My spirit is troubled..

[Mytical]

It does not change the state of matter. Wine and water are composed of different ingredients. Water being one ingredient of wine. Matter has to be added. =p

Changing state would be liquid turning into a gas.

Lets not quibble over semantics. Water is an ingredient to a lot of things, which is neither here nor there. Mater need not be added, just changed. Some of the water molecules can be altered to different molecules, meaning nothing has to be added, just changed. *shrugs*

However, that is actually not important either really. It is a matter of perspective. The event is localized, so the effect might only be visible by things in the area. One person may witness it, but what would that prove? You would have the account of one person..which most would just dismiss. In other words, miracles can still happen, but if the people they happen to are not believed, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

Also some of us are not even using the bible for references. Some of us have pretty much claimed that they do not follow the bible. True, I had a theory on HOW it could happen, but that is just what it is ... a theory. At least one person here is saying "If you eliminate any possibility that something is out there, you stop looking, and therefore will NEVER find out if there is." I just refuse to be the one standing at the edge of the ocean and saying "Nothing is beyond that horizon, so why bother?"

[Hyena Dandy]

Do you think we don't know *anything* about how the universe works? You're just repeating an appeal to ignorance over and over. You can't just wave your hand and say "magic" as if that will make logic and science go away so they stop bothering your imagination. The burden of proof is on *you* here, not me.

But I'm not making a claim that things happen, and not even "Because a 2,000 year old novel says it does." I'm not specifically talking about Christian miracles. I haven't claimed anything has happened. I have claimed that, if things happened, we wouldn't necessarily know about it the way you say we would.

I'm making the claim that, if magic happened, it would not necessarily function scientifically. BY DEFINITION, magic is not scientific. So I don't see why magic would start to follow the laws of physics after a certain point.

If something breaks the laws of physics in order to happen, I don't see why it would stop breaking the laws of physics at an arbitrary point after it happened.

Something being magic is totally an excuse for why magic does not follow the laws of physics. Because magic is, essentially "Something that happens by not following the laws of physics."

[Duelist925]

Do you think we don't know *anything* about how the universe works? You're just repeating an appeal to ignorance over and over. You can't just wave your hand and say "magic" as if that will make logic and science go away so they stop bothering your imagination. The burden of proof is on *you* here, not me.

The universe is an amazingly complex machine, and we can see the gears moving. Why are you guys so hellbent on arguing ways to break the machine just because a 2000 year old novel written by people that thought a solar eclipse was the wrath of god told you so?

Its ass backwards and its completely the wrong question to be asking at this point in human advancement. I've been told in this thread that faith and science can co-exist, yet I have spend most of the thread having faith tell logic and science to go fuck itself because God. So there.

Why are you not looking forward at how a "God" might exist instead of backwards at how people who didn't know you shouldn't use the same hand to eat and wipe your ass thought "God" might exist? If you looked at a science textbook from the 1930s, you'd laugh at how little they knew. Yet you're perfectly willing to accept the claims of a 2000 year old book of short stories that went through much much less stringent review process.

But somehow I'm the ignorant one here?

It's not a matter of ignorance.

Its a matter of not bloody well getting what most of us are saying.

We aren't saying "this 2000 year old book of random crap" is "truth".

it is EXACTLY that we are looking at how a higher power, call it God, Allah, Yahweh, Eris, whatever, could exist and effect the world, and we would never know, because that being does not want us to know for whatever reason.

Whoever made the machine knows how it works. Furthermore, it knows how every single bit of it interacts. Something with the power to create, wether be as simple as creating life, or as complex as setting this massive maddeningly complex machine we call the universe can damn well interact with it, and we would never know, because it could work so far above our heads, or so far below them, that we could never detect it because anything that could suspend the natural laws could easily stop us from detecting that law being broken.

And if we did, now, with the technology we have, WE WOULD NOT ASSUME IT WAS GOD. It would be considered malfunctioning sensors--or some one off freak interaction of forces--or someone misread the data--or something else. Because there is always a variable we don't know, or think we don't know. And any scientist, of any field, know they will never be taken seriously by the scientific community or history if they suggest "god" or "a dryad" or "fucking cthulhu, man" did something rather than a freak coincidence.

But I've gone on a tangent.

