The Greater Miracle

Hi Perdition, While I agree that those with a specific religion have a higher faith based position, it's key to point out that they only hold these faith based beliefs in one particular relgion.Many times Christians will use the very same argument that atheists use against them when judging another religion, or miraculous claim.This is where I see (1) religious hypocrisy, and (2) fundametal human logic. However, it contradicts itself when viewing miracles and religion as a whole, since they choose one over the other.As with RAZD, he has no problem rejecting Zues, Allah, or Jesus, however holds a different logical reasoning when analizing his own beliefs. Likewise, they apply the same "show me the evidence" when one makes a claim for UFO's or other dieties actively playing a role in nature. It's a very hypocitical position that people of faith hold when they accept one specific miracle/god/supernatural force but then reject others on the basis of lack of objective evidence.In the words of Rick James: "Faith* is one hell of a drug."*Rick James said cocaine, but you get the point.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi GDR, The problem is in the use of the word "create'. It would be safe to say, using your word "create", that we don't see anything "created" from nothing, at all, not now, not ever. "Create" gives the implication that there was nothing and now there is something, but this is not the case for cells, since what they are composed of is just a collection of chemicals that are found common throughout our planet. The origin of the elements that compose living organisms is also fully known to science.The "natural forces" that structured the cell are known to science, they are natural chemical reactions. So you think that natural chemical reactions are a far greater leap of faith than an intelligent, highly complex, non-visible entity that requires no explanation for it's existance? - This is logically flawed.At the very least, what cells are composed of are basic elements, natural chemical reactions are observed, natural selection selects beneficial functions, and so on. This, IMO, seems like a simple process when compared to an itelligent, highly complex, invisible entity that just is, without any explanation as to how it exists in the first place. This is not a matter of acceptance, this is a matter of blind faith in one particular designer story.To say that you have to accept an a priori belief in a creator before you can understand nature is logically flawed as well.First you need objective evidence for the creator in question, then you can proceed to invoke him/her in the process of "creation". Until then, you are just pissing in the wind with a faith based belief that lacks verifiable proof.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Wouldn't the greater explanation still need to be the origin of said creator?If you can't even slightly imagine that a simple molecular cell came about through natural chemical reactions, then how do you justify believing that something much, much more complex, such as your creator, could just exist requiring no explanation for it's origin and chance existance?You say that it's too far of a leap of faith to think that a cell can originate by random chemical reactions, OK, but wouldn't the same random odds have to be applied to the creators existance as well? What formed it? Random, unguilded events? The very random, unguilded events that YOU say cannot form a cell CAN however form a God(s)?Wouldn't the creators origin be a materialistic-type origin? In the fact that the creator does not require a creator for it's existance, so, it's safe to assume that a natural process of some kind took place for the creator to have come into existance, right?Now THAT is a greater miracle if there ever was one.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Actually this is not true. In fact Greene writes in "The Elegant Universe", which I'll quote from the actual page when I get home Monday I don't have the book with me, that String Theory would have predicted gravity even if Newton or Einstein hadn't given us there theories.On it's own, String predicts gravity, gravity is empiracally confirmed, so String does in fact have some empical qualities to it.Now, whether or not Greene is right, I don't know. String theory is just limited by technology, however it does have confirmed predictions, it just has no experimental data. This is not subjective anymore than Black Hole equations are subjective.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

No. The point was the prediction of gravity independently of general relativity and newtons laws, from string theory, give it objectivity.That is seperate from the math that you're talking about that is involved with string theory (ie.extra dimentions, membranes, etc.)Gravity is a fact. String predicts it. Close enough to objectivity?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Personally I've never heard it described like this. ALL beliefs are subjective, any of them. Believing that there is something under my bed is subjective. Whether there is or not depends on the actual facts, also, my "belief" that there is something under there could have a pre-existing condition, like I left my shoes under there earlier but just kinda forgot. But this is a far cry from "bias". Bias, in my opinion doesn't make sense. Since all beliefs are subjective it goes without saying that atheist subjectively believe that miracles don't exist, BUT, the issue is, which of the 2 subjective beliefs is grounded in objective evidence.Now, the onus is on the one claiming that miracles in fact do exist due to his subjective interpretation of "whatever he used" - (you choose the Christian religion to be your determining factor).Let's try these 2 examples:SCENE 1ONI: I believe there is something under my bed.GDR: I don't believe you.Oni walks over to the side of the bed, reaches down and produces a pair of shoes.ONI: See, I told you there was something under there.GDR: Oh, ok, I see, you were right.SCENE 2:GDR: I believe in miracles.ONI: I don't believe in miracles. Can you show me something as evidence of a miracle?GDR: No. I just believe they exist because I follow a specific religion that claims they do.ONI: Have you ever been witness to one?GDR: No.ONI: Sorry, not convincing enough for me, but I'd be willing to change my mind if you can produce better evidence.GDR: Cool.END SCENE-----------------------So, Initialy both beliefs seem subjective, yet one can produce hard evidence, while the other is left wanting. By these measures one can guage what is ONLY subjective and what is subjectively derived from objective reality.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Sorry I just re-read the post again and put it in proper context.I thought you meant that it was only the math behind string that is being used as evidence. That's why I restated the point about the gravity prediction.- Oni

