The circular argument of God and miracles

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Have you ever been a baby, outside in a world where there is no hospital, and without an adult parent to take care of you...

I've seen one on TV - a third world baby, born to a child of around 12 years old, out in the bush, with no facilities at all. Will that do?

 

[quatona]

quatona,

To clarify, you're dismissing out of hand the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation.

No, I don´t - as has been explained in my initial post.

Someone else here on CF said that he wouldn't even consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation but would entertain the idea that all life on Earth originated with Alien beings who brought it here in space ships, which I think amounts to an unwillingness to approach the issue with an open mind.

Then I suggest you discuss this with this "someone else" fellow.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... But God is a Spirit.

Neither of those terms is well-defined; you can read pretty much anything into them. Seems to me it's like saying the Snark was a Boojum... (apologies to Lewis Carroll).

 

[Albion]

No, I don´t - as has been explained in my initial post.


Then I suggest you discuss this with this "someone else" fellow.

Sometimes people come to a discussion board and offer their ideas but become belligerent if someone tries to discuss any of it with them.

Among them are some who go so far as to present themselves as "seekers" into the Christian religion, which misleads readers into thinking that they want to learn something from Christians!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes. To name one, I think the kalam cosmological argument is pretty good.

You might find this link interesting: Countering the Kalam 1-5.

For the 5 minute summary, see:

 

[miknik5]

I never talked about me having a problem of believing. I talked about a problem that´s induced by inaccurate use of the term "explanation".




Huh?


No. I was merely pointing out the differences between a claim and an explanation, and was suggesting not to confuse the two. Plus I was pointing out that I have never seen a "supernatural explanation" - thus I am not "dismissing supernatural explanations out of hand" (as the poster I responded to claimed), but instead am patiently waiting until such a "supernatural explanation" is being presented to me for the first time.
I think my post was pretty clear. If you want to address my point, feel free.
If, however, you want to ramble or address your own strawmen, please find yourself someone else.

I've seen one on TV - a third world baby, born to a child of around 12 years old, out in the bush, with no facilities at all. Will that do?

you know it won't do. That is not the original and initial way that any living species ever came into existence and you also note that there was a parent (a 12 year old...God forgive the world for their selfishness and disgrace)involved who brought forth that child
But the initial "man" did not come into the world born in the normal and natural way as a newborn defenseless baby

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes because He made Himself and The Truth of Yhe Gospel known to me

That is my evidence

If you can't demonstrate that truth to anyone else using good evidence, then what's your motives in posting here? You're not going to convince any of the non-theists if you don't have good evidence you can share. Your claims become the exact same as any other theistic claim.

Unsubstantiated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

you know it won't do. That is not the original and initial way that any living species ever came into existence and you also note that there was a parent (a 12 year old...God forgive the world for their selfishness and disgrace)involved who brought forth that child

The question made no mention of the origin of species, and specifically referred to an 'adult' parent - would you consider a pre-teen to be adult?

The (slightly odd) question: "Have you ever been a baby, outside in a world where there is no hospital, and without an adult parent to take care of you..."

But the initial "man" did not come into the world born in the normal and natural way as a newborn defenseless baby

I don't agree with that; but regardless, my answer was specific to the question asked.

Perhaps the question wasn't sufficient to make the intended point.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Well, I guess God could make an appearance, and just say it was him.

That would indeed be easier. Frustrating that he doesn't, really.

What I meant was, a miracle seems to be something that just amazes a person that currently isn't explained with certain views of natural laws. If we understand exactly how something is working, it ceases to be a miracle. We could understand that something is a lie, or that God was involved. Miracle seems to be a label.

As far as I can tell, you can never "understand that God was involved." God causing an event must always reside in the unknown. "We don't know what caused it, therefore I have faith that God caused it."

It is an argument from ignorance.

As @FrumiousBandersnatch mentioned, we seek materialistic, natural explanations first. If we can't find one, then that doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means we don't know what's going on. And our lack of knowledge shouldn't lead us to jump to the conclusion "therefore God".

I'm sure it does raise questions, but one does not need to have answers to every question that is raised in order to believe in that which is questioned. That's a matter of fact, people will believe regardless of whether or not all of the questions are answered.

Yes, people are satisfied by certain answers which I find unsatisfying.

For example, to say, "God caused that miracle" for some people is an explanation. For me, it is not an explanation but rather an introduction of a far more complicated scenario involving so many more questions.

In what way is a belief useless, specifically belief in Christian doctrine?
It really depends of what use is specified. I don't think belief in Christian doctrine is useless. At the very least, Christian doctrine has led me to live a more peaceful happier life, with hope for a better future. I find my beliefs to be practically useful, not essentially useless.

Is that really useless, or did you mean useless in a academic sense in which we have to prove to colleagues in our respective fields the truth of something?

I mean it is epistemologically useless. It cannot be used to further our collective knowledge. It is useless in our pursuit for understanding reality.

It may be subjectively useful. Sure. A person can believe things exist if they so desire. Are delusions virtuous?

Does someone that believes dragons improve their lives helping anyone but themselves? Are they contributing to our knowledge about the universe by studying their imaginary dragons? They can't show us their subjective dragons. They can't prove it. It is useless to everyone else.

If I believe something exists, and you can't verify it, it's only up to me to show that it actually exists if that is my personal goal. I could very well choose not to inform you of my beliefs.

And until that time, you may be considered delusional: believing things to exist without showing that they do. Until you show us that they do exist, they might as well be delusions.

As for assuming somethings non-existence, no one has verified that God doesn't exist, so should be assume that it's not the case that God doesn't exist?

The neutral hypothesis is to assume something does not exist until shown otherwise.

This is not a positive claim. It is inherently agnostic. I have not seen any evidence that God exists (or that God is a coherent concept), so the default is to assume that God does not exist until shown otherwise.

Similarly, I do not know that dragons do not exist, but I have not seen any evidence that dragons exist. So it is the neutral (and agnostic) hypothesis to assume that dragons do not exist until shown otherwise.

Rather, you shouldn't really assume anything claiming that it's a proven fact. I don't claim that it's a proven fact that God exists, but I do claim that God exists, just not that I've proven anything.

This is incoherent. How can something exist but can't be proven to exist?

So, should we then, assume that there is no bear?
Should we accept it as a fact that there is indeed no bear?
Or, should we say, it's possible that there is a bear?

Yea sure its possible there is a bear. But if my friend can't point to the bear and just says, "I believe there is a bear, but I can't show you or prove it", then what am I left to do? Take his word for it?

What if I walk down the path and stand right where he claims the bear is and I see no bear?

Unless my buddy can show me this bear in some sort of tangible, coherent way, then I am left to conclude that there is no bear, until shown otherwise.

There's nothing logically invalid about there being a bear. Now, if I said I saw a bear that was as large as a common elephant, but as small as a common mouse, you ought to deny that, since it's a logical contradiction.

Good point. God is often logically invalid as a concept. For example the problem of omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipresence present problems when we consider evil, free will, etc.

If someone told me they saw a bear, I would be asking where, and grant that the person actually saw a bear. I'd try to get the heck out of there. I would err on the side of caution being open to the possibility of there being a bear.

You are too trusting. People see all sorts of things when they are in the forest. They make things up in their heads. They hear a twig crack and make all sorts of fear-based assumptions.

But remember, the point of my analogy is that you turn to your friend and ask, "Why do you think there is a bear?" If they respond, "I don't know, I just believe there is one" or "I don't know, I just feel it." or "I can't prove there is a bear, you just have to trust me."

All these answers are such BS. If you have a good reason for thinking there is a bear, then tell me and lets either leave the area or not. Don't give me all this beating around the bush nonsense.

If you wanted to check out a cave in the forest, but then I said, I think I saw a bear in there, but it's dark so I don't know...
Would you assume there is no bear?

Uh yea I would assume there is no bear...because you're just being scared and making dumb fear-based assumptions about a bear existing. Why would you think you saw a bear and then readily admit that its too dark to tell?

If its too dark to tell, then you obviously didn't see a bear. You're just making stuff up.

Also, I wouldn't go in the cave without a flashlight. I wouldn't assume that I knew there was a bear in the cave and therefore just not go in the cave. What a boring way to live. I would find a way to actually look in the cave and assess the danger. If I don't see a bear, I would proceed.

I could go on and on about the dangers of assuming that there isn't a danger, when indeed there is one, with no proof happening to be available at the time.

I will live my life assuming there isn't danger unless there is a good reason to assume danger is present. If you assume danger is present, you won't experience much because you can always invent possible dangers.

Someone saying, "There is a bear in that dark cave, but I have zero reason to think there is a bear in the cave because I haven't been in there and can't see in and don't have a flashlight" will not persuade me to believe the bear in the cave exists.

