Robbie's Miracles

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, for you have won the challenge, i cannot produce anything to your satisfaction, you win. Are there any recantations that i need to make, ill make them, any assertions that i need to retract, ill retract them pile them up and ill work through them, no problemo.

You haven't produced anything though, that's the point!!!!

You told me to research a miracle, which i did, then you disappeared. I think i called your bluff, you thought to yourself -

The atheist won't read the Bible out of some sort of irrational fear, i've got him now

But i did, because unlike you i don't have an inbuilt mechanism that filters out information which conflicts with my worldview.

😉

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You haven't produced anything though, that's the point!!!!

You told me to research a miracle, which i did, then you disappeared. I think i called your bluff, you thought to yourself -

The atheist won't read the Bible out of some sort of irrational fear, i've got him now

But i did, because unlike you i don't have an inbuilt mechanism that filters out information which conflicts with my worldview.

😉

actually that's not the case the case, it was based on a number of factors,

1. the actual miracle itself and the circumstantial evidence is based on knowledge of
Jewish cleansing laws and marriage customs, that is why the large jars, which the
Christ utilised were there.

2. There are other details, the peculiarity of the marriage festival makes it Galilean,
for no friends of the bridegroom are mentioned, a Galilean trait which helps us
realise that the writer was not only a Hebrew but was intimately acquainted with
prevailing customs of Galilee and Judea again lending itself to an eyewitness or at
very least factual account, contrast this with the account at John where the words
are spoken outside the realm of Galilee and where the friend of the bridegroom is
mentioned.


Thus we can see from examining the details that event itself is strictly Jewish, the
feast, the guests, the peculiar cultural aspects could not have been invented by one
who did not know or have intimate knowledge with the customs at the time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually that's not the case the case, it was based on a number of factors,

1. the actual miracle itself and the circumstantial evidence is based on knowledge of
Jewish cleansing laws and marriage customs, that is why the large jars, which the
Christ utilised were there.

2. There are other details, the peculiarity of the marriage festival ...[text shortened]... een invented by one
who did not know or have intimate knowledge with the customs at the time.

That's all very nice, but i'm still having trouble with the water into wine part of the story. The writer of the text may well have been versed in the customs of the day, but i don't see how you can make the leap to a miracle happening?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's all very nice, but i'm still having trouble with the water into wine part of the story. The writer of the text may well have been versed in the customs of the day, but i don't see how you can make the leap to a miracle happening?!

well its the integrity of the account, for what else is there, all the details are solid,
religious, cultural etc etc why should we dispute that water was turned into wine?
simply because it was supernatural? look at the account, there is not one hint of
anything sensational at all, its pure matter of fact. The motive as well is interesting for
it was given as a sign? why a sign? all sorts of possibilities now open up, but as soon
as we conclude , without any basis, that it could not have been supernatural, the
account doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You haven't produced anything though, that's the point!!!!

You told me to research a miracle, which i did, then you disappeared. I think i called your bluff, you thought to yourself -

The atheist won't read the Bible out of some sort of irrational fear, i've got him now

But i did, because unlike you i don't have an inbuilt mechanism that filters out information which conflicts with my worldview.

😉

To the unbeliever, miracles are a stumbling block.
To the unbeliever, miracles are proof religion is just fairy tales.
In the world he lives in, there is no divine intervention,no
interruptions to the normal order; there is only natural law.
Pregnancy only happens when the male sperm unite with the
female ova and the dead stay dead.

Scientist understand that natural laws don't tell us what "must"
happen, but only describe what usually does happen. They are
statistical probabilities, not unchangeable facts.

If God exists, then miracles are possible. The Holy Bible says all
things are possible with God.

Since there is a universe, it must have been caused by something
beyond itself. This is based on the law of causality, which says
that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself.
The consensus of scientists studying the origin of the universe is
that it had a beginning. The main evidence for the universe having
a beginning is the second law of thermodynamics, which says the
universe is running out of usable energy. But if it is running down,
then it could not be eternal. What is winding down must have been
wound up. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not
have reached today. But we have reached today, meaning time
must have begun at a particular point in the past, and today has
come at a definite time since then. Therefore, the world is a finite
event and needs a cause for its beginning. There must also be a
first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists.

Something has caused the world to come into being and is also
continuing and conserving its existence in the present. This is
what the Holy Bible says in Genesis 1:1 and in Colossians 1:16-17.

Anytime we see complex design, we know by previous experience
that it came about from the mind of a designer. The greater the
design, the greater is the designer. I understand that a single DNA
molecule, the building block of life, has the same amount of information
as one volume of an encylopedia. It has been described as like a
complex computer program. It seems logical to me that if a living
creature is composed of millions of DNA-based cells, we should assume
that this living creature had a very intelligent designer, especially since
some of the living creatures are intelligent themselves. Carl Sagan
said that the information content of the human brain, if written out in
English, would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as the world's
largest libraries. The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy,
the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.
(Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 278)

I believe it must be God that is the uncaused cause. Since God is infinte,
He does not need a cause. He was the first cause. He had no beginning.
He must be the cause of the universe, since the universe is finite. That
means to me God must exist and therefore, miracles are possible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well its the integrity of the account, for what else is there, all the details are solid,
religious, cultural etc etc why should we dispute that water was turned into wine?
simply because it was supernatural? look at the account, there is not one hint of
anything sensational at all, its pure matter of fact. The motive as well is interesting ...[text shortened]... hout any basis, that it could not have been supernatural, the
account doesn't make any sense.

So if I write a historical account of my late father, and make sure everything is consistent with details we'd expect, and cross reference it with credible sources - and then throw in a point about how he once magically turned a spare chair into a television, would the integrity of all the other stuff corroborate my assertion of magic!??? 😕


What planet are you on man!? 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
So if I write a historical account of my late father, and make sure everything is consistent with details we'd expect, and cross reference it with credible sources - and then throw in a point about how he once magically turned a spare chair into a television, would the integrity of all the other stuff corroborate my assertion of magic!??? 😕


What planet are you on man!? 😵

nope for your late father, although by all accounts a worthy man, is not the messiah.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope for your late father, although by all accounts a worthy man, is not the messiah.

But then since I no more believe your Jesus was a messiah than my dad was the messiah we're on an equal footing.

Remember, you're trying to argue with atheists - we don't share your biases about "Jesus".

Originally posted by Agerg
But then since I no more believe your Jesus was a messiah than my dad was the messiah we're on an equal footing.

Remember, you're trying to argue with atheists - we don't share your biases about "Jesus".

no that is not strictly true I am arguing with persons who do not accept the biblical
evidence that Christ was the messiah, despite its integrity, that is something different,
and on what grounds, none that they have been able to proffer , so far!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no that is not strictly true I am arguing with persons who do not accept the biblical
evidence that Christ was the messiah, despite its integrity, that is something different,
and on what grounds, none that they have been able to proffer , so far!

When some book says some character turned water into wine I guarantee you, we doubt the factual integrity of the book. In this case said book is the Bible.

What evidence have you proffered that Gandalf didn't remake the world?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope for your late father, although by all accounts a worthy man, is not the messiah.

So if I write a historical account of Jesus, and make sure everything is consistent with details we'd expect, and cross reference it with credible sources - and then throw in a point about how he once magically turned a spare chair into a television, would the integrity of all the other stuff corroborate my assertion of magic!???

What planet are you on man!?

[copied without permission from Agerg]

Originally posted by Agerg
When some book says some character turned water into wine I guarantee you, we doubt the factual integrity of the book. In this case said book is the Bible.

What evidence have you proffered that Gandalf didn't remake the world?

What evidence have you proffered that Gandalf didn't remake the world?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf

Originally posted by Doward
[b]What evidence have you proffered that Gandalf didn't remake the world?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf[/b]

That merely shows that the writers of that wikipedia article think he was a fictional character - that is not a cast iron proof he is! Indeed, I say they are wrong.

Going by that style of proof I could direct you to many posts that say "God" is a fictional character.

Originally posted by Agerg
But then since I no more believe your Jesus was a messiah than my dad was the messiah we're on an equal footing.

Remember, you're trying to argue with atheists - we don't share your biases about "Jesus".

Yes, atheists, when I see news reports of a flood, a tornado,
a hurricane, or an earthquake causing a lot of damage, I like
the atheists' attitude about it, for they never blame God for it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, atheists, when I see news reports of a flood, a tornado,
a hurricane, or an earthquake causing a lot of damage, I like
the atheists' attitude about it, for they never blame God for it.

We don't...we may use the fact that disasters happen to undermine your notion of God, but we don't actually *blame* imaginary things for anything!