None of us are arguing "This is truth". We are presenting our views. What we think is possible, or what we believe. None of us is some dogmatic zealot trying to deny science.

[Gravekeeper]

And you still haven't addressed the fact that unless we know every variable of something happening, it would be fairly easy for a higher power to exert some effect without being detected, as most would use occams razor and assume a more mundane reasoning behind something.

Actually I did mention that a post or two back and said that it would be undetectable at the time. Though not an unobservable action as it would have cause and effect. But that raises the spector of "God hides from science". Which again, is just a God of gaps argument. The goal posts can just be moved further and further back to protect the belief.

But even if I accept that, it raises another problem. Why does God hide from science? Why did he create a universe where every single rule is contrary to his ability to interfere? Why did he unfairly favour one group with his wisdom over another?

This is the unending problem. Occam's razor is:
If God exists, he does not interfere

Whereas if you accept interference:
He inteferes, why isn't there evidence? What damage has it caused? Why does he favour one group of people unfairly over another? Why is interference completely contradictory across different cultures? Why doesn't he interfere now? Is he hiding from Science? So on and so forth.

Every hurdle you think you've jumped vs science, you raise another set of problematic philosophical questions that make God look like incompetent and like kind of a dick. -.-

If something breaks the laws of physics in order to happen, I don't see why it would stop breaking the laws of physics at an arbitrary point after it happened.

Then you don't understand the laws of physics. You can't just break a law of physics and have it not be a problem. This is what I'm trying to explain. The entire universe is intimately interdepedent on every concievable level. You can't just do something and not create an effect. You can't violate physics and magically ignore causality. The universe is simply not built that way.

Lets not quibble over semantics. Water is an ingredient to a lot of things, which is neither here nor there. Mater need not be added, just changed. Some of the water molecules can be altered to different molecules, meaning nothing has to be added, just changed. *shrugs*

Now you're talking about changing atomic structure. Matter still must be added. Water is just H2O. You need more atoms if you're going to pull off sugar, alcohol, etc.

However, that is actually not important either really. It is a matter of perspective. The event is localized, so the effect might only be visible by things in the area. One person may witness it, but what would that prove? You would have the account of one person..which most would just dismiss. In other words, miracles can still happen, but if the people they happen to are not believed, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

It means your miracle has no more weight than your Uncle Tom's story about that time he almost caught a 20 lb bass. Honest.

You're telling me: No evidence. No witnesses. No trace. But it still totally happens. Because you can imagine it happening. You can imagine it happening because you grew up in a culture that has the concept of a "miracle" in a premdominantly Christian society.

Miracles and divine intervention are not a fixture of every religion you know. See: The Founding Fathers. -.-

[Andara Bledin]

Normally, "making things up" isn't the right way to explain a happening. Having an imagination is fine and dandy, but just because it can be imagined doesn't mean it's plausible.

Except that's not what the discussion was about. Gk insists that God can't make things happen because they would have repercussions that would be noticed by somebody, somewhere else, and quite honestly, that's a myopic supposition when it's dead easy to get around that stipulation with almost no effort and doesn't even require a being to be all-powerful to do it.

So now your argument is a divine being swapped 10,000,000 drops of water and wine just to impress a small group of people as evidenced in a 2000 year old book known for blatant plagarizing and being politically motivated?

No. I'm not arguing the positive on this matter. I'm just poking holes in your negative argument for it's being small-minded.

For all I know, the water to wine thing is just a mass hallucination. To be honest, for all I know, the whole water to wine thing was the consequence of something else being done somewhere else that nobody knew enough to actually make note of.

To honestly believe that people who can't yet figure out how their own bodies work should be capable of figuring out the magic tricks of a being that's noted for being all-knowing is hubris at it's finest.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

You can't violate physics and magically ignore causality.

The fact that you're using the word "Magic" to describe ignoring causality is my point... Ignoring causality would be magical. Thus, if magic were done, it could ignore causality.

[Gravekeeper]

It's not a matter of ignorance.

It is a matter of ignorance. Because you're arguing in favour of a completely human concept. It was devised and invented by humans and based down through certain human cultures. You argue it in fact of all evidence to the contrary and all philosophical problems to the contrary.