As for believing in things, when it comes to the bear, there is typically a reason for believing that a bear is present, small hints maybe, a crackle of a twig, blood in the water, but nothing very conclusive.

If I heard a crackle of a twig in a forest, I wouldn't immediately assume, "Bear!"

In the few times I've encountered a bear in the forest, it has been obvious. I come around a corner and there is a bear. Obvious. Unambiguous. Verifiable. There is no doubt.

Perhaps the same is with God. I've learned about God, I look at the world around me, and I reflect on morality, the existence of the universe, as well as other things, and something about all of that speaks to me and reminds me of God, and I choose to affirm his existence.

Belief in deism is more rational than belief in theism (or Christianity).

You need to explain what "God" actually is. Because, from what you described, this "God" could be some mysterious naturalistic force.

My understanding is that, when most people get down to it, God is more like an emotion rather than a verifiable external entity. God is a substitute for a cumulative group of emotions like "love+awe+peacefulness".

 

[miknik5]

If you can't demonstrate that truth to anyone else using good evidence, then what's your motives in posting here? You're not going to convince any of the non-theists if you don't have good evidence you can share. Your claims become the exact same as any other theistic claim.

Unsubstantiated.

Sir. There are many listening in (who are not responding in the back and forth diavussions) who very well may have ears to hear and believe what can only be heard and believed by His Spirit doing for us what we can not do for ourselves

 

[devolved]

It is not an assumption but a conclusion based upon the available evidence of physics and cosmology....The term probably means everything that began to exist...The alternative is an actual infinite series of past events which is and absurdity of monumental proportions.

1) I think you are begging the question in terms of "Universe is everything that began to exist". What you are postulating is something that science at large doesn't - that "begining" means "out of nothing". When someone like Kraus speaks about "nothing", they are not speaking about the same colloquial "nothing" that people are talking about.

Hence you are switching the semantics to something science doesn't justify. Beginning of the Universe doesn't mean that there was absolute nothing prior in terms of physical reality. It was merely a different kind of reality that we can't currently describe.

You call it "God", but when you cast it into a "mind without body" you are running into something that you merely presuppose and can't justify when you merely go from "Universe began" to "something has to decide". I'll show you that the semantics of decision isn't justifiable either.

2) When you posing infinite regress as problematic, How does God resolve this problem? You are merely saying... hey, this is a problem BUT this version doesn't have this problem. How and why not? A mind is a mechanism that follows cause-effect events. Thus, you still have events, and you still have infinite regress problem. How would it be resolved with a God?

A necessary thing that exists will only change if it makes a choice to change. Your inability to comprehend the ability of a person to choose something of its own volition simply because it wants to, simply as an act of will, is perhaps the problem here.

If you understand anything about neurophysiology, then you'd understand that "a choice" and "volition" is a byproduct of certain conditional process that doesn't happen in isolation.

When you are invoking "act of will" , you are not invoking it in any context of our reality. You are making a will to be something that's detatched from any causal factors, and it's not, just like anything else in our human reality. You are an effect that can cause other effects. You are attempting to say that "I will" and "I cause" without appropriately recognizing that your will and cause is contingent on a wide variety of other causal factors.

That's what logical process is. It's a cause-effect relationship that follows a certain pattern of intellectual behavior, which is what a mind is.

So the universe creates itself? This is absurd in spite of the current popular belief among those who should know better. Actually what I have encountered with pantheism is that they usually appreciate a being at the centre of it all from which all other gods and realities emate.

You are begging the question with the word "create" and "itself".

For example, unstable atoms may deteriorate and transition into other form over certain period of their existence. Did they do it to themselves? Did they "create themselves" into the other form?

You are framing semantics of these terms in a way that begs your "conclusions".

A consistent something rather than an absurd nothing is always a better explanation, and yes I do prefer this explanation.

You haven't really given a good case as to why such something must be an immaterial mind that's absent of material brain? And how it is that such something can cause anything? So, you are packing two unjustified assumptions without justifying them, and then saying that these are less absurd.

How, and why? If it's merely subjective preference, then I understand, but that's not how we do science or philosophy.

The question is not so much as how this might work. It will obviously be something that we find difficult to comprehend. But it is not unreasonable. More to the point though is how the mind works and develops through the brain. Something that we also know very little about and find difficult to comprehend.

