SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

For the purposes of this thread I'm going to define some terms.


Physical Law: A scientific generalisation of physical behavure. They typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community.


Miracle: An apparent interruption of physical laws which are explained by divine intervention.


Some things might seem to the miracles at first sight, but actually mean that the laws they violate are wrong. For instance.
A. Fleming accidently discovered penicillin when a spore fell into his Petri dish and killed all the bactera in it. This could have seemed like a miracle. However, this 'miracle' was repeatable, that means Fleming could do the experiment again and again whenever he wanted to, and the outcome would always be the same.
I'm not arguing against these 'miracles', they are not supernatural.

However, turning water into wine, walking on water, raising people from the dead only happened once (or a very few number of times) and never under laboratory conditions. They are not repeatable and cannot just mean that the laws are wrong.


Intrestingly, there are events which some people call miracles but do not fit the definition of miracle as I've told it. For instance.

There is a big housefire which kills the entire family except for one newborn baby.
There is a critically ill patient in a coma in a hospital bed, doctors inform you that he seems very close from death, however a few hours later he is feeling much better and almost completely cured for no apparent reason.

These are not miracles as is my definition, they are luck. If you have 100 housefires which kill an entire family, but in 1 of those a baby survives, that is just how probability works. The luck of the draw, the roll of the die.
But it will be that 1 case that makes the front page news, and the other 100 will be forgotten.
I would actually be more surprised if 'miracles' like this never occured.

(Also, I should note that critically ill patients is one thing, but regrowing whole arms and legs is another.)

I'm going to call these pseudo-miracles as they are often discribed as 'miracles' or 'miraculous', but actually do not fit my definition.



Now that I've sorted out the definitions, I can continue.


The entire scientific institution depends on the immutability of physical laws.

Suppose you're a scientist working for NASA and you want to work out how to get to the moon. You want to know how much fuel you're gonna need, how much thrust the rocket should produce, which direction should you fly towards and loads of other stuff.
You sit down and use some physical laws in your maths to work all that stuff out. You stuff you might use are Newton's Laws Of Motion, Principle Of Conservation Of Energy and Newton's Law Of Gravitation.
Now suppose a miracle happened and those laws stopped working, your carefully done maths would be wrong and people might die! How could you possibly allow someone to climb into a spaceship that relies on physical laws, knowing that they might die from miracles?
The answer is that the scientists doing this stuff either dont beleive in miracles, are somehow lying to themselves or it just hasnt occured to them.

Suppose you're writing a scar script, you depend on some physical laws about electricity in your computer. You write your scar script knowing (or 'knowing') that it will execute it exactly how you wanted it, and if it messes up, its your own fault as the programmer.
Now suppose a miracle happened and those electrical laws stopped working. At best, it will just be a glitch, but at worst your entire hard drive will be deleted! There is nothing a miracle cant do!
So how can you trust your valuable files to this? The answer is that you either dont believe in miracles, are somehow lying to themselves or it just hasnt occured to you that this could happen.

When you think about it, why do people even bother to study science? Why do people even attempt to discover these physical laws when they could be modified or interrupted at any moment?








Now suppose that Jesus really changed water into wine.
What would have to happen (if the story is to be taken literally) is that the H2O molecules that make up the water would have to change into a solution containing Ethanol C2H6O.
First off this violates the Principle Of Conservation Of Mass, which says that mass cannot be created or destroyed, but with water-into-wine, at least carbon was created.
It also violates the Principle Of Conservation Of Energy, which says energy cannot be created or destroyed, but ethanol molecules have more energy in them then water molecules.
(Actually I've simplified a little, since mass and energy are actually the same thing, those two examples violate the same law)
Also, I've used Christianity as an example here, but the same is true for all religions that believe in miracles.


I hope you've got my point now that miracles fundementally contradict the entire scientific institution. You cannot be completely honest and have both.

I am disrespecting you by not reading this, the fact is YES a fact for you that you somehow want to and force me to become a science fact and let me believe in the big boom, etc. it sounds like you are desperate to find the answer… since you keep making these threads.

Anyways, good luck on finding the truth, if you found it stop bothering us or spam it in IRC.

but yakman, that is exactly what makes them miracles
(just playing jesus's advocate here, I know it's bs)

For something to be spam it needs to be repeated. With that logic there is no way you can say I spammed this.


which question exactly am I desperate to find to the answer to?
I really wish you'd stop trying to psychoanalyse me.

Could it be that I'm making these threads simply because I like a good thought-provoking discussion? No it cant be that! It must be that I hate god!

EDIT didnt see Brain's:

From: Brain
but yakman, that is exactly what makes them miracles
(just playing jesus's advocate here, I know it's bs)

I'm not denying that, all I'm saying is that they contradict the scientific institution.
Just because miracles do it by definition doesnt mean they are somehow correct or possible.

You define miracles incorrectly, they are miraculous happenings of "Luck" AND divine intervention, thus making two types… not two different meanings.

God created the universe from nothing, just like Jesus created the extra atoms in wine from nothing.

That whole ramble about miracles killing people is retarded, the whole point of miracles is to help people… it's not like physics are going to randomly stop working unless you have divine forces interacting with human's understanding of science.

Enough said, I think this thread brings up no really good points other than the difference between two types of miracles.

Its not technically spam, its a discussion. And if you dont like the spam, dont bother talking in this thread:D

It's not like I bother him every second with a god exists because…

Lol spam would be posting a picture of Michelangelo's creation of Adam and saying DISCUSS! :p

Most religions themselves contradict science. How do you expect a miracle- thought to be an act of God- to comply with it?

If someone from 500 years in the future appeared at your door tomorrow, would you think that's miraculous?

According to the laws of physics as we understand them, time travel should be possible.

You dismiss seemingly miraculous occurrences simply because you say they are possible, when a better consideration is whether or not they are plausible.

If you drop a sugar cube into a bucket of water, it dissolves. There's nothing in our understanding of physics that prevents those sugar molecules from spontaneously re-aggregating. But the probability of that occurring is so remote that if it did it for you in the lab, you would declare it a miracle.

Don't be so narrow minded. Miracles and science are perfectly harmonious.

From: IceFire908
You define miracles incorrectly, they are miraculous happenings of "Luck" AND divine intervention, thus making two types… not two different meanings.

I might say to you "Einstine was the greatest man who has ever lived", and you might say "No, Newton was". But I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The fact of the lives and achievements of Newton and Einstine remain totally unchanged whether we label them as "Great" or not.
These 'things' I'm talking about have the attributes I'm talking about regardless of whether I choose to call them 'Miracles' or not.

Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a work like 'great' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world.

Whether I call the miracles or not makes no difference to my point that they contradict the scientific institution.


If it makes you feel more comfortable, you could replace the word "Define" with "Redefine" in philosophical discussions like this one.

From: IceFire908

God created the universe from nothing, just like Jesus created the extra atoms in wine from nothing.

You cant just equate the two events just like that.
If God really did create the universe, he would supposedly create the physical laws of the universe at the same time.
But when Jesus was changing water into wine, the universe had already been in existance for a very long time, and its laws were already laid down.

From: IceFire908

That whole ramble about miracles killing people is retarded, the whole point of miracles is to help people… it's not like physics are going to randomly stop working unless you have divine forces interacting with human's understanding of science.

Its not the whole point, the only thing I've asserted about miracles is that they to just mean when physical laws are interrupted.
That could affect us positively (people coming back to life, walking on water) or it could affect us negativly (hard drives being wiped, spaceships crashing)


Ok lets say you're right, and that miracles only ever help people.
That still wouldnt stop them contradicting the scientific institution.

From: Yakman

You cant just equate the two events just like that.
If God really did create the universe, he would supposedly create the physical laws of the universe at the same time.
But when Jesus was changing water into wine, the universe had already been in existance for a very long time, and its laws were already laid down.

I'm gonna break my personal rule about not posting in these kinds of topics for a moment for this statement:

For all we know, these miracles aren't actually breaking the laws of physics. That's because we don't, and probably never will, know the entirety of the laws of physics. For all we know there could be something like an override switch in the laws that allow them to be "broken" when certain things hold true.

From: Yakman
I might say to you "Einstine was the greatest man who has ever lived", and you might say "No, Newton was". But I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The fact of the lives and achievements of Newton and Einstine remain totally unchanged whether we label them as "Great" or not.

Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a work like 'great' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world.
….
But when Jesus was changing water into wine, the universe had already been in existance for a very long time, and its laws were already laid down.
….
That still wouldnt stop them contradicting the scientific institution.

….

Leonardo Da Vinci FTW :p

Human suffering is caused for a lot of reasons… the main one being greed… you have a point with the human grasping words concept idea but that doesn't really help your argument too much or mine for that matter… and in my opinion doesn't really have to do much with suffering.

Well the contradicting thing you can start with this quote:

From: senrath
I'm gonna break my personal rule about not posting in these kinds of topics for a moment for this statement:

For all we know, these miracles aren't actually breaking the laws of physics. That's because we don't, and probably never will, know the entirety of the laws of physics. For all we know there could be something like an override switch in the laws that allow them to be "broken" when certain things hold true.

On top of that, you have to ask yourself how often does scientific theory change? Perhaps if we knew the entirety of these laws (which in my opinion are beyond our comprehension)

Science has never proved anything, it's merely a tool we use to try and understand the universe and calculate how to do advanced things accordingly i.e. go to the moon, build sports cars ect. ect. you get the point.

And even in the end if they DID contradict each other, why does it even matter?

Everyone come on irc talking is much easier.

Sorry about this slightly longer post, but I hope you'll all find it readable and intresting :D, or maybe I'm deluding myself…

From: tarajunky
If someone from 500 years in the future appeared at your door tomorrow, would you think that's miraculous?

According to the laws of physics as we understand them, time travel should be possible.

I agree, that would be a miracle as I defined it.

However, (I assume you're talking about Einstine's work here) as we understand it now, time travel is only possible in the forward direction (as in, to the future).
If someone came to me from the future that would be a miracle as I've defined it, but if someone came to me from 500 years in the past, that would be possible (though very implausable and I'll get onto that later) and it is not a miracle as I defined it.

It would leave me with the problem of how they managed to travel 85% (or so) of the speed of light using only technology from the middle-ages, but I suppose that explains why we havent been visited by 500 year old time travelers yet.

From: tarajunky

You dismiss seemingly miraculous occurrences simply because you say they are possible, when a better consideration is whether or not they are plausible.

If you drop a sugar cube into a bucket of water, it dissolves. There's nothing in our understanding of physics that prevents those sugar molecules from spontaneously re-aggregating. But the probability of that occurring is so remote that if it did it for you in the lab, you would declare it a miracle.

Ok I agree with you here, that was a mistake on my part.


Sugar has never been observed to reform, if it had, preachers would offer it up as another miracle and they'd be right to do that.


The miracles that people offer up these days are not impossible but actually quite plausable, so much so that you'd be surprised if they didnt happen.

Lets say you take the entire North American subcontinent, there are certain number of house fires per year, and in those housefires, there is a certain probability that it will involve a baby and a certain probability that it will survive.
So you can expect that every year, there will be 2 or 3 (say) stories in the newspapers of 'baby survives housefire'. In fact, if those 'miracles' didnt happen, that would be out of the ordinary and would require an explaination.


Another example is that after the terrorist attacks on 11th September 2001, a part of the ruined steel beams of one of the towers arranged itself into the shape of a Christian cross.
Now modern skyscrapers are built with this kind of arrangement of interlocking horizontal and verticle steep bars, since both towers used a certain number of them around their base, I would actually be surprised if this shape did not arise.

If one of the steel bars arranged itself into a Star of David, or a Cresent Moon and Star, now that really would be a very impressive miracle. But nothing like that has ever been reported, even in places where many Jews and Muslims live.

(Of course, if someone made a skyscraper built with steel bars in the shape of a six pointed star, then collapsed it and went looking for a Star Of David, that would be cheating)


But babies surviving housefires and crossbeams arranging to look like a cross a very different from sugar cubes reforming and limbs regrowing. One kind is so plausable it can be expected, but the other kind is so implausable that you'd need to wait longer then the expected age the universe for it to happen.

But if it did happen, it would it be a non-repeatable experiment by its very nature, it would be very confusing to (atheistic) scientists everywhere, and it would probably cause me to convert, especially if it happened more then once.

From: Yakman

The miracles that people offer up these days are not impossible but actually quite plausable, so much so that you'd be surprised if they didnt happen.

Oh, yeah, those. It's like the words "hate", "love", "need" and the like. They've lost so much of their impact in today's society that they're used in situations where they don't belong and are more likely to mean "dislike", "like", or "want" than what they're supposed to mean.

From: IceFire908

From: senrath
For all we know, these miracles aren't actually breaking the laws of physics. That's because we don't, and probably never will, know the entirety of the laws of physics. For all we know there could be something like an override switch in the laws that allow them to be "broken" when certain things hold true.

On top of that, you have to ask yourself how often does scientific theory change? Perhaps if we knew the entirety of these laws (which in my opinion are beyond our comprehension)

(Law, not Theory, theres an important difference)

The thing with miracles is that you cant learn any science from them.

I'll use a simplified example of 19th century physics to explain what I mean.

In the 19th century, the dominating view of gravity was Newton's, and his Law worked very well, it passed all known tests at the time except one.
The precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, that is that the orbit of Mercury wobbles slightly. Newtonian gravity predicted this, but not as the same rate as was observed.
Einstine was one who took up the challange, and after much studing came up with the Einstinean view of gravity, which was successful with Mercury amongst other things.

No-one ever said Mercury's orbit was a miracle, one reason was that it was repeatable, you could look at the planet in a telescope whenever you wanted and it would be there, and you could learn from it.

Miracles like water-into-wine are not repeatable, they only happened once and there is no way to learn anything from them.
They dont modify existing physical laws like Mercury's orbit did, they completely destroy them.


I do suppose it could be your opinion that science is not trustworthy, if that is the case then my thread would not be relevant to you.
That is one way to get out of this problem, if you are of the opinion that science isnt trustworthy, then you can freely believe in miracles without contradiction.




You're quite right, there could be a hidden override switch, but that raises the question of why bother to even study science?
Why bother to spend time finding something out when it could all be ruined by that hidden switch.

Obviously there must be some answer because we see many people in the last 400 years devote their entire lives to studying science.

For me, the only thing that would make sense is that they either dont believe in miracles, or they are somehow lying to themselves, or they dont trust science which would be quite odd because they are scientists, or this thought hasnt occured to them, or possibly they just dont think it will happen to them. (They say that in advertisments for insurance, "Wow I never thought it could happen to me, but it did")

From: IceFire908
Science has never proved anything, it's merely a tool we use to try and understand the universe and calculate how to do advanced things accordingly i.e. go to the moon, build sports cars ect. ect. you get the point.

you're quite right because absolute proof only exists in mathematics and philosophy.

However, science can get so close that it makes no difference. You can see the success of science all around you today. Just because science doesnt have absolute proof doesnt mean it doesnt deserve trust.

If it wasnt for science the average life expectancy would be about 25 years, I would be considered middle-age.
Science has allowed us to have this discussion with you in America and me in Europe, almost as though we were sitting in the same room. Isnt that just amazing!

From: IceFire908
And even in the end if they DID contradict each other, why does it even matter?

It matters quite a lot because most religons these days base themselves off miracles. Its definatly true for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs.
If you take away miracles, the entire religion would come falling down.

Although it might be relevant to you because if I remember correctly, you believe in God but you dont follow any particular religion.

From: Yakman
(Law, not Theory, theres an important difference)

The thing with miracles is that you cant learn any science from them.

I'll use a simplified example of 19th century physics to explain what I mean.

In the 19th century, the dominating view of gravity was Newton's, and his Law worked very well, it passed all known tests at the time except one.
The precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, that is that the orbit of Mercury wobbles slightly. Newtonian gravity predicted this, but not as the same rate as was observed.
Einstine was one who took up the challange, and after much studing came up with the Einstinean view of gravity, which was successful with Mercury amongst other things.

No-one ever said Mercury's orbit was a miracle, one reason was that it was repeatable, you could look at the planet in a telescope whenever you wanted and it would be there, and you could learn from it.

Miracles like water-into-wine are not repeatable, they only happened once and there is no way to learn anything from them.
They dont modify existing physical laws like Mercury's orbit did, they completely destroy them.


I do suppose it could be your opinion that science is not trustworthy, if that is the case then my thread would not be relevant to you.
That is one way to get out of this problem, if you are of the opinion that science isnt trustworthy, then you can freely believe in miracles without contradiction.




You're quite right, there could be a hidden override switch, but that raises the question of why bother to even study science?
Why bother to spend time finding something out when it could all be ruined by that hidden switch.

Obviously there must be some answer because we see many people in the last 400 years devote their entire lives to studying science.

For me, the only thing that would make sense is that they either dont believe in miracles, or they are somehow lying to themselves, or they dont trust science which would be quite odd because they are scientists, or this thought hasnt occured to them, or possibly they just dont think it will happen to them. (They say that in advertisments for insurance, "Wow I never thought it could happen to me, but it did")





you're quite right because absolute proof only exists in mathematics and philosophy.

However, science can get so close that it makes no difference. You can see the success of science all around you today. Just because science doesnt have absolute proof doesnt mean it doesnt deserve trust.

If it wasnt for science the average life expectancy would be about 25 years, I would be considered middle-age.
Science has allowed us to have this discussion with you in America and me in Europe, almost as though we were sitting in the same room. Isnt that just amazing!




It matters quite a lot because most religons these days base themselves off miracles. Its definatly true for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs.
If you take away miracles, the entire religion would come falling down.

Although it might be relevant to you because if I remember correctly, you believe in God but you dont follow any particular religion.

Actually Yakman, I follow Catholicism mainly because that was the way I was raised as a child, but also for how it came about. You could say (at least in my opinion) is the least 'revised' or 'edited' form of Christianity (was the original Christianity) and Christianity was developed from Jewish which shares a large similarity with Islam. So if you add up those reasons logic+family tradition it puts me in a pretty firm Catholic religion section.

I am however some one who has high respects for the foundations in other religions such as good balance, peace, creation, hope, morals, ect. ect. and I don't discriminate against anyone except ignorant people who claim really stupid stuff like Catholics aren't Christians or all Muslims are bad ect. ect..

Now if you want to drift away from religion, lets talk about this Higher Power we Christians refer to as God. Personally Yakman I can almost say all your theories about religion are well based, well supported, and do not come from ignorance or lack of understanding. I will say I don't understand your denial of a Higher Power, or divine intervention or atleast Creation for that matter. In your theories you simply label everything that science can not explain or that religion can not as a contradiction or gap (You referring to God of Gaps) which has some serious flaws in itself perhaps more than the theory it underlays which is God only exists in gaps.

If you don't believe in the 'magic man' in the sky like you explain, I don't see how you can rule out the existence of the ominousness entity which created the origins of the universe. The big bang theory in my opinion is a fun idea but it's like us trying to predict or understand something that is so far beyond us it's almost insanity to be taken literally.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you credit evolution and the big bang theory (or some other science theory) as our origins of existence. Assuming that much I also (correct me if I'm wrong) know that you believe you think your "God of Gaps Theory" explains all of that.

Now assuming all that above you also proclaim that there was no point to science if it is "destroyed" by miracles, while at the same time we both say credit to its awesome achievement of advances such as traveling to the moon or the internet.

