How can one reasonably go from deism to theism and religion?

[serp777]

So basically, how can someone move from the belief that there is a God to something much, much, much more significant claims about God intervening in reality and caring about things such as sexual intercourse, what holy days are observed, what propitiations are made, what food and beverages are acceptable, etc.

It seems to me to be a massive, quantum leap to jump from a general belief in God without knowing his specific characteristics to knowing his mind and what he cares about, and his accomplishments. It requires such a massive quantity of evidence to say that you know the mind of God and that God has a special connection with you. It demands a truly breathtaking scale of arrogance--an omnipotent, all knowing, immortal, infinitely intelligent entity suddenly cares whether men, for example, exchange bodily fluids with each other. The much more reasonable position is that God nobody knows the mind of God or what his intentions and demands are. Although I would also state that nobody has special knowledge denied to me showing that God definitely exists--the only thing we can do is say that we don't know God exists.

One of the common arguments i've heard is that experiences or visions or feelings somehow prove to people that God cares about certain petty human actions and beliefs. It somehow also proves to them that God exists. One example is Francis Collins--a key individual in the unravelling of the human genome; one day he was out hiking and he saw a vista, then dropped down to his knees on the dewy grass and accepted Jesus Christ as his savior because he saw a frozen waterfall that has formed three parts. Its a complete non sequitur to go from a feeling or experience to special knowledge about the truth of reality. Its especially preposterous because if Francis collins hadn't heard about Christianity before hand then he would have had no idea about the trinity and the three waterfalls.

Similarly, the religious can't seem to absorb this basic point--people of all mutually exclusive religions have identical experiences. There are alien abduction experiences and feelings, scientology feelings, and thousands of other ridiculous examples showing how unreliable these feelings and experiences are. Somehow people think that because they had a religious experience, it must be infallible--it couldn't be a hallucination, or a delusion, or the manifestation of sub conscious desires, or a complete no sequitur and false deduction like francis collins. Clearly experiences are the result of evolution and the fundamental workings of our brains. There is nothing ensuring that a religious experience has to be connected to God. Finally, the biggest point against experiences and feelings justifying theistic belief is that plenty of people have experiences that lead them to blow up buildings or drown their children--the most likely explanation that solves the problem of all these inconsistent feelings and experiences is that it is simply a neurochemical phenomena that had or has an evolutionary advantage. This is perhaps the cause of the initial formations of religions, and since religions assisted early societies by improving a sense of community and bolstering social behavior, it makes sense that many humans would be genetically predisposed to having these experiences--they're an evolutionary leftover

Furthermore, if God cares about belief, then why not simply convince everyone of his existence? I mean he has allegedly revealed himself to some people by performing miracles and other supernatural acts to prove the truth of his claims--why is it that, for instance, iron age peasants in the middle east, or their counterparts in the rest of the world, get revelations and evidence, and yet 21st century skeptics with an understanding of the scientific method are just supposed to accept things on faith? Its completely senseless. God could easily re arrange the stars faster the light to spell out, Allah, or Yahweh exists. Astronomers could verify this and show that the stars broke the laws of physics to form the configuration. Realistically theists use faith as a convenient excuse.

Ultimately it all comes down to this--there is absolutely no way you can jump from deism to theism. You certainly can't prove it, and as ive shown experiences and visions and feelings are insufficient. People should accept the fact that they most likely cannot have special knowledge of God. If he wanted people to know of his existence then he could do so easily so it stands that he probably doesn't care about our belief or knowledge of his existence. The odds of selecting the proper theistic position is also very unlikely just by looking at all religions equivalently and assuming one is true--your odds of picking the correct religion is (1/(the number of religions)) * 100 = %. So take 10,000 religions and your odds are 0.01%. Not very good especially considering this ignores the fact that the correct religion may not have come into existence yet, or hasn't already been forgotten in ages past. Either way all theists and religious people are on extremely shaky ground--this is why they need faith in the first place; to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore all the strong arguments against theism and a particular religion. However, I do think the general existence of God is a genuine possibility that cannot be ignored. Still, theism is pure guesswork.

 

[Valjean]

I think "reasonably" your be your major stumbling block.

 

[Tumah]

I wonder the opposite. Once we accept the existence of a Creator, why should we assume that He has the intelligence to create such a complex world, the logic to formulate natural laws, but not the reasoning to do it all?
If you accept that there is a reason for all this, then its not a big jump to say that we, as a part of the creation are a part of that purpose and that He let us know what that purpose is.

One of your points that I think also needs addressing is where you say

It demands a truly breathtaking scale of arrogance--an omnipotent, all knowing, immortal, infinitely intelligent entity suddenly cares

If you think about it, what you are saying doesn't really follow. Omnipotence and infinite intelligence, means that the same amount of caring G-d has for the most important aspect of the world He created, He has for the least important creation. To Him, there is no 'most' and 'least' important because He is Infinite and they are finite and the chasm between them is infinity. But if we agree that there was some reasoning that drove G-d to create the world, then that reason is just as important as which path the leaf takes as it flutters to the ground- because in comparison to the omnipotent, infinitely intelligent G-d, they are both equally distant from Him.
Therefore, its exactly because of His omnipotence and infinite nature that G-d must care about every aspect of the world equally.

 

[Thana]

So basically, how can someone move from the belief that there is a God to something much, much, much more significant claims about God intervening in reality and caring about things such as sexual intercourse, what holy days are observed, what propitiations are made, what food and beverages are acceptable, etc.

It seems to me to be a massive, quantum leap to jump from a general belief in God without knowing his specific characteristics to knowing his mind and what he cares about, and his accomplishments. It requires such a massive quantity of evidence to say that you know the mind of God and that God has a special connection with you. It demands a truly breathtaking scale of arrogance--an omnipotent, all knowing, immortal, infinitely intelligent entity suddenly cares whether men, for example, exchange bodily fluids with each other. The much more reasonable position is that God nobody knows the mind of God or what his intentions and demands are. Although I would also state that nobody has special knowledge denied to me showing that God definitely exists--the only thing we can do is say that we don't know God exists.

One of the common arguments i've heard is that experiences or visions or feelings somehow prove to people that God cares about certain petty human actions and beliefs. It somehow also proves to them that God exists. One example is Francis Collins--a key individual in the unravelling of the human genome; one day he was out hiking and he saw a vista, then dropped down to his knees on the dewy grass and accepted Jesus Christ as his savior because he saw a frozen waterfall that has formed three parts. Its a complete non sequitur to go from a feeling or experience to special knowledge about the truth of reality. Its especially preposterous because if Francis collins hadn't heard about Christianity before hand then he would have had no idea about the trinity and the three waterfalls.

Similarly, the religious can't seem to absorb this basic point--people of all mutually exclusive religions have identical experiences. There are alien abduction experiences and feelings, scientology feelings, and thousands of other ridiculous examples showing how unreliable these feelings and experiences are. Somehow people think that because they had a religious experience, it must be infallible--it couldn't be a hallucination, or a delusion, or the manifestation of sub conscious desires, or a complete no sequitur and false deduction like francis collins. Clearly experiences are the result of evolution and the fundamental workings of our brains. There is nothing ensuring that a religious experience has to be connected to God. Finally, the biggest point against experiences and feelings justifying theistic belief is that plenty of people have experiences that lead them to blow up buildings or drown their children--the most likely explanation that solves the problem of all these inconsistent feelings and experiences is that it is simply a neurochemical phenomena that had or has an evolutionary advantage. This is perhaps the cause of the initial formations of religions, and since religions assisted early societies by improving a sense of community and bolstering social behavