From: Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Christian Walters)
Newsgroups: hsv.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Date: Tue,  7 Apr 92 17:19:14 CDT
Organization: Micro Magic

James Reed says:
>Before you discard the Bible as an objective source for facts
>regarding miracles (which are difficult if not impossible to verify
>today), you should examine whether or not it's an objective source for
>facts that can be verified today.  What does it say about human nature?
 
Lessee.... it says that mankind is basically a pack of sinners. Beyond
that, I'm at a loss :) I've read the thing, but it's been years..
 
>What does it say about historical events?
 
What kind of historical events do you mean? Many events that are
historical now were common back then.
 
>If the Bible (or any other source) is inaccurate about things you can
>verify, then it should not be consulted for things you cannot verify.
>If the claims that can be verified are verified, then the claims that
>cannot be verified are worth considering.  (Again, look at what a jury
>does in a court trial.)
 
True enough. But aren't we trying to use the Bible in this case to prove
God's existence? While there are historical events and stuff that can
probably be verified, the Bible is useless for proving a point that the
Bible takes for granted. That's what I meant by my comparison to Pravda.
The Bible does not give an accurate or verifiable accounting of
miracles, just as Pravda didn't give a verifiable account of.. well.. if
you disregard the weather predictions, anything :)
 
>|> I think we should probably take steps to define a miracle
>|> sometime.
 
>For starters how about: "an event that does not occur naturally and
>cannot be genuinely reproduced by man but which most people would
>recognize as the product of supernatural abilities"... I used "most
>people" so we can ignore the truly insane who have no grip on reality.
 
This one works for me except for the last point. You could chalk up
someone who doesn't agree with you about a miracle as a truly insane.
We'd need something airtight :) I think the first two points alone might
do it - if something violates a law of nature and cannot be man-made,
then is that a miracle?
 
But there's a problem: we can't say we know everything about the laws of
nature. Lots of years ago, a rainbow would look miraculous, until we
understood physics and the refraction of light.
 
About 500 years ago (I think), there was a sudden bright light in the
night sky that lasted for several nights. It was even visible during the
day. No one at the time could explain it, so naturally the cry of
"miracle!" went up. (Unless my dates are way off, in which case, the cry
of "grunt!" went up, but you know what I mean.) As it turns out, it was
a supernova in the constellation Orion.
 
Everything I can think of that would fall into those first two
categories above could be explained away by something other than God -
either we don't know enough about how the universe works or we're being
played with by aliens with a much higher science than ours. The
explanations might seem improbable, but they're enough for "reasonable
doubt." (No, I haven't forgotten the jury :) )



--  
 * Christian.Walters@umagic.FIDONET.ORG via Micro Magic
Newsgroups: hsv.religion