And you talk about how taking miracles away would bring down religion, yes it would, but to put it simply you can't bring down miracles… they are assumed to be an act of God which for believers is above all of your interpretations of science and logic.

And to be honest there is no such thing as a non-biased opinion in these types of debates because the only neutral ground would be to claim God neither exists nor doesn't exists, and to come with an answer it regularly has to be for or against divine existence.

Everything I just wrote is basically a ramble, but I do have another question for you Yakman.

How do you explain that a large majority of religions and scientists points towards almost all the same things i.e. peace, creation, and morals?

I would argue that an entire branch of science deals with "miracles".

Evolution.

You think changing water into wine is impossible, but turning primodial soup into a bacteria and a bacteria into a human being is completely logical.

Several people have attempted to calculate the probability of life arising in the time frame it did, and of course came up with outrageously large numbers against it occurring.

As far as we know, life was only "created" once, and every other form of life is related to that original ancestor. Since we can't recreate life in a lab, doesn't that make it a scientific impossibility, and therefore we must assume it never really happened?

Miracles do not exist. Loose interpretation and coincidences do.


Since you were little (or a little bit past that) you've known that 'magic' is simply a set of illusions. No matter how complex and cunning and no matter what you do not see, you still believe and know that it is an illusion or sleight of hand. Because you do not understand it does not mean you need to pass it off.

From: R0b0t1
Miracles do not exist. Loose interpretation and coincidences do.


Since you were little (or a little bit past that) you've known that 'magic' is simply a set of illusions. No matter how complex and cunning and no matter what you do not see, you still believe and know that it is an illusion or sleight of hand. Because you do not understand it does not mean you need to pass it off.

Magic is something that exists in only in tiny gaps in the human perception.

Your first two sentences are about as useful as a vote, a simply yes or no, you don't explain or provide any grounds to stand on rather just state your breif unfiltered opinion.

Why did you post that to add to this thread? It's almost like you needed to put your seal of approval on it or something as if your verdict confirms something.

Maybe there was a good reason to post 9 words onto this thread, an obvious one, highly likely there wasn't though.

Anyone care to explain?

Sorry I didn’t read it all, as it was quite long :S but I skimmed through and I couldn’t pass up the chance to throw my opinion down x]

If a miracle happens and has been labled as impossible, there are only 3 options that I can think of.

1. It didn’t happen, it’s a hoax.
2. It did happen, making it very possible though we just don’t know how it came to be so we assumed it couldn’t be true
3. Some supernatural force did it

Now if we look at option one, that’s the most likely case. Option two is a little less likely but still could be the answer. Option three has some problems now.

What is a supernatural force? Well.. its.. a force that’s not natural. A negative definition, meaning its defined by not being something else. I know people will jump in here and say “Hey man, that’s God! That’s magick! that’s chi! that’s the 7 dragon balls in all there glory!” (not to insult any theists, as I am one myself)

Now the way I see it, how can a force that’s not physical, interact with the physical world? That’s like saying something with no atoms can touch. Or something that does not have mass occupying space. It just isn’t logic. Now this doesn’t disprove God at all, but for me it puts the idea of “miracles” into a new perspective. I would say that no miracle ever preformed ever stood up to your definition of “An apparent interruption of physical laws which are explained by divine intervention.”

But I do not think that would take away from what a miracle is. The purpose for the miracles in the bible to my knowledge were to strengthen the faith of discouraging followers of the Abrahamic god (Jews or Christians, depending on where along time timeline of the bible your reading)

Surely if God had formed all creation, any #2 miracle that happens could still be attributed to his grandeur and power.

Water into wine, the laws of chemistry prove this wrong. Perhaps changing H2O (and I doubt anywhere in those times you could get pure water) into C2H5OH is possible, would require a lot of energy to carry out and (amazing though he may be) I don't think Jesus could generate electricity. Then you have all the elements that have come out of the flower or grape. Its quite unlikely… Walking on water, perhaps not water, but sometimes the bonds between elements is strong enough to hold weights of up to 100kg (custard, for example), and the more elements you have in a compound, the less likely they are to break, as these extra elements create a layer that is harder to slide across (steel, brass alloys etc.). But limbs growing back? Overnight? Somewhat doubtful, it sometimes takes weeks just for a little cut to fully heal, for cells to reproduce at that rate is incredibly unlikely.

All these scientists that make all these calculations about alloys that make, they get the figures perfect, but you have to remember radioactivity, the only random thing in science. I know they all have their half lives, but these are only approximate. These random decaying elements mean that we can never be precise with anything. Although with some very rare carbons (C-14), the half life is so great that the randomness makes no difference for doing such things as carbon dating (these particles come in less than 1 in a million).

Science is ruling out the possibility of religion all the time, but as there is no proof for religion, it also means there is no proof against it.

Lets take an example: human thoughts. Not a single person in the world thinks exactly the same thing, at exactly the same time, in exactly the same language, at exactly the same speed. Perhaps God is a being that is purely within us, controlling our emotions, our wants, our fears. And some people's inner Gods are persuading people to do different things, good things, bad things. Good deeds, bad deeds. Live an honest living, get through life at the expense of others.

I myself have no idea about religion, I just sort of go with life. No point wasting time worrying about whether someone does or doesn't exist (although doing this is wasting time). Some people don't try and live this life because they believe something better is waiting for them. But are you willing to take that risk?

With faith, you don't need proof, you just believe.

From: tarajunky
I would argue that an entire branch of science deals with "miracles".

Evolution.

You think changing water into wine is impossible, but turning primodial soup into a bacteria and a bacteria into a human being is completely logical.

This is a Tu Quoque logical fallecy. ("You, also" or "You're another" in Latin)

Even if evolution was completely miraculous, even if it was completely contradictory to all physical laws, that wouldnt stop water-into-wine being a miracle too.


But I suppose I should defend evolution against the accusation of being illogical.

From: tarajunky

Several people have attempted to calculate the probability of life arising in the time frame it did, and of course came up with outrageously large numbers against it occurring.

As far as we know, life was only "created" once, and every other form of life is related to that original ancestor. Since we can't recreate life in a lab, doesn't that make it a scientific impossibility, and therefore we must assume it never really happened?

I agree that evolution of species may seem illogical at first sight, but it is logical if you go back to first principles. It is consistant with physical laws.