So I when I know exactly how the human mind works perhaps I might be able to make an inference as to the working of another type of mind. What is certain is that the current insistence of materialism in the neurosciences is doing absolutely no favours to our understanding.

I think you need to actually look at neurosceince and understand the enormous progress we've had in that field in the past 50 years alone, and then you can at least say that "yes, I've looked at it in depth, and it's wrong because of A B C". You seemed to be dismissive because:

How would you know? Clearly in the case of a human brain development generally runs hand in hand with the development of the person but this is not always the case. There are several cases of severely handicapped or damaged people who relate a clear awareness and thought life (once they have recovered or developed) in spite of the physical (brain) problems they encounter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

You should really look into neuroscience. It's a very humbling and illuminating process that helps one to understand what we really are.

What you raise is an issue that has been considered since the very earliest days of Christian thought, and it was the way in which the Christian concept of trinity was explained to me.

It is necessary for God to have at least an eternally dual nature because therein lies Gods recognition of “I AM”.

In this way as well we see that there is indeed some form of causality, to and fro relationship between God and God, with the third person being the relationship itself.

To be frank I haven’t thought of a way in which this might work in a timeless context however.

The reality for this mind would be the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

Even if you take the time element out of the equation, you still are looking at causal events and running into the very thing that you claim to be absurd - infinite sequence of causal events.

So, how do you justify going through this intellectual inconsistency?

I don’t think I am assuming anything. In the topic of the supernatural we are largely dealing with the unknown so the question is whether it might be reasonable for something to exist, not whether it exist within the context of our experience.

I can see no reason why it would be logically inconsistent for a person to exixt within the context of its own being.

Well, that would be cause of how we determine possibility to begin with - by observing consistency in reality. That's how you can make appeals to logic, because logic is internally driven by the concept that implies certain "unbreakable consistency", hence we appeal to that consistency to show that we've never actually observe anything otherwise.

Does it mean that such thing doesn't exist? No, not at all. But provisionally, we place such claims on hold until better evidence is presented that would fit the reality of that claim as we could observe it.

Only if you assume that the mind always follows a process of computation.

I think you misunderstand the nature of material reality with respect with observable consistency, which makes computation possible in respect to how we observe such consistency.

A mind is a mechanism of a more complex matter that allows it to be:

1) Aware of the environment it is in by evaluating the input of such environment via the mechanism of the mind
2) Modify the mechanism appropriately in order to adequately fit into environment that such mind would operate in

Hence, mind is an adoptive mechanism.

If you ever done any programming, a proper analogy would be a difference between .NET (psychology) and Assembly language (neurophysiology). You are talking about these concepts on the level of .NET (psychology) , and you refer to complex things like volition without taking into account the mechanism of the "machine-level processing" that breaks it down into millions various competing processes.

I would probably have great difficulty in providing a “justifiable” answer but at least with this sort of “magical”, the magician is present. The opposing view is devoid of anything whic is a whole lot worse....Because I like to look at a problems from a different angle.

Why would it be worse? You seem to think that if the isn't some giant version of "perfect human" that directs all of this, then it would automatically mean that it's all absurd and doesn't matter.

It would be like a guy who thinks that life is meaningless without his girlfriend present in it, and has to go through some counseling in order to show that there's more to life and a lot more other possibilities to conciser.

Yes I am. What I find interesting is that I don’t think that the Human mind is created to operate without the brain and I am sceptical of stories to the contrary.

Nevertheless the brain might be instrument that can be played like a keyboard.

So the idea of a disembodied mind is, I admit problematic but not logically inconsistent, and with the view of the fact that something had to cause a complete and perfect reality to change in order to bring about the beginning of the Universe it is the only thing that makes sense.

The alternative would be something like Stephen Hawkins assertion that because physical laws exist, the universe exists. But nobody has ever observed a physical law causing anything at all and neither have all of the other abstract descriptors that are often attributed.

1) Sure, we can consider the idea of disembodied mind that merely taps into the brain. And we can consider that possibility from the comfort of an armchair philosopher or a preacher who needs to justify certain view. BUT in science...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

2) Again, you are not making a good case as to how you get from "Something has to cause" and "therefore that something must be a WHO". You are begging the question without adequate justification. We work back from observable reality, right?

3) There are many alternatives, of which God is obviously one. The question would be as to which one has more evidence, and which one is more plausible in context of what we know.

From a perspective of science, the methodological naturalism really doesn't have a lot of alternatives. Things like God are provisionally put on hold until we can actually evaluate these.

