Miracles
 

I've been racing through one of the recent additions to my toilet library-James Patterson's 'Cradle and all'
It revolves around two teenagers from different countries who fall pregnant simultaneously yet are proven, medically, to still be virgins.
As an aside, I don't recommend it.

It reminded me of an event late last year when a statue of *The Virgin Mary*tm. began continuously weeping.
This happened in the City of Rockingham, (15 minutes from my house) south of Perth in Western Australia.

This continued for some months and despite thorough scientific testing by both church and state no explanation was determined.

Due to thousands of people flocking to witness this 'Miracle' it would have been an extremely arduous business getting to see it for myself. Basically I couldn't be arsed.

I couldn't be arsed because I knew that, even if it cried a river of rose scented tears, I would just shrug it off as a minor, but interesting mystery.

The question I pose to you all, and myself, is what would need to occur to demonstrate irrefutable proof of a 'supreme' being.

Todays 'faith' seems to rest upon a persons belief, or lack thereof, in the information being disseminated via electronic media.

Even if 'GOD' initiated a worldwide, inexplicably spectacular event but deliberately left the internet intact so we could all go "holy fuck, did you guys see that shit too?" within minutes there'd be factions screaming alien invasion, government conspiracy, planetary alignment, collapse of the earth's core, magnetic field reversal etc.

How can we be expected to believe, on faith, in the church when we can't be certain what's fact under our very noses.
Kindly refrain from pressurizing your theological flame throwers as i'm not on about 'is' or 'isn't' just how in the hell we could be sure.:confused:

I've slowly come to the conclusion that God deliberately gave everything a cause to keep us from going insane and/or wasting our mind. If God created man and in the process gave him intelligence then we needed something to do with it. If things were always happening for some inexplicable reason then the intelligence would be worthless.

I definitely think that some forms of "Miracles" are unexplainable at this point but I also believe that some day in the future a scientific cause will be determined. Does that mean God doesn't exist? I can see why people would tend to lean in that direction, but I personally just see it as proof that something other than nature brought on our ability to think.

Then again I definitely don’t believe in the church, which is a purely human creation and with it comes too many flaws that have lead to too much corruption.

This is really very easy. If God wanted to convince us of His existence, all He would have to do is make us believe, directly. It wouldn't impact free will, because acknowledging His existence wouldn't force worship, it would just provide more knowledge with which to make decisions.

The answer is even simpler than that. There can't be any proof that would convince us. The proof has to come from within, by way of personal experiences that validate our own beliefs. Incidentally, the sacred book of my religion teaches that one day irrefutable proof will be given. I don't know if the texts of other religions have the same theme or not, but I'd be interested to know.

Well, there obviously can be proof. God could prove His existence to everybody's satisfaction, if He wanted to, assuming omnipotence. Equally obviously, if He doesn't want proof to exist, then there won't be. There can be disagreement over whether there is proof, but you can't say that there couldn't be.

Look, if Jesus himself appeared to you personally and a loud booming voice from the sky in classic James Earl Jones baritone declared him to be the Alpha and Omega, the Word Incarnate, God Almighty Himself, Son of God, Messiah, Christ, and all around Good Egg, five minutes later you could look back at the whole thing and blame it on a hallucination caused by an acid flashback or any number of other things.

The problem then is that we cannot trust our senses 100%. If you want to get nitty gritty about it, that means you must discount everything you have ever seen, felt, or experienced, and everyone you have ever talked to. What does that leave you with? Just your innate thinking self. And from that, if you can logically deduce God's existence using only logic, then that would be the proof you are looking for - and really, the way you are posing the question, that would be the only solution that would fit.

No, no. You misunderstand. If God is omnipotent, then He could convince me, if He wanted to. That is the definition of omnipotent. The method doesn't matter.

Re: Miracles
 

I thought this was the question. And my answer is that perhaps out there in logic land, there is a chain of steps arising form irrefutable axioms that lead to the astounding conclusion that God exists. That would be the only defensible proof of God's existence because all external 'signs and wonders' can be discounted as being mass hallucinations or aliens buzzing the farm.


Happy Monkey, What you are saying is you want God to announce himself to you in some undeniable way, like perhaps reaching into your brain or soul and tweaking it such that you suddenly now believe in him 100%. For all we know, maybe that has happened to people. But apparently God doesn't like doing this, at least not to a lot of people.

For what its worth, Jesus had something to say about this. After Jesus died and came back. Thomas said he wouldn't believe what the other apostles said until he felt Jesus' wounds himself. Well, Jesus shows up and makes Thomas touch his wounds. Jesus then says "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed."

Don't aske me why, but the Christian idea of God has him not wanting us to have proof, he wants us to have faith. Go figure.

I didn't say I wanted it, just that He could do it. And I suspect that the only way for there to be irrefutable proof would be to remove the inclination to refute it.My theory is that it's because the people who set up the mythology had no proof to offer.

Why would the inclination to refute it be instilled in the first place?

Perhaps God only offers proof to as many people as he needs or wants.

Kierkegaard, I think, said that the fact that humans have a concept of God is proof that he exists.

God, not Kierkegaard.

novice, I think, said that the fact 'some' humans have a concept of god is proof of a deep rooted psychological dissatifaction with their inability to rationalise their seemingly pointless existence.

I guess we'll have to wait for proof either way as the lack of it allows either quote to stand.

The question is whether or not we will be able to recognise or acknowledge it in these cynical times.

Would the election of a Libertarian in the 04 presidential election do the trick?

Now *that* would certainly be a miracle!

I personally do not believe in miricales...

I think God, not in the form of the Christian depiction of God - just a higher power - gives us a choice to believe or not.

And with that, he does not fully prove himself. Even if he did, there will still be skeptics and those who do not believe. But I think tha fact that we must rely on our faith, not whether this or that is scientificly possible, is the intention that God may have - if any.

Though, that's comming from someone who is barely just exploring the possibility of a higher power.

Like I said - Personally, don't believe in them - But you never know what may happen in my life to change that.