Evolution isnt the only branch of science like this. Einstine's theories which predict time travel is possible if you move with a high enough velocity, thats certainly not logical. How can identical twins end up being different ages?
But if you go back to first principles, time travels elegantly comes out. And it is testable, there was an experiment where one atomic clock was kept on earth, synchronized with another clock which was put in a spaceship and traveled with great velocity. When the clocks were reunited, it was found they were out-of-sync by an amount consistant with Einstine's theory. Time travel really can happen and has been observed.

There is also quantum mechanics. How can a particle go through two different holes at the same time? How can a particle occupy many places in space at once? How can a particle go through a solid wall? (called quantum tunnelling)
That isnt illogical, thats just plain stupid. But we have observed it, you can do those experiments whenever you want and see for yourself.


Seemingly illogical stuff happens in maths too. Take negative numbers.
You can have one sheep, or two sheep, but how can you have negative three sheep?
although you can use negative numbers to model debt amongst other things

Also fractions and ratios (half a sheep)
fractions have their uses in probability amongst other things

It gets worse with imaginary numbers.


What does that mean? if you did e to the power of 4 that means e * e * e *e but what does e to the power of i mean?
But its true, mathematicians have proved it from logical first principles.





You speak of the origin of life. How did evolution get started in the first place?
Well this is another one of those 'miracles' that you can exactly expect to happen.

In our universe there are billions and billions of galexies, more galexies in the universe then grains of sand on a sandy beach.
In each galexy there are billions of stars. Not all stars have planets, but many do. Many planets are either too hot or too cold, but some are 'just right' (they are in the so-called goldilocks zone)
Now the odds of a replicator molecule like DNA arising by chance on any planet is very low, but since theres a massive amount of planets in the universe, such a molecule is bound to arise at least once.
If you actually do the maths, it suggests that a DNA-like molecule has arisen not once, but many times throughout the universe. Yet again, you'd be surprised if this 'miracle' did not happen somewhere.

I admit that scientists have not yet discovered the mechanism for a replicator molecule being created, but the probability calculation suggests it is very likely to have happened.

Often what happens is that people ask "What are the odds of life arising on earth?", Very low of course. But it didnt have to arise on earth, it could have arisen on any sutable planet, then evolved into intelligent life capable of asking the question.

Its a case of betting on the horse after it has run the race. Like throwing a paperclip outside a speeding car and saying, "Wow, what are the odds of it landing on this particular pebble!".



The last part of your post is a bit odd. We cant recreate stars in the lab, does that mean stars dont exist?
Maybe I've just misunderstood it, could you elaborate a little?




hi IceFire908.

I dont completely rule out the existance of God, as it is impossible to prove something definatly does not exist.
However, I just say the odds of God existing are very very low. For me, he almost certainly does not exist and I live my life on the assumption that he doesnt.


I think you've misunderstood how I use 'God of gaps'. I dont worship a God of gaps, but I sometimes accuse theists of worshipping him.

A God of gaps is one who lives in the places where humans havent explained yet. You cannot explain X, therefore God did it.
As human knowledge grows, such a God would shrink.

In case you dont understand, God of gaps is a negative thing to worship. In fact the phrase "God of gaps" was first invented by a Christian preacher, he didnt like how other Christians seemed to worship a God of gaps.



As for your question.
I'd just like to remind you that just because the vast majority of religions or scientists believe something, it doesnt mean that it is true. (although it helps sometimes)

Peace and morals are related.
It goes without saying that its much nicer to live in a moral world, then one without morals.

But you've made a failed assumtion that religion has a monopoly on morals.
The modern theory of evolution can explain why morals have evolved in humans and other animals.

If you want to go into more detail, I can recommend some literature.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is a great account written for the intelligent layman of how our genes create bodies that are altruistic and moral. Some people say evolution equates to "survival of the fittest", I think this is misleading.

The Evolution Of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod builds on the application of game theory to evolution. It is slightly more technical then The Selfish Gene.

However, I'm mindful of the steriotype that Americans never read books, I've heard that many of you go through college without reading a single one.
I dont know if thats true or not, but in case it is, there is also a video by Richard Dawkins called Nice Guys Finish First which explains it, although not in as much detail as books.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFj0caNX1s0



For the next part of your question about creation, I think you're wrong and that almost all scientists accept evolutionism these days and not creationism.


As for religions, I think its because they all have a childlike tendancy to them. Let me explain.

Almost all religions were invented in the childhood of our species, and like a child, people then had an unwarrented sense of self importance. Like a baby believes that the entire world revolves around them, and that it all disappears if they close their eyes. These religions said humans were special, that we are made in God's image, that the earth stays still and everything orbits us.

Maybe thats why some people become creationists, they have a peter-pan-like feeling of not wanting to grow up.



Thats how I explain these things anyway. Now I have a question for you.

You've told me you're a Catholic because you were raised that way, and I take it you accept you'd be a muslim if you were born in Saudi Arabia and a jew if you were born in Isreal.
How can you justify following a religion only because of the accident of birth?

There are ways to "compress time" in a laboratory setting. For example, when a manufacturer quotes the Mean Time Before Failure at 500,000 hours, they didn't run a single test for 500,000 hours. They ran many tests over shorter time scales and extrapolated the results.

The same is true for evolutionary experiments. We don't need to follow one bacteria for billions of years, we can follow billions of bacteria for one year. And we can also coax them along by selecting for desirable characteristics.

Statistics tells us that we should expect to find similar outcomes in either situation.

Despite our ability to do this, no scientist has ever observed a bacteria evolving into a fundamentally different type of cell.

There's also a philosophical problem with the science of evolution. After all, one oft cited principle of science is Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony. Evolutionary science turns that on its head. Instead of arguing that any one mutation is very rare and unlikely to occur, and therefore it is not the most plausible scenario, they argue that "weird stuff happens", and validate it by saying a lot of time has passed so therefore a lot of weird stuff must have happened along the way.

If parsimony is a valid scientific argument against theology, it must be just as valid an argument against evolution, all handwaving justifications aside.

From: tarajunky
There are ways to "compress time" in a laboratory setting. For example, when a manufacturer quotes the Mean Time Before Failure at 500,000 hours, they didn't run a single test for 500,000 hours. They ran many tests over shorter time scales and extrapolated the results.

The same is true for evolutionary experiments. We don't need to follow one bacteria for billions of years, we can follow billions of bacteria for one year. And we can also coax them along by selecting for desirable characteristics.

Statistics tells us that we should expect to find similar outcomes in either situation.

Despite our ability to do this, no scientist has ever observed a bacteria evolving into a fundamentally different type of cell.

There's also a philosophical problem with the science of evolution. After all, one oft cited principle of science is Occam's Razor, or the law of parsimony. Evolutionary science turns that on its head. Instead of arguing that any one mutation is very rare and unlikely to occur, and therefore it is not the most plausible scenario, they argue that "weird stuff happens", and validate it by saying a lot of time has passed so therefore a lot of weird stuff must have happened along the way.

If parsimony is a valid scientific argument against theology, it must be just as valid an argument against evolution, all handwaving justifications aside.

Amen to that, I am not a biologist, but I know what you are talking about; I prefer believing in God 'The Wizard'.

tarajunky do you mind me asking what this had to do with miracles and physical laws. I'm sorry but I get the feeling you're throwing out a Red Herring.

I didnt have evolution in mind when I started this thread, I just dont see how its relevant.

"Evolution is not the miracle that it seems."

I think a bacterium evolving into a human being is pretty miraculous. You say it violates no physical laws.

You say that the inability to replicate a seemingly miraculous event at will in a lab setting suggests it never happened. I say apply the same rules to abiogenesis and evolution from a common ancestor.

I think consistency is important, especially in these sort of science/theology discussions.

From: Yakman
This is a Tu Quoque logical fallecy. ("You, also" or "You're another" in Latin)

Even if evolution was completely miraculous, even if it was completely contradictory to all physical laws, that wouldnt stop water-into-wine being a miracle too.


But I suppose I should defend evolution against the accusation of being illogical.





I agree that evolution of species may seem illogical at first sight, but it is logical if you go back to first principles. It is consistant with physical laws.

Evolution isnt the only branch of science like this. Einstine's theories which predict time travel is possible if you move with a high enough velocity, thats certainly not logical. How can identical twins end up being different ages?
But if you go back to first principles, time travels elegantly comes out. And it is testable, there was an experiment where one atomic clock was kept on earth, synchronized with another clock which was put in a spaceship and traveled with great velocity. When the clocks were reunited, it was found they were out-of-sync by an amount consistant with Einstine's theory. Time travel really can happen and has been observed.

There is also quantum mechanics. How can a particle go through two different holes at the same time? How can a particle occupy many places in space at once? How can a particle go through a solid wall? (called quantum tunnelling)
That isnt illogical, thats just plain stupid. But we have observed it, you can do those experiments whenever you want and see for yourself.


Seemingly illogical stuff happens in maths too. Take negative numbers.
You can have one sheep, or two sheep, but how can you have negative three sheep?
although you can use negative numbers to model debt amongst other things

Also fractions and ratios (half a sheep)
fractions have their uses in probability amongst other things

It gets worse with imaginary numbers.


What does that mean? if you did e to the power of 4 that means e * e * e *e but what does e to the power of i mean?
But its true, mathematicians have proved it from logical first principles.





You speak of the origin of life. How did evolution get started in the first place?
Well this is another one of those 'miracles' that you can exactly expect to happen.

In our universe there are billions and billions of galexies, more galexies in the universe then grains of sand on a sandy beach.
In each galexy there are billions of stars. Not all stars have planets, but many do. Many planets are either too hot or too cold, but some are 'just right' (they are in the so-called goldilocks zone)
Now the odds of a replicator molecule like DNA arising by chance on any planet is very low, but since theres a massive amount of planets in the universe, such a molecule is bound to arise at least once.
If you actually do the maths, it suggests that a DNA-like molecule has arisen not once, but many times throughout the universe. Yet again, you'd be surprised if this 'miracle' did not happen somewhere.

I admit that scientists have not yet discovered the mechanism for a replicator molecule being created, but the probability calculation suggests it is very likely to have happened.

Often what happens is that people ask "What are the odds of life arising on earth?", Very low of course. But it didnt have to arise on earth, it could have arisen on any sutable planet, then evolved into intelligent life capable of asking the question.

Its a case of betting on the horse after it has run the race. Like throwing a paperclip outside a speeding car and saying, "Wow, what are the odds of it landing on this particular pebble!".



The last part of your post is a bit odd. We cant recreate stars in the lab, does that mean stars dont exist?
Maybe I've just misunderstood it, could you elaborate a little?




hi IceFire908.

I dont completely rule out the existance of God, as it is impossible to prove something definatly does not exist.
However, I just say the odds of God existing are very very low. For me, he almost certainly does not exist and I live my life on the assumption that he doesnt.


I think you've misunderstood how I use 'God of gaps'. I dont worship a God of gaps, but I sometimes accuse theists of worshipping him.

A God of gaps is one who lives in the places where humans havent explained yet. You cannot explain X, therefore God did it.
As human knowledge grows, such a God would shrink.

In case you dont understand, God of gaps is a negative thing to worship. In fact the phrase "God of gaps" was first invented by a Christian preacher, he didnt like how other Christians seemed to worship a God of gaps.



As for your question.
I'd just like to remind you that just because the vast majority of religions or scientists believe something, it doesnt mean that it is true. (although it helps sometimes)

Peace and morals are related.
It goes without saying that its much nicer to live in a moral world, then one without morals.

But you've made a failed assumtion that religion has a monopoly on morals.
The modern theory of evolution can explain why morals have evolved in humans and other animals.

If you want to go into more detail, I can recommend some literature.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is a great account written for the intelligent layman of how our genes create bodies that are altruistic and moral. Some people say evolution equates to "survival of the fittest", I think this is misleading.

The Evolution Of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod builds on the application of game theory to evolution. It is slightly more technical then The Selfish Gene.

However, I'm mindful of the steriotype that Americans never read books, I've heard that many of you go through college without reading a single one.
I dont know if thats true or not, but in case it is, there is also a video by Richard Dawkins called Nice Guys Finish First which explains it, although not in as much detail as books.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFj0caNX1s0



For the next part of your question about creation, I think you're wrong and that almost all scientists accept evolutionism these days and not creationism.


As for religions, I think its because they all have a childlike tendancy to them. Let me explain.

Almost all religions were invented in the childhood of our species, and like a child, people then had an unwarrented sense of self importance. Like a baby believes that the entire world revolves around them, and that it all disappears if they close their eyes. These religions said humans were special, that we are made in God's image, that the earth stays still and everything orbits us.

Maybe thats why some people become creationists, they have a peter-pan-like feeling of not wanting to grow up.



Thats how I explain these things anyway. Now I have a question for you.

You've told me you're a Catholic because you were raised that way, and I take it you accept you'd be a muslim if you were born in Saudi Arabia and a jew if you were born in Isreal.
How can you justify following a religion only because of the accident of birth?

Yea that's both sides of the argument right there.. nothing more to say really.

But to answer your question I'd say it's because in all those religions they keep talking about the messiah (I'm pretty sure they do) who is coming and Christianity is really the only one that has the messiah (Jesus) in my opinion (for me) puts logically Christianity at the preferred religion because it sort of evolved from the other ones.

Now people are saying like, well mormons and protestants evolved from that right? Well sort of, but you have to remember… the catholic church was founded as a result of Jesus (a divine person) while as protestants evolved from the rejection of the corruptness during the reformation (people "buying" their way to forgiveness by paying then gold) and Mormons and Scientology where started by people in a sense rather than divine entities during human history. Of course what I just said could be all wrong because I'm no expert at Mormonism or Scientology and I don't really wish to look into because I simply do not have the time in my life to do so. and of course Commandment number one in my book is 'Thou shall not have false gods before me' ect. ect. very strict upon my God restricting me exclusively to him, but now I'm rambling again. I will reiterate I highly respect nearly every religion out there, please to anyone reading this don't call me a hater anything that's just taking it the wrong way… in other words this is a disclaimer.

Anyways being born into it, to be honest, I never really cared that much for my religion until I matured. And by 'didn't care' I just seemed really intimidated by the enormity and importance of religion at such a young age.

To further answer your question about being born into religion, I'd have to say that's a tough one because it's impossible to test… maybe we really do believe what we do because we were raised that way IDK but to be honest maybe not because I know a lot of kids who disrespect their parents in a lot of regards. But I think in the bible it talks about God specifically chose everything about where you were born, when you were born, and it really underlays about God choosing a lot of things about you that you don't have control over for example your blood parents, location of birth, ect. ect. and I don't know if that is limited to religion or not.

It's a good point you bring up about being raised into your beliefs from birth and my only real opinion to that is maybe it's true maybe it's not but we'll never really know for sure.

The only possible test I could see happening is like the doll test they did with black and whites on kids where they had to pick a doll. In my opinion a lot of children would pick Buddha because he looks like a cool fat guy or something, the problem is they aren't really old enough to know enough about the religion (and the history behind them) and others are really about and compare them.

Now my question for you Yakman, is if you had to pick a religion what would you pick? I already said Catholic. So I'm interested to see what you pick. And you don't have to pick if you don't want to, I'm just curious to see if you would.

But it's not a miracle in the sense that it was impossible but happened.

OK so for the purposes of this thread, I'm going to accept that evolution and abiogenesis requires miracles.

I started this thread by trying to convince you that everything that requires miracles is not science.

By my logic, that mean that when we throw out the main religions, we also need to throw out evolution and abiogenesis.


Do you accept that?


I can easily show that evolution doesnt require miracles, but thats a subject for another thread.




Hi IceFire908.

There are more religions then just Christanity, Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Scientology and Buddhism.
Theres an infinate amount of possible religions because anyone can just invent one and follow it.

If your parents were followers of that religion, by your logic you would end up a follower too. So how do you justify following a religion only because of an accident?

Sorry to be repeating the question but your first responce was quite wishy-washy and didnt actually answer it.


If I had to choose a religion I would follow Googlism

From: http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favour of Google's divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods.

We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of "God", as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.

Googlism is flawed, you could simply destroy their servers.

From: Yakman
OK so for the purposes of this thread, I'm going to accept that evolution and abiogenesis requires miracles.

I started this thread by trying to convince you that everything that requires miracles is not science.

By my logic, that mean that when we throw out the main religions, we also need to throw out evolution and abiogenesis.


Do you accept that?


I can easily show that evolution doesnt require miracles, but thats a subject for another thread.




Hi IceFire908.

There are more religions then just Christanity, Islam, Judaism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Scientology and Buddhism.
Theres an infinate amount of possible religions because anyone can just invent one and follow it.

If your parents were followers of that religion, by your logic you would end up a follower too. So how do you justify following a religion only because of an accident?

Sorry to be repeating the question but your first responce was quite wishy-washy and didnt actually answer it.


If I had to choose a religion I would follow Googlism

Lol Googlism!

Very very funny. lmao…

From: IceFire908
But to answer your question I'd say it's because in all those religions they keep talking about the messiah (I'm pretty sure they do) who is coming and Christianity is really the only one that has the messiah (Jesus) in my opinion (for me) puts logically Christianity at the preferred religion because it sort of evolved from the other ones.

Now people are saying like, well mormons and protestants evolved from that right? Well sort of, but you have to remember… the catholic church was founded as a result of Jesus (a divine person) while as protestants evolved from the rejection of the corruptness during the reformation (people "buying" their way to forgiveness by paying then gold) and Mormons and Scientology where started by people in a sense rather than divine entities during human history. Of course what I just said could be all wrong because I'm no expert at Mormonism or Scientology and I don't really wish to look into because I simply do not have the time in my life to do so. and of course Commandment number one in my book is 'Thou shall not have false gods before me' ect. ect. very strict upon my God restricting me exclusively to him, but now I'm rambling again. I will reiterate I highly respect nearly every religion out there, please to anyone reading this don't call me a hater anything that's just taking it the wrong way… in other words this is a disclaimer.

I thought my answer actually had some depth to it, Christianity has a lot of references to real life history whether or not you believe in it or not as opposed to a lot of the mythological things like Egyptian-ism, Indians, Roman Gods (Zeus ect..) where you can actually visit and compare the things to happen with actual historical events such as people being crucified like Jesus was in actual evidential history and I've explained why I'm not Muslim or jewish or any other denomination of Christianity.

Googlism is flawed FYI though, it is not an all knowing being, for example it does not know my life experiences and it sucks at answering a lot of my questions when I try to search using it. Googlism is a complete joke in my opinion….

From a purely scientific standpoint, anything that cannot be repeated is useless, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If you're running a PCR experiment and a microscopic drop of saliva or sweat falls into your sample, you might get an unexpected and unexplainable result. You don't sit and agonize over it as divine intervention, or a miracle, you just repeat the experiment. And the next 1000 times you run the same experiment it may never happen again. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If someone asks you your opinion, you could come up with plenty of handwaving type explanations. Maybe it was saliva or sweat, or a dirty pipet tip, or contaminated water, or "God did it". You can't prove or disprove it to them. They can't prove or disprove it to you. Nobody is going to call an international conference to debate it.

Science must reject "miracles" out of necessity, but that is not a failing of theology, that's a failing of science.

Now suppose that Jesus really changed water into wine.
What would have to happen (if the story is to be taken literally) is that the H2O molecules that make up the water would have to change into a solution containing Ethanol C2H6O.
First off this violates the Principle Of Conservation Of Mass, which says that mass cannot be created or destroyed, but with water-into-wine, at least carbon was created.
It also violates the Principle Of Conservation Of Energy, which says energy cannot be created or destroyed, but ethanol molecules have more energy in them then water molecules.

There are plenty of ways to acquire carbine, such as breathing into the water container. Also it breaks no Principle Of Conservation Of Energy since it states no where that the same amount of wine was outputted as water was inputted.

From: senrath
For all we know there could be something like an override switch in the laws that allow them to be "broken" when certain things hold true.

somewhat like quantum mechanics eh?

Miracles are only miracles until they can be properly explained. Seeing as there will always be unexplainable events, there will always be miracles and therefor religion, which is what i assume you were trying to attribute this discussion to. Kind of a moot point eh?

First I'd like to answer all those googlism-doubters.

They never claim that Google is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscienct and benevolent. (Or all the other things God must have)

They only claim that Google is the closest to a God that humankind has experienced.

From:
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favour of Google's divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods.

We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of "God", as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner.

Google may not know your life story, but there is much more evidence for its existance then any of the Gods you worship. It is totally rational to worship Google (though thats not to say it is correct), and that is why if I had to choose a religion, I would choose Googlism.




tarajunky I'm going to distance myself from using the word "theology" if thats alright, since theology is the study of religion while I'm more conserned about religion itself.

But I'm intrested in this part of what you wrote.

From: tarajunky
Science must reject "miracles" out of necessity, but that is not a failing of theology, that's a failing of science.

I think I've been saying something like this all along. That science and religion (or theology) are mutually exclusive. Since they disagree, not more then one of them can be correct.

Do you accept that?

From: Dan Cardin
There are plenty of ways to acquire carbine, such as breathing into the water container. Also it breaks no Principle Of Conservation Of Energy since it states no where that the same amount of wine was outputted as water was inputted.

Breathing into the container doesnt magically cause the necessary chemical reaction.
When ethanol is made by yeast or in a lab, there is applied some kind of catalyst and the reaction takes a long time. However nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus put anything in the containers, or that he waited any amount of time. As I understand, he sort of taped the glass and said abracadabra.

The next part, you imply that Jesus changed some of the mass of the water into energy to make ethanol. That means He would need to start some kind of nuclear reaction in the glass! As far as I know, nowhere in the Gospels does it mention anything about nuclear physics.


I think that by trying to explain away Jesus's miracles, you are reducing his divinity.
If all His miracles are explained, He stops being the son of God, but becomes some kind of trickster or scammer!




IceFire908
You're wrong to say that christanity is more historically accurate then any other religion.

There is no consensus amongst historians of whether Jesus actually existed. Compare this to Islam where there is strong historial evidence that Muhammad existed. There is also strong evidence that John Frum of the south pacific Cargo Cults existed. Same with Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh.

You may also be intrested to know that the Christian concept of a halo is taken directly from the Egyptian idea of a sun disk. That Buddha was born of a virgin. That the Christian (now slightly outdated) concept of God as a big guy in the sky with a white beard was taken directly from the Roman and Greek image of Zeus and Jupiter.

To me, the conclusion is inescapable. You only believe in Catholicism because you were born into a family of Catholics, you went every sunday to church to learn about your faith, it has become part of your identity. Religions are, either by design or by evolution, difficult to remove once you've been brought up in them.

Breathing into the container doesnt magically cause the necessary chemical reaction.
When ethanol is made by yeast or in a lab, there is applied some kind of catalyst and the reaction takes a long time. However nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Jesus put anything in the containers, or that he waited any amount of time. As I understand, he sort of taped the glass and said abracadabra.

What i meant was that it was technically possible. It wouldnt defy the laws of physics, it would be incredibly improbable, which is where i assume God would help out. And the bible doesnt include every detail of what happened because of its intensely biased nature.

The next part, you imply that Jesus changed some of the mass of the water into energy to make ethanol. That means He would need to start some kind of nuclear reaction in the glass! As far as I know, nowhere in the Gospels does it mention anything about nuclear physics.

You misunderstood me or vice versa. I assumed you meant that the H6 implied that he would need more H2) than he had, but i was just pointing out that you wouldnt necessarily end up with the same amount of wine as you did water.

I think that by trying to explain away Jesus's miracles, you are reducing his divinity.
If all His miracles are explained, He stops being the son of God, but becomes some kind of trickster or scammer!

Once again. I am not trying to dethrone Jesus since i was under the impression that we were talking about miracles. I was simply saying that his doing this would not defy the laws of physics since it would technically have all the ingredients to make it, the miracle would lie in the fact that it did indeed happen.

From the way i am reading your posts it seems to me that you only think of miracles as defying physics. That really isnt true nor do i think that you should be presenting your argument in such a way as it will just leave you with not much to talk about comparably.

From: Yakman
IceFire908
You're wrong to say that christanity is more historically accurate then any other religion.

There is no consensus amongst historians of whether Jesus actually existed. Compare this to Islam where there is strong historial evidence that Muhammad existed. There is also strong evidence that John Frum of the south pacific Cargo Cults existed. Same with Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh.

You may also be intrested to know that the Christian concept of a halo is taken directly from the Egyptian idea of a sun disk. That Buddha was born of a virgin. That the Christian (now slightly outdated) concept of God as a big guy in the sky with a white beard was taken directly from the Roman and Greek image of Zeus and Jupiter.

To me, the conclusion is inescapable. You only believe in Catholicism because you were born into a family of Catholics, you went every sunday to church to learn about your faith, it has become part of your identity. Religions are, either by design or by evolution, difficult to remove once you've been brought up in them.

Maybe you're right about the being born into it part, at least for a strong bit. I can't say my opinion isn't biased because I am trying to shed light on my heritage to make it con-inside with my beliefs/logic.

But what I'm trying to say is Christianity is more historically accurate than any other religion, except, perhaps the ones from which is evolved from and that as you say is Islam. Thus making the most historically accurate religion that evolved as a result of divine intervention in my opinion. I can see how you got the impression that I meant "Christianity is the most historically accurate", I assure you that's not necessarily what I meant.

If it weren't for that fact alone, I'd stay away from these threads and base my faith off belief alone.

That is interesting what you said about Zeus, Bhudda, and sun disks though. Perhaps I can explain.

The sun disks were already known to be divine so it better symbolizes to humans in general as holy, Bhudda is purity which represents Jesus's purity (being born of virgin), Zeus (Jupiter) is King of the roman gods just as God is Father of the trinity symbolized through wisdom which is in the form of elderly bearded large man. All these images are how humans interpret divinity (at least during those times and/or before) and the bible says God created man in his divine image.

I think this is applicable!