From a purely philosophical perspective, sure! We generally consider many possible concepts, but you have to understand that these concepts are largely imaginary. So, you have to make a very good case before we jump from "it could be so" and "it is so", because you are exiting imaginationland and entering reality and the evidence can't be imaginary from "it could be so".

The problem with religious justification is that it's an attempt to do exactly just that by evidence that we have to imagine. I can understand and even relate to the point of subjective interpretation of all in light of personal experience of a sort. But when it comes to scientific standards, such claims are generally not very reliable. It's not to say that we miss a few kernels of good explanations simply because it doesn't measure up to the standard, but we likewise filter out a lot more junk that would otherwise pollute the system and would make it hard to form any kind of consistent explanations that we are on-board with.

Hence, I have no complaint with God as a subjective view of reality. It can be reasonable in scope of certain assumptions. But, in our present day method such assumptions have to be justified, and you are not doing it well so far.

LOL what can any of us “know” in this respect. I don’t claim to know that it works or how it might work. My objective here is to present a reasonable argument and the only certainty I have after 28 years it is that the argument for the Personal Uncaused Cause continues to be a whole lot more plausible than the alternative.

I'm not expecting you to know, and I've used to word colloquially as many people do.

I think we can present a wide variety of reasonable arguments that wouldn't matter much in reality of our being when it comes to our ability to test whether these arguments are true or not.

An argument for Bigfoot is a reasonable argument, and so is argument that aliens kidnap people for experiments. Both can maintain certain internal consistency of reasonable validity. But there are necessary condition for us to go from "it may be reasonable" to "it is reality worth believing in". I hope you may understand what such conditions are when approaching these subjects with scientific methodology.

I'm not saying that in your own right you are not justified to believe something if you were presented convincing evidence. I'm saying that different people have different standards of evidence, especially when it comes to making educated decisions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I will live my life assuming there isn't danger unless there is a good reason to assume danger is present. If you assume danger is present, you won't experience much because you can always invent possible dangers.

There is a superficially plausible evolutionary hypothesis that suggests that we have such a strong tendency to attribute agency to pretty much anything because those who took fright at the first signs of a potential predator (i.e. those who attributed <malicious> agency by default) were more likely to survive than those who waited until it was obvious...

 

[devolved]

How would you know? Clearly in the case of a human brain development generally runs hand in hand with the development of the person but this is not always the case. There are several cases of severely handicapped or damaged people who relate a clear awareness and thought life (once they have recovered or developed) in spite of the physical (brain) problems they encounter.

I think I've answered the second part of the question and not the first one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

 

[FireDragon76]

Does that really follow? why can't a consistent worldview be maddening and frustrating?

It could be, if it had no correspondence to truth.

I would argue that the general Christian worldview does correspond to truth. I would point to the continued existence of Christian faith itself, sometimes under the worst possible conditions, as proof of that. If it were not corresponding to peoples actual experience of reality, it would be discarded for something else. Christianity survived communism, after all, one of the most systematic attempts the world has even seen to eliminate it.

Atheism as the default position is a relatively recent phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, people took the existence of some kind of unseen force or forces that guide the world as a given.

Ditto for miracles. Until the rise of skepticism due to the infighting among various Christian confessions and consequent repristination of Greek skepticism, miracles were not something dismissed as impossible. Indeed, medieval and ancient life was full of those sorts of stories. That's not to say that they were not rare events, but people were generally less skeptical. So it's important to understand why skepticism exists at all today as an influential worldview- due to historical forces, not necessarily correspondence to truth.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sir. There are many listening in (who are not responding in the back and forth diavussions) who very well may have ears to hear and believe what can only be heard and believed by His Spirit doing for us what we can not do for ourselves

Well then it's a good thing I'm here to remind people that it's illogical to believe in things for bad reasons. Although I'm guessing I really don't have to...

 

[devolved]

I would argue that the general Christian worldview does correspond to truth. I would point to the continued existence of Christian faith itself, sometimes under the worst possible conditions, as proof of that. If it were not corresponding to peoples actual experience of reality, it would be discarded for something else. Christianity survived communism, after all, one of the most systematic attempts the world has even seen to eliminate it.

Well, you have to consider that:

1) Christianity simply wouldn't be what it was if Constantine didn't pick it up and made it a state religion of the known world of the day. Since then it was a de-facto state-driven indoctrination, hence why would you expect anything different as a result in our modern world.

