I am not saying that miracles don't exist, I am just saying they only exist momentarily, until scientific knowledge has adapted to incorporate them.

There is a problem as to what "actual laws" mean. If they mean scientific laws, then scientific laws only exist until superseded by 'better' ones. So breaking them is no big deal.

It does not make much sense to refer to some underlying law of reality which is basically unknowable, and claim that gets broken. That just nonsense logic. Breaking a law that can not be broken is the same as the infamous unstoppable force meeting an unmovable object. It just does not make sense to define the concept.

Edit
Ok So VeeDDzz's definition is entirely subjective. Something is a miracle if it appears so Wow! amazing. So that for instance for certain individuals, a stage magician can preform miracles on a regular basis.

My point is hypothetical, that in the event that God exists and speaks to you, you couldn't acknowledge him because your explanation MUST be a natural one. Not sure why you don't want to agree with that, since you repeatedly point out that there is only the natural, and the rest are just biases.

As for me dismissing that my experiences are cognitive biases, what makes it different is that I am able to reach any conclusion because my view is not restricted based on my empirical norms. In your view, God could exist, but you could never know it.

My being "certain" isn't contingent on my convincing you. Do you feel I'm trying to convince you that God exists, since you say you are not trying to convince me?

I just use common sense. You probably feel that's ironic, since we're talking about believing the bible, but regardless, some stories are obvious parables, some are historic accounts, and it doesn't always matter if it's true or not, because the moral still stands. Outside of Christ, the rest is negotiable.

I disagree with you, a miracle is miraculous because it breaks a law. You're arguing between what a miracle is, and whether or not they are possible.

Miracles may not exist, that's fair, but you don't need to redefine them. When you say they exist momentarily until science discovers a way to solve what actually happened, then they don't exist at all. The moment they are natural is the moment they do not exist. Again, this is fine.

VeeDDzz's definition is subjective, but that's fine with me, since he's explained his view, and has admitted that he doesn't see them as the standard definition does.

Piers comment is a little silly (and dangerously misleading) because my definition is no more subjective than the people who came up with the standard Oxford definition.

If you surveyed a thousand people for their definition of miracle, you'd get enormous variance in the answers provided. If you then analysed every one of those thousand definitions and located the common themes across all of them, you'd be able to build a standard definition that you could claim is used by the average (by the most people surveyed). However even this definition is simply the definition provided by the average. It doesn't mean it's more correct than the definition of those above or below the average. Ultimately it's all subjective.

The dictionary is no grand arbiter of truth. In my line of work you have to provide a definition for every term you use because the dictionary definition, more often than not, is highly outdated. More importantly, the dictionary should not be treated as the arbiter of truth. If the way you've defined your terms is parsimonious with your argument and your conclusions then the dictionary definition makes no difference to the issue at hand.

This is not an accurate view of my position. If god spoke to me he would move from 'supernatural (i.e. not proven to be real) to 'natural'. My viewpoint doesn't exclude the possibility of god speaking to me. You seem to think that my viewpoint precludes me ever believing in any of the gods or accepting evidence of gods existing as being what it is, but it doesn't.

Also, I'm not 'dimissing' your experiences as cognitive biases, I'm simply wondering if they are explained by that. It's a very likely and plausible explanation is it not? Can you see how I can accept that I might be deceiving myself that I experienced something supernatural where you might be deceiving yourself to an even greater extent to avoid the admitting the possibility that you are deceiving yourself? If your god doesn't exist, then that is what you are doing.

Hopefully I've corrected your misconception that knowing about cognitive biases prevents me from believing in anything but I would agree that your outlook allows to to believe in absolutely anything, your belief in god is proof of this, all you have to do apparently is want to believe enough and rule out the possibility that it's simply your hardwired tendencies tricking you and it becomes real to you. You call it 'faith', I call it self-deception. You have no way to know that your god is real, and yet you believe it anyway. I have no way to know either, so I remain skeptical.

Can you define 'common sense' for me because I think we're using different definitions, or that it doesn't really mean anything, because my common sense tells me that the entire bible (and the Torah and the qur'an etc etc) is a human construct and not the word of a god at all. So how does your common sense tell you which biblical accounts are genuinely divinely inspired and which are just made up my humans? I want to understand your filter.