Something with the power to create, wether be as simple as creating life, or as complex as setting this massive maddeningly complex machine we call the universe can damn well interact with it, and we would never know, because it could work so far above our heads, or so far below them, that we could never detect it because anything that could suspend the natural laws could easily stop us from detecting that law being broken.

Here's a better question: How would you know? Every time this discussion comes up, I have to sit here and preach like a science teacher for 3 days. You all tell me "How I can know?" yet at the same time, you don't know the extent of what science already knows. You dimiss every scientific problem, every philosophical one and every other religion that disagrees with you. Then turn around and ask me how could *I* know any better.

And if we did, now, with the technology we have, WE WOULD NOT ASSUME IT WAS GOD. It would be considered malfunctioning sensors--or some one off freak interaction of forces--or someone misread the data--or something else.

Except thats not how the scientific method works. You don't just see something weird and go "Oh well, must be a glitch". But again, that is a god of gaps argument. We can play this game forever because for everything I explain you guys can move the goal posts back into some even more ridiculously convoluted gap. Until I finally give up and you can declare yourselves the winnarz. The god of gaps argument is an appeal to ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.

That's how every one of these threads end up. Just usually there's a few more people involved so I'm not being gangbanged by 4 or 5 people for daring to question the sky wizard.

None of us are arguing "This is truth". We are presenting our views. What we think is possible, or what we believe. None of us is some dogmatic zealot trying to deny science.

Except you are when you cross into the realm of science and some of you are coming across as said zealots. Aren't you reading what you're all saying? Dimissing any logical or reasonable argument I make in favour of "Because magic" and calling me an atheist. That's completely reasonable. As is ignoring science, logical and the philosophical implications of what you're all proposing.

The only thing I have done here is been a reasonable skeptic. For that I'm being crucified. 4 or 5 ways. I can't argue with "I win, because God, so there" and I'm not sure why I even bother trying anymore on these forums.

I'm not an atheist. Hell, I could give you a scientifically plausible theory or two for the existence of a higher intelligence or a soul. Yet you're arguing with me that an all powerful, all knowing being that created a neigh infinite universe would create said universe in a manner that it thwarts him at every turn then break the reality of that universe itself just to impress a handful of hairless monkeys on a planet that doesn't even register as an atom to Him with free booze.

I mean, seriously?

[Gravekeeper]

The fact that you're using the word "Magic" to describe ignoring causality is my point... Ignoring causality would be magical. Thus, if magic were done, it could ignore causality.

For the love of God(tm), please read a physics textbook before you give me an aneurysm. You're making a child's argument. ><

If you ignore causality, you've created a general systems fault in the universe. If you "magically" fix the fault, you also remove the effect of what you changed in the first place, rendering it moot and rendering the idea of a miracle moot.

If something is red and God changes it to blue, in order to hide the effect of something red turning to blue, he would have to erase the glitch of it ever having been red in the first place. But this renders the effect of it changing from red to blue pointless. Because now its blue and it has as far as the universe is concerned always been blue. Thus there is no effect anymore. We all think its blue and it has always been blue, we would never suspect it was red or that God did it. Thus there's no point in God being involved at all unless God is falliable and hiding from us.

[Mytical]

Wait, where have I moved the goal posts? When have I set up said goal posts? My entire argument the whole time has been that in times past there have been things we could not see/hear/etc..and later through invention we could. So to dismiss things that we can not yet see/hear/etc as impossible to exist is the same as those people who lived in the 'flat earth' time saying "There is nothing beyond the horizon, so I am not going to bother to check."

But, you know what..you are right..we are going around in circles again. I respect your view on things, so that is it for me. Thank you for your debate. It has given me much to think about.

[Gravekeeper]

Wait, where have I moved the goal posts? When have I set up said goal posts? My entire argument the whole time has been that in times past there have been things we could not see/hear/etc..and later through invention we could. So to dismiss things that we can not yet see/hear/etc as impossible to exist is the same as those people who lived in the 'flat earth' time saying "There is nothing beyond the horizon, so I am not going to bother to check."

But, you know what..you are right..we are going around in circles again. I respect your view on things, so that is it for me. Thank you for your debate. It has given me much to think about.

Not you specifically, Mytical, sorry. I'm getting it from like 5 different directions at the moment and not in a fun bukkake kind of way. -.-

This has spiralled out of control like every other thread on religion, gone through the exact process I said it would, and now has reached its inevitable "Yargh!" where everyone throws up their hands and walks away thinking everyone else involved is an idiot.

It's the way of things, don't let it bother you. >.>

[Seifer]

At least one person here is saying "If you eliminate any possibility that something is out there, you stop looking, and therefore will NEVER find out if there is." I just refuse to be the one standing at the edge of the ocean and saying "Nothing is beyond that horizon, so why bother?"

The problem is that works both ways. A lot of religious people will stop at "God did it" and live happily in ignorance. It's best if everyone can say, "We don't know what's out there, so we're going to keep looking."

[Gravekeeper]

We're about at this point now.

[Mytical]

Which is a shame honestly. I love to have philosophical debates. Question the meaning of things, to ponder and question. Always gives me things to think about. My big problem stems from the following facts. I can see the other people's view points, and I always question/debate my own beliefs. I know I don't have the answers, which is why I am seeking the answers.

Some of my beliefs do not verge on the weird..they blow past the line of weird, circle the globe a couple of times, and land way past the line of weird after doing so. Like the fact that I do not think this is the first go round for intelligent life on this very planet. It either gets to the point where they evolved into something that we could not comprehend and moved on..or reached a point where they have annihilated themselves, but had reached a point where their information was stored in biological organisms (instead of metal) and we just do not yet have the information yet to retrieve it. I mean look at us..everything is going digital right now right? Who knows what the next step is..maybe crystaline data storage..and then who knows. Meh..should anybody really be interested in my odder thoughts..they know how to reach me

[Gravekeeper]

Which is a shame honestly. I love to have philosophical debates. Question the meaning of things, to ponder and question. Always gives me things to think about. My big problem stems from the following facts. I can see the other people's view points, and I always question/debate my own beliefs. I know I don't have the answers, which is why I am seeking the answers.

Its difficult to have a philosophical discussion here without someone going out of bounds and triggering the whole mess again. -.-

Like the fact that I do not think this is the first go round for intelligent life on this very planet.

That one is easily answered: All sources say no. There would be a fossil record. Given how long it took to evolve higher intelligence followed by how drastically intelligence impacted the planet in such a short span of time.

However, if you want some food for thought. Consider the last universal common ancestor of all life on earth. Before DNA evolved, life used less effecient RNA and the most effecient way of sharing it was to simply share any new beneficial RNA strand with all your cellular neighbours. Across the entire planet. The entire planet was essentially a single symbiotic life form, processing RNA like a networked computer system. Disposing of bad RNA and sharing any advantageous strands of good RNA.

It either gets to the point where they evolved into something that we could not comprehend and moved on..or reached a point where they have annihilated themselves

What you're talking about is known as the theory of the Great Filter. Its one that has come more to the forefront with the Fermi Paradox as recent discoveries have caused us to vastly increase our estimate on how many planets are in the universe.

You should read up on it, should give you some more to think about. -.-

I mean look at us..everything is going digital right now right? Who knows what the next step is..maybe crystaline data storage..and then who knows. Meh..should anybody really be interested in my odder thoughts..they know how to reach me

It would be theorhetically possible to store a concious thought with quantum particles, provided a quantum particle existed that maintained a stable existence for a sufficient period of time. We haven't found one yet, but seeing as we only just found the Higgs, who knows.

Quantum physics is the only plausible level in current science at which a persistent conciousness could exist without a physical form. Be it a "soul" or a "god". Though that would mean that the very underlaying fabric of the entire universe is conciousness itself.

Which is actually a teaching of Buddhism. -.-

[crashhelmet]

A world with God:

1. Pray to God and ask for a child. You may or may not receive a child.
2. Pray to God for health. You may or may not be healed.
3. Pray to God for wealth. You may or may not win the lottery.

A world without God:

1. Try to have a child using all available methods. You may or may not have a child.
2. Go to the doctor and take care of yourself. You may or may not stay healthy.
3. Play the lottery. You may or may not become wealthy.

Both worlds looks exactly the same to me.

You again base your decision on the existence of God, or any deity for that matter, on personal, selfish ideals.