Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know you asked non-believers what evidence they would need to believe in God, but have you considered what is written about unbelievers in Romans 1:18-23? Please know that I am sincerely asking you this question. I'm not trying to argue with you or with anyone else in your thread.
I believe miracles happen today even though they aren't biblical type miracles; pillars of smoke, columns of fire, seas parting so thousands of people can walk through on dry ground. Even biblical miracles would be explained away. Even if an amputated limb grew back right in front of somebody else's eyes people would try to find a scientific explanation.
If a true miracle happened it would be explained away. Jesus himself appears to a church = a mass delusion caused by religious hysteria. Someone dies and is declared dead by a medical examiner but comes back to life in the morgue the next day = lazarus syndrome.
I agree. Even if God opened heaven up for all to see him, people would come up with some scientific/natural reasons to explain it, instead of simply saying "Wow, that is a miracle, now I believe in God"
So basically...even if someone has a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for a so-called miracle....you'll still think it's a miracle?
Thanks for proving my point, well done.
Thanks for proving my point, well done.
As Sarah points out, you're setting the bar really low for what a "miracle" is. The grass grew! It's a miracle! The paint dried! It's a miracle!
Either way people will argue about it, so that is why I'd rather let each one decide in their own mind what a miracle is to them.
If someone says a miracle is when a blind person can see after being prayed for then let that be a miracle to them.
We could probably start a debate on people's definition of a miracle and people would argue still.
Either way people will argue about it, so that is why I'd rather let each one decide in their own mind what a miracle is to them.
If someone says a miracle is when a blind person can see after being prayed for then let that be a miracle to them.
We could probably start a debate on people's definition of a miracle and people would argue still.
look, there would be no way of telling the difference between miracle and natural phenomenon if the only miracles god preformed had plausible naturalistic explanations. Thus, it would render the wonder and impact of the event being a miracle essentially null.
It sounds like you would consider nothing to be a miracle then.
Do you know anyone who is sick or handicapped? If that person was prayed for and wasn't sick or handicapped anymore would you believe it was a miracle?
A miracle is a hard thing to prove. It could just be something that we don't understand.
I know of people who claim to have claimed to be healed. The problem is, all I know is that they were prayed for, and were better at some point. That doesn't necessarily prove there's a God... it could show that psychology has a big influence.
My big problem is that, if God is willing and able to intervene to heal some people, then He could just appear to us (perhaps as a spiritual Jesus), and prove that he exists as best he could. But even though it's apparently very important to believe, he still doesn't bothered to convince us he's there.
Also, God only seems to heal some people sometimes. Many times people are prayed for, but aren't healed. If I could heal them, I would do it... but the loving God doesn't.
I can see why miracles are convincing to believers. I used to believe, and I found miracles to be convincing. I used to tell my non-believing friends about it, but they didn't find it all that convincing. I found that strange at the time, but now it makes sense.
To claim that some event is the action of a divine Lord of the universe is a big claim, and miracles just don't prove that. Something amazing happening, that we don't understand, could just be something we haven't figured out how it happens yet.
Without a working definition and a theory of action (some expectations we might see if proposition X is true) the term supernatural doesn't mean anything.
It's useless to debate hypothetical supernatural events if we don't know what they look like exactly.
And that is why it is so great so many people have smart phones with cameras on them so that a miracle could be recorded for all to see. But alas, it seems miracles decided to stop happening after the invention of the camera, but they do seem to have made somewhat of a comeback after Photoshop was developed. Hmm, I wonder why that happened
Can you come up with a definition for the supernatural? Then we'll see if anyone disagrees with your definition.
I guess you're saying that there is no such thing as a miracle, that miracles are impossible, because they can be explained with the natural or even if it they can't be explained with the natural now, maybe in the future they will be explained.
The problem with the question is two fold.
One, the term 'supernatural phenomenon' is too vague.
Two, the term 'prove' is rather loose as well. What is 'proof' of Juliet's love to Romeo may not convince his parents. What is proof to a conspiracy theorist is not so convincing to a scientist or even a prosecuting attorney.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?