I don't believe seeing miracles will convince atheists there is a God. There were many eye witnesses to the miracles Jesus did and still not many people followed him. This includes the pharasees who despite being spectators to these acts put him death. The apostles later performed miracles and they too were persecuted. Seeing really isn't believing.

I don't follow how God speaking to you would move to the "natural" if he speaks to you supernaturally. That is, what if he imparts in you a revelation that you could not attribute to a natural cause? Or perhaps gives you a vision that could not be explained by natural means, how could you accurately acknowledge God here?


Sure, I could be wrong about God, I think where we ultimately reach an impasse is whether or not I am justified in holding my beliefs.

You are asking two different questions. Why do you believe the bible is inspired by God, and how does one interpret the stories found in this inspired book?

As for interpreting the texts, you are too focused on what is allegory, and what is not, what is a parable, and what is not. You miss the point if that's all you are looking for. The moral of the story stands whether the story is a parable or not, and that is the most important thing, the take-away. I personally take most the of text to be a historical account, except for the obvious parts that are not meant literally. There are things I'm not sure of, of course; did God create the world in a literal 7 days? Don't know, but it's not especially important to me, either.

Agreed that some people would not change.

You do realize that atheists are quite sure that this did not actually happen. And only if it did happen does your point make any sense.

I know I've already used this, but it begs to be resurrected

How can they be quite sure? They weren't there. If they are sure it didn't happen, it is because science hasn't proven it is possible. However science not being able to prove miracles are possible, does not mean that miracles aren't possible.

I find it quite funny how atheists think in such a narrow way of unless something is scientifically proven, there is no reason to believe it. I can see that being a good way to think about things like medical treatments and things related to the field of science. However since god can't be proven with science, and miracles that jesus did obviously can't be proven with science, why would you ever use science as a reason to not believe in god or miracles jesus did?

I'm sorry atheists but god is outside of the scope of science. So please never ever in your life use science as a reason not to believe in god. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I think it's funny that there is no video taped evidence of miracles happening. I mean surely there should be at least one by now right? There are like hundreds documented in the bible. Seems like miracles were just an every day occurrence. How convenient they cease to be performed as soon as technology provides a way to document them.

You're going to be an eye witness to world war 3, this financial system crashing and global pandemics. We are only 100 years gone from the outbreak of the First World War but the next world war isn't goig to be fought with rifles and chlorine gas but nuclear weapons with the potential to completely destroy this planet. Capitalism will go the same way as communism, they were both destined to fail just communism went down first. The bankers can continue to prop up this system with their bail outs and indebting the nations but it will reach a point where people lose their faith in money and turn to other commodities such as food and precious metals. I mean everyone, atheists included can see that the U.S. and their NATO allies are doing everything they can to ignite a war with the east. It's not nice when you've been the big boss for so long and you see someone else (Russia and China) to come up to take your place. Look at this Islamic state BS. They just appeared from absolutely nowhere. We know the U.S. has had its eye on Assad for awhile now. Abit convenient that the Islamic state is only in places the U.S. wants to get into...not in turkey, not in Israel, not in Saudi arabia.

Everyone also knows the banks cant be trusted. They commit mass fraud yet they are above the law because they are 'too big to fail'. They are the ones running the show. And they will do anything to avoid the blame including mass global genocide in the form of nuclear war.

In the event of the financial collapse (I'm in not talking of something like in 2008 where we came hours from this thing completly falling down) how are you going to buy food? There is going to be massive food shortages! This whole Ebola thing...I know the U.S. will have no problem weaponising these fatal diseases and spreading them over the earth.

Go read matthew 24: 3-7 , Luke 21: 7-11

Anybody who thinks we've got another 50 years on this planet is insane.

I'm actually quite liberal with who will be resurrected on the Earth. Jesus' death essentially bought the entire of mankind. So I believe the vast majority (atheists, Muslims, whatever) will be resurrected...however any who are alive at the presence of Christ is different. Any who deny him them, or show support to this world during the time he begins his reign WILL NOT be resurrected and will be destroyed by Christ.

Oh look a religious person with wild apocalyptic fantasies, how fresh and exciting.