European monarchy depended on religious sponsorship for self-validation, hence why Christianity maintained control as an institution to this day.

2) Just because some idea survives in spite of being attacked, doesn't mean that it's valid. Astrology is a lot older than Christianity or Judaism. Is it true then?

Atheism as the default position is a relatively recent phenomenon. Throughout most of human history, people took the existence of some kind of unseen force or forces that guide the world as a given.

Not really. Atheism is a default position of any human. No human is born believing in God. They have to be taught to do so by the culture of their environment.

Ditto for miracles. Until the rise of skepticism due to the infighting among various Christian confessions and consequent repristination of Greek skepticism, miracles were not something dismissed as impossible. Indeed, medieval and ancient life was full of those sorts of stories. That's not to say that they were not rare events, but people were generally less skeptical. So it's important to understand why skepticism exists at all today as an influential worldview- due to historical forces, not necessarily correspondence to truth.

Actually, skepticism followed the French revolutions. Since then, religion has shifted out of the state control into local church, and the culture progressed from shaming non-religious people into the opposite - shaming religious extremism and state sponsorship of any religion, which today we find undesirable.

Once religion has been expelled from education, you have a loss of the religious cultural grip and we have something entirely different - traditional religion, just like in Judaism. People follow certain traditions and maintain some open-minded possibility, but it's not something that they invest a lot of concern into anymore.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't think people are born wired for atheism. Even the scientific evidence doesn't point to that- children start developing quasi-animistic or theistic beliefs early on without much influence from their parents. And this fits with what Paul said at Mars Hill in Athens- people are born God-seekers, not atheist. That doesn't mean they find him. More often than not, they turn to idolatries of various sorts.

And regarding Constantine... what makes you think there was no providential role for the Christian God in that matter? Again, your argument seems too much like the anti-Hellenist arguments of Von Harnack in the 19th century.

I live in the US, not France. Religious belief here is not seen as something shameful, it's a fairly normal part of the social landscape and there are a variety of viewpoints and pluralism.

 

[miknik5]

Does everyone read everyone else's posts? Frumious my post was in response to Todds post I'll go back to find it so you can understand I was being a bit facetious with regards to the normal pattern of a human being brought into the world in the human natural way and the impossibility of that having been the case for the very first being to have survived in that normal patten and state without at least one adult prior to it being born into the world

No newborn baby can come into the world of its own
The first being had to be fully grown and fully equipped FIRST

 

[devolved]

I don't think people are born wired for atheism. Even the scientific evidence doesn't point to that- children start developing quasi-animistic or theistic beliefs early on without much influence from their parents. And this fits with what Paul said at Mars Hill in Athens- people are born God-seekers, not atheist. That doesn't mean they find him. More often than not, they turn to idolatries of various sorts.

Children may develop all sorts of strange beliefs, because their brain isn't yet accustomed to properly evaluating reality. Hence it's a developmental progress. My 4 year old tells us all sorts of stories about how he talks to our dog and all of the magical things that they do together . It's not an indication of "wired God-belief" that you are talking about.

And regarding Constantine... what makes you think there was no providential role for the Christian God in that matter? Again, your argument seems too much like the anti-Hellenist arguments of Von Harnack in the 19th century.

And what makes you think that it's not a work of Satan to discredit Christianity, as SDA Christians would argue, for example.

I have a milk carton sitting in my fridge. It's magical, and it has the ability to bring about good in your life providentially. Did good happen in your life today? It's an example of the magical milk carton at work, and the evidence for it's magical powers.

Or, is it?

I live in the US, not France. Religious belief here is not seen as something shameful, it's a fairly normal part of the social landscape and there are a variety of viewpoints and pluralism.

I was merely looking at it from the "state-sponsored" perspective. I hope you don't think that I view religious beliefs as shameful. In fact, I do have respect for religion as a discipline. I'm not sure thought that it can adequately point us to the ultimate nature of reality, or the questions we tend to seek. It falls far short.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Does everyone read everyone else's posts? Frumious my post was in response to Todds post I'll go back to find it so you can understand I was being a bit facetious with regards to the normal pattern of a human being brought into the world in the human natural way and the impossibility of that having been the case for the very first being to have survived in that normal patten and state without at least one adult prior to it being born into the world

No newborn baby can come into the world of its own
The first being had to be fully grown and fully equipped FIRST

That's not even remotely what evolution says.