My only issue with this is that I didn't think of it.- Oni

Choice words, eh?No. Objective evidence as in "I saw it", period. There need not be replication involved, would be nice, but objective evidence simply follows the rules of nature."I saw a meteor" - I can't replicate that, however, meteors have been seen before, so my claim isn't that much of a leap of faith."I saw a man rise from the dead" - I can't replicate that, either. But neither do I have corroborating evidence of people rising from the dead, so my claim would require a giant leap of faith. You have one book who claims miracles occur...?Yet I have 2000 years of documented history that doesn't mention one single miracle. Plus, I have the laws of physics and nature that state they cannot occur.You choose the former? Why? Faith?So which would be the greater miracle, natural processes, or devine intervention? No matter how many times you say atheists have "faith" you are still wrong.Faith is ONLY required when there is evidence to the contrary and none to confirm your opinion. So you apply faith that, in light of all the contradicting evidence, your belief is still right.An atheist simply says, ok, show me the evidence? If you can't produce any we simply reject the claim...no faith required. I'd love to believe you, but you simply lack the evidence to show it is true and not some imagined story...which humans ALWAYS do.We don't have faith, we have a reasonable reason to doubt supernatural claims.Would you say that you have faith that unicorns don't exist?Of course not, you simply have a reasonable reason to doubt the claim that unicorns exist. There is no atheistic view! There is just reasonable doubt to the claims of miracles. You doubt many said miracles from other sources. You also doubt the existence of unicorns, would this be considered a "view"...?We are all athiest to some form of religion, belief or supernatural phenomenon - you simply have faith that one of them is right. I reject them all because I hold to my reasonable doubt and I'm not hypocritical, or bias, to one(many) particular story(ies). If it is a subjective interpretation of a subjective exerience then, in the words of Straggler, it's no better than guessing. The next life...? Try makinig sense in this one first. - Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Cool It does when the miracle in question is breaking said laws, respectively.Babies are not born of virgins. That would break a law of nature involving mammals, right? I don't. Actually, I believe a multiverse with an alien creator is a pretty good alternative as well. But we weren't talking about "alternatives", I was just referencing that facts and what they point to.You don't have to convice me.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

So then my point is made. Claimed miracles break the laws of nature, in one particular story. So it's that story - versus - the entire natural history of mammalian reproduction.How do we reject the natural history of mammals just to accept one particular story that claims to break the laws of nature?Faith...? That's it...? No. And I know this 'cause we are no longer myspace friends. Seriously though, your point is moot. Love doesn't require me to accept that the laws of nature, and physics in certain circumstances, are violated just so someone can love me.The only thing I do is trust that someone claiming to love me actually does, subjectively the may or may not. What they convey to me is the only thing I can be sure of. They told me "I love you", cool, is it true...? How do I know. They said it was so I guess subjectively they feel they do.It makes no difference what I believe, I could be completely wrong.How many cases have people been told they were loved and it turned out to be a lie?Love is not an empirical claim, it's a subjective emotion that holds no truth to it.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This is a false dichotomy, or, you seem to be applying the false dichotomy fallacy. There could be a number of scenarios, some maybe not even thought up yet. Who knows. All I'm stating is we have never had a reason to invoke the supernatural, and the times we have in the past it has proven to be wrong. Not once, not twice or ten times, every single time.Whatever it was, we know from experience that it will be natural. If this helps you justify going against the entire natural history of mammalian reproduction just to accept a single books story, then, cool. In my opinion you are over thinking this issue too much. Love is nothing more than a subjective human emotion, like anger, sadness, shyness, etc. It, like all other emotions, is an evolved trait.How could it not fit into the natural world if the only beings who express this emotion are a by product of the natural world...? No it is not. Yet the only place we see it displayed is in the natural world.Just for reference, where exactly is this "outside the natural world"...? Or is that just a defalut place you point to when things seem strange? No, that's not the point. The point is I don't care whether it's true or not, love is a subjective emotion, their subjective emotion in this case, not mine.I simply trust that they recognize and understand the emotion that they are conveying to me. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant.I don't believe anything about it, it's not for me to believe or disbelieve. I don't "believe" anything about it. The evidence for the universe points to naturalistic processes. There is absolutely NO evidence that points to anything else. Not magical faries, god(s), designers, holograms, etc. I'm not trying to prove anything. This is what the evidence shows us.YOU, on the other hand, are the one claiming that it's not how the evidence says and it is in fact something else, well, go ahead, show me the evidence...? I don't have faith that you're wrong, hell, you could be right, but you have no evidence for anything.Neither of us needs to claim anything based on faith, just show me proof for god and I'll accept that he/she can do whatever miracle you claim they can do. Until then you have nothing but an imagined entity that YOU happen to believe in.Belief does not enter into my opinion, there very well could be a god/designer/magical fary, but until evidence for them surfaces, I'll just assume people made all that stuff up, like every other fantasy.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

We, as in organisms, are naturally brought into this world. Planets and solar systems and galaxies, etc, form naturally as well. The universe expanded from a quantum scale through, as all evidence currently indicates, natural processes.Where do you see a need to invoke any type of supernatural act?It's not black and white, as you put it. Either natural or supernatural, why, because you cannot even explain what you mean by supernatural, nor do you have any evidence to support the assumtion that the supernatural is something more than a imagined thing. Therefore you can't just reference it as a possible cause for anything.And besides, where would you even need to invoke it...? I don't find that question to be sensical. "Why is there something instead of nothing"...? Why not? I still don't see your point here. What do you need to believe in? Here, GDR, I love you, man. What do you have to believe about that, or disbelieve? It's my own subjective perspective. You may be able to use scientific terms to justify certain beliefs, but it is nonsense to think of those dimensions as something "outside" of spacetime, or reality.You still haven't defined what you mean by "outside of the natural world, or, outside of spacetime." I do, but I don't expect anyone else to.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky