in the big picture.

Everything you say would be so funny if I thought you weren't serious. Actually, it's not even scary anymore that you probably are.

Nathan Poe · Aug 13, 2011

roach said:
Everything you say would be so funny if I thought you weren't serious. Actually, it's not even scary anymore that you probably are.

It's more sad than anything else -- and AV isn't even a unique or particularly interesting case; just a symptom of the bigger problem.

hasone · Aug 14, 2011

Nathan Poe said:
Win what? I didn't realize you were competing for something.

Tell us, AV, what do you get if science "loses"?

Maybe he gets to convert us to his theology and possibly save us from an unhappy fate. Once he converts us though, he may have to help us defend our minds from other interpretations of scripture, so his work is never done.

Nathan Poe · Aug 14, 2011

hasone said:
Maybe he gets to convert us to his theology and possibly save us from an unhappy fate.

Except what he's offering is far worse in the long run.

Once he converts us though, he may have to help us defend our minds from other interpretations of scripture, so his work is never done.

Thus putting others in a position of perpetual dependency on him -- sounds about right; wish I could act surprised.

Non sequitur · Aug 15, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Take a good look at one of my favorite pictures:

What I would like to point out with this, is that, when explaining how things could have occurred in the Bible that go against scientific paradigms, there HAS to be a time when God is invoked somewhere along the chain of events, or science will win the debate hands down.

Take a look at the picture again and notice that the miracle is embedded in the middle of a chain of events; but in the past, where that miracle is placed makes a big difference.

For example, at the Creation event, the miracle should be placed at the beginning of the chain.

In the case of the Flood, you have the miracle in the middle of the chain.

And in the case of the Rapture, you have the miracle at the end of the chain.

I hope this helps in future discussions about where God fits in the big picture.

All you did was posit on a false premise that a god, specifically your god, is the explanation for an unknown/unexplained.

This carries no weight and doesn't explain anything.

AV1611VET · Aug 15, 2011

Non sequitur said:
This carries no weight and doesn't explain anything.

To whom? you?

FrenchyBearpaw · Aug 15, 2011

AV1611VET said:
It's not a concern -- it's a way of explaining, in equation form, how these debates [should] go.

To sum that picture up in one word: Goddidit.

Maybe not, but that again, is a secondary issue. We don't know all the ramifications of how Columbus came here, or exactly how gravity works, etc. -- we're just content to believe the documentation and let it go at that.

No.

Special pleading should be a concern for you.

Nathan Poe · Aug 15, 2011

AV1611VET said:
To whom? you?

To people who are interested in learning about physical and life sciences.

Don't worry, AV -- clearly, he wasn't referring to you.

Non sequitur · Aug 15, 2011

AV1611VET said:
To whom? you?

Anybody who hasn't bought in to your "quick fix" and is looking for more than, "Let me help you, with an unprovable assertion...".

If I was on the fence, I would say you have an interesting claim, but what about other religions that explain it their way or don't believe that happened?

It's merely an "option". No more, no less.

Unless your goal is to establish your unverifiable claim as "truth", so you can just plow on through any skepticism and make as many of claims as you want, never having to be held accountable for any of them.

sandwiches · Aug 15, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Take a good look at one of my favorite pictures:

What I would like to point out with this, is that, when explaining how things could have occurred in the Bible that go against scientific paradigms, there HAS to be a time when God is invoked somewhere along the chain of events, or science will win the debate hands down.

Take a look at the picture again and notice that the miracle is embedded in the middle of a chain of events; but in the past, where that miracle is placed makes a big difference.

For example, at the Creation event, the miracle should be placed at the beginning of the chain.

In the case of the Flood, you have the miracle in the middle of the chain.

And in the case of the Rapture, you have the miracle at the end of the chain.

I hope this helps in future discussions about where God fits in the big picture.

I like this post and I'll copy it for later use. A perfect example of special pleading and ad hoc reasoning, if I've ever seen one: "When in doubt, insert magic here."

Nathan Poe · Aug 28, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Take a good look at one of my favorite pictures:

Why do fundies always assume the God is invoking miracles in order for things to break in their favor?

Isn't it equally possible that th Bible is little more than a collction of misremebered and poorly-copied fairy tales, and that God has been trying -- in vain -- to show its believers a way to the larger and more important truth -- one which, unfortunately, brings them no glory whatsoever?

Put simply, if God's messing with us, why couldn't He mess with you?

And before the obligatory Bible verse comes into play, please remember, "Isn't it equally possible that th Bible is little more than a collction of misremebered and poorly-copied fairy tales" would more or less render that as a useless argment.

God Salts Reality With Miracles

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Ode to the Forgotten Few

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Ode to the Forgotten Few

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Ode to the Forgotten Few

Lillen

Guest

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Take time for granite.

Well-Known Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency