What is Miracle?

[backspace]

The point is how DO we distinguish between someone making predictions in the name of a deity and just being delusional, from one that we can consider/believe to be a recipient of Divine revelation.

No, that's not my point or anywhere near what I said. This is another reading comprehension failure on your part.

My point is believing that the ability to prophecy with the aid of an extra dimensional deity is scientifically unexplainable in light of rejecting miracles that are not.

Believing a deity speaks (how?) to a human is no more scientifically explainable than any miracle a person wishes to reject on the basis of being unscientific.

[Shafique]

No need to be argumentative.

Science cannot address issues that lie outside the known physical universe - what lies beyond the universe is 'undefined' in science. Physical laws don't apply there, as sciences' current theories say that all were created at the Big Bang.

Miracles are what happen in this universe and can be observed. No one on this forum has said that inspiration or communication with God can be proved by science. My point is that Miracles happen within the physical constraints of this universe - and in conceptual terms, God does not violate the rules He created at the Big Bang.

One can choose to believe that we were all created 5 minutes ago with ready made memories, or that the world is carried on the back of giant turtles. I happen to believe that God does not violate logic and would not stop the earth rotating for 24hrs, for example.

Using this logic, I examine the claims of miracles and see whether they can be explained or not. Miracles are not the same as revelations from God which are then communicated.

To distinguish between a true prophet and just a delusional person, we can use the criteria in Deut 18.20. That's a different matter from assessing written accounts of miracles.

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

Yes, well a deity communicating to individuals in this universe is as scientifically unexplainable as any miracle you choose to reject.

[Shafique]

We've discussed this before on the other forum - you believe in talking Donkeys and that the earth stopped rotating and tried to get me to come round to your way of thinking. We are not going to agree on this.

I don't agree with you that believing in the mind, soul and divine communication means we should suspend logic and believe that donkeys talked in the past. That's just me though - I understand others who choose to believe otherwise.

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

Please explain how a talking angel or talking deity (without vocal cords?) is more scientifically explainable than a talking donkey.

How is an angel able to appear and exist in this universe? How is your deity able to communicate in this universe?

[Shafique]

I believe in radio waves which I can't see, but I don't believe in talking donkeys. I believe that communication between God and the soul and mind uses a mechanism that is even more remote than invisible EM waves.

I have yet to come across a cogent and believable explanation for donkeys developing vocal cords, a brain capable of generating speech and then have that donkey converse with humans (and have this event only recorded in the Bible).

I'm not trying to convince you to stop believing donkeys could talk - I'm just saying I don't share this belief of yours.

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

Likewise, I've yet to come across a cogent and believable explanation for the existence of souls, talking angels or a deity communicating to humans beyond the electromagnetic spectrum.

Donkeys are proven to exist whereas angels are not. So, I'd say talking donkeys are more scientifically feasible than a talking angel.

It would appear you don't have any scientific explanations for your religious beliefs however you wish to dress them up as within the realm of possibility.

[Shafique]

You are constructing a strawman to help explain why you believe in talking donkeys. I have said I believe in logic and that a God that exists outside of the known universe and outside the realms of science is logical. The alternative is that we are here by chance.

Therefore my logic means that there is indeed a realm outside the universe that is beyond science. It is not that my all my beliefs need to scientific provable (God isn't, for a start) but rather that the beliefs must be LOGICAL.

In this universe, on a macro level - Donkeys do not grow vocal cords and start speaking. This does exist in Shrek, but not in real life. It offends science and logic.

But there's a quantum difference between the ethereal and the ridiculous. You can guess where I classify Donkeys speaking. You wish to believe in talking donkeys - fair enough. To convince me, you need to show me how this could happen according to some scientific principle that affects real donkeys in the real world. God does not do illogical things or break His own laws that he set up for the universe - it would be illogical for Him to do so.

You believe in talking donkeys. I don't.

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

You're whining about vocal cords existing but can't hammer out a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence of talking angels or souls.

Your argument that a deity communicates to humans by means we don't understand was pretty mind numbing - anyone can say the same about any type of miracle.

It's pretty obvious you have not put any thought into your unscientific beliefs having scientific explanations or any basis of logic to them at all.

I just note the hypocrisy when believing talking donkeys are ridiculous while maintaining a talking angel is plausible!

At least donkeys are proven to exist. But hey, maybe the talking donkey was disguised as a talking angel?

Apparently, that explanation would convince you.

[Shafique]

LOL - are you really trying to convince me that believing in talking Donkeys is logical because 'donkeys exist'!??

(Your strawman of substituting 'science' where I've used 'logic' is failing you quite badly)

Why do you want me to join you in believing in talking Donkeys??

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

I see, but believing the talking donkey was really a talking angel in disguise is both logical and scientifically plausible.

::facepalm::

::rollseyes::

[Shafique]

Whatever floats your boat, bs.

However you dress it up, whatever you imagine - it is you that believes in talking donkeys, and not me. (And besides, the Bible does not talk about angels dressing up as donkeys - just that the donkey talked)

But answer me this - why are you so desperate to get me to join you in this belief?

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

Sorry, how is a talking angel more scientifically explainable/logical than a talking donkey?

At least donkeys exist and can make sounds.

I'm not aware of scientific evidence for the existence of angels.

Why are you so desperate to get me to believe talking angels are more likely than talking donkeys? Why couldn't a talking donkey have been a talking angel? Would that have been more "logical"/explainable?