What is the purpose of your existence in modern society if you are just waiting/praying for it's demise? If it is all doom and gloom until resurrection why don't you just off yourself and skip all the horrible waiting?

You can deny it all you want, but your world is going down. The EVIDENCE that you are all so obsessed with is right before your eyes.

Feel free to respond directly to my questions instead of making wild claims. Or you could point out my apostrophe abuse.

Also, add these to the list: What makes it "your world" as opposed to "our world"? How would you define your own world and where is that world going?

Strange...you decided to quote me before yet didn't disagree with any of the points I made.

My point has been made in this thread. End of replying. Any questions individuals may have they can pm me.

Thanks for your time

Do you realize how many religions have failed to predict the end of the world?

So if in 60 years nothing has happened and we're all driving our flying cars and riding hover boards will you abandon all of your religious beliefs and recognize all the time you have wasted with them? Or is the apocalypse always around the corner?

Regardless of what you think may "be in front of our eyes", why cant there just be a straight up literal miracle like in the good ole days? Why cant someone just part the pacific ocean and record that **** on national TV for everyone to see?

I already asked questions but I don't want to PM you, please answer them out in the open instead of running away.

I've said before that I believe that if gods were real we'd know, the way we know that gravity is real, the way we know that all the things we consider 'Natural' are real. So if god were proven to be real, he would no longer be supernatural (i.e. 'not-natural') he would simply be part of the natural order of things. I don't see it that supernatural and natural are two different parts of the same thing, somehow complimentary, for me supernatural is simply everything that has never been proven to be real. You are making a distinction that for me is meaningless. Perhaps you're defining supernatural differently than I am.

Have you considered that whilst every cognitive bias (that I'm aware of) and that might apply in this situation can explain your experiences they can't all explain my lack of belief? In fact my lack of belief is somewhat odd in light of what we're learning about cognitive biases. How do you explain my failure to see patterns and meaning, to make correlations that might not exist etc etc? Only confirmation bias could explain my lack of belief but all the other applicable biases could easily explain how you experienced something and then completely misinterpreted it including Confirmation bias.

You're still not answering the question. You say that some parts are 'obviously' not meant to be taken literally. Ok, which parts and why? You clearly have a filter and it's clearly different from mine, I'm simply trying to identify what your acceptence parameters are.

I can get behind biblical literalists, it's a sensible position I think. If you believe in god and you believe that the bible is the inspired word of god then how can you not take it all literally? To take some bits literally and others as allergorical is cherry picking and if you're cherry picking then I'd like to understand how. Once you start writing off parts of the bible I think you weaken your position tremendously because you're only a few steps from where I am, not believing any of it at all.

Pretty narrow view of atheism.


But at least its not bankers are controlling the world. Wonder who the bankers are...

What indicators are you using as evidence that the 'world is going down'. Let's compare our current situation in 2014 with exactly 100 years ago, 1914.

60 years you say?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29691654

Please feel free to correct me if I was wrong about how atheists think. However whenever atheists speak about god their main arguments always come back down to science. Science is their god I'm afraid. The issue with science being their god is that they ask science to do what it just can't do and never was intended to do.

You are discounting the possibility that there is more than what we can physically observe. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but there is supposed to be a spiritual world which we can't always interact with in the same sense. Aside from that, lets say God audibly spoke to you but you didn't see him, it is because that you can't see him that you can't attribute it anyone, for lack of evidence, so you must attribute it to a mental anomaly. This seems like a rather restrictive way to look at God, that he can only reside in the natural world.

The other possibility is that you and I have not had the same experiences.

No one is a complete literalist. For instance when Christ was asked about forgiveness, he replied that one must not forgive 7 times, but 77 times, but this was not meant literally. When he said you must be "born again" surely he didn't mean that one must literally die, he meant a spiritual rebirth.

Apart from these figures of speech, and parables, I take it literal. There are cases where I don't know. For instance, the book of Job seems quite allegorical, but again, does it matter? It makes the point regardless, and it's written beautifully. Kind of off topic, but the last two speeches by God are some of my favorite passages.

Was the earth created in 7 days? No idea, could have been 7 million years for all I know.