Jack the Bodiless

Why do you consider aliens to be "preposterous"?

There are probably gazillions of Earthlike planets in the Universe, it's likely that there are many aliens out there. It's unlikely that they are here intervening in human affairs, but the possibility is real. I find it interesting that you call this "preposterous", but presumably a magical superbeing is not?

Wyrdsmyth

That's a good point. I've often heard people use the term "miracle" to describe a really unlikely (as they calculate it) event, and also, as you point out, one that is beneficent. I wonder how this colloquial use is to be distinguished from the more sacred use. Thus

"The Patriots won the Super Bowl! It's a miracle!"

differs from

"Jesus rose from the dead! It's a miracle!"

Sure, the Patriots beat the odds, but as far as we know they didn't break any laws of nature in order to do it. But this does bring up the question of how we can know when laws of nature have indeed been broken. I don't really see any other way to define supernatural... If some really unlikely event occurs then are we justified in calling it a miracle? Or does it have to not only be unlikely, but impossible as far as we understand nature? If it only has to be "really unlikely," what odds have to be beaten before it is declared a miracle?

Jayhawker Soule

Because there is no more evidence for Andromedan intevention than there is for JHWH or Perseus. Would you rank Scientology and the Raelian Revolution as less preposterous than Christianity? My guess is that the "alien intervention" option was offered tongue-in-cheek (or antenna-in-orifice, as the case may be).

Ted Hoffman

I am referring to stories like The bermuda triangle stories etc. There may be some unexplained phenomena/ events now and then (the US intelligence can't figure out where Osama is etc )
But the sun still rises from the east and there is still no presence of God on earth, gravity still pulls objects down etc. So reality doesn't change, even as we get puzzled by a few things here and there like Rainbow Walking being rescued from hornets by his dog.
Hope that explains my point?

No, they do Happen. But we may just not know how, what we do know however are some very fundamental facts of reality e.g., we die when we are deprived of air for long enough. We dont walk on water, words cannot change water into wine etc.
I believe so, I haven't come across a plausible explanation for the mysterious events that are said to have occured over the Bermuda triangle. Who build the Pyramids, Stonehenge and what for etc.

I dont think I have got a good explanation for the "origin" of races, life etc.
Our response, whenever we cant explain, should be: "we cannot explain what happened" Or
"We dont know how this happened".
Pure and simple.

Wyrdsmyth

That's not a good answer though, because the original implication (from Andrew) was that the possibility of alien intervention was preposterous while the possibility of supernatural intervention was not. Jack seemed to be saying, "How is one more preposterous than the other, if NEITHER of them has any evidence or proof? If anything, the possibility of aliens and alien technology existing is better than the possibility of ghosts, gods, magic, etc."

The Flakiness Factor is pretty subjective. I've seen Christians make fun of the superstitions of others, as if it were laughable that anyone could believe such obvious nonsense. But at one time, Christianity was the minority cult, with Romans looking at it as this flaky sort of thing.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I apparently misinterpreted Jack's comment and answered the question asked rather than the question implied. My apologies.

Panta Pei

ReasonableDoubt:

After reading my posts in the context of Andrew’s theistic hypothetical, I have to agree with you that I was overly terse and accusatory of his position.

Andrew: I apologize. Carry on with your search for answers and try to be fair.

My sarcastic generalization was offered as a counter to Andrew’s broad brush to which he paints atheists regardless of how they answered his musing.

There is no personal history between Andrew and I. However, as an atheist living in the deep south of Protestant fundamentalism, I have grown weary of the blatant falsehoods and misconceptions perpetrated in the name of theism upon those who merely do not believe in outlandish tales. The same would apply to anyone, no matter how significant they are in the annals of history.

I am not sure what you or Andrew could have expected from the participants of this board by offering the hypothetical:

“What if I provided a medical case of a broken leg that healed in one day, sworn by 4 doctors and I had notarized x-rays (before and after) that I would submit to this board for examination and link for all to see? Now miracles alone would be no reason to believe in God but would all here concede this is evidence of a miracle? And if miracles happen would that tend to be more in favor of a theistic worldview as opposed to an atheist/materialist worldview? Would it be enough you could no longer call yourself an atheist?”

Perhaps someone could have offered the following hypothetical responses:

1. Yes. I would consider that a definite miracle. I trust all those involved implicitly and do not question the evidence you have offered. I’m on my way to church.
2. Yes. That is it, a miracle. I have now enough evidence to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Thanks, Andrew.
3. Yes. A miracle has finally occurred without refutation. Please provide me guidance in this suddenly confusing world of supernatural events. Perhaps you could recommend a Holy book of some sort to help me make sense of it all.

Damn, I went all sarcastic again. That zen crap sure doesn’t last very long

~ Steve

Jayhawker Soule

Given that I have more than once asked theists to identify what, if anything, might dissuade them, I can hardly begrudge Andrew his question. Now, let's see how he'll answer mine.

theophilus

Dear well-meaning friend;

As I have explained elsewhere, the significance of miracles is derived from the context in which they occur. The mere inexplicable healing of a bone, in an of itself does not constitute a miracle - merely a physical anomaly.
Now, if you had been to church on Sunday before breaking the leg and the Pastor had prophesied that you would break your leg and it would heal in one day and, without contrivance on your part, that came to pass, you'd have the beginnings of a miracle. What would still be missing would be the "explanation" of the event - which always accompanies Biblical events.
The Bible is clear that the mere occurance of a "super-natural" event does not constitute a miracle and, in fact, might be a sign of apostasy. The supernatural event must be consistent with God's revealed redemptive purpose.

Keep up the "good" work.

theophilus

How about the "type" of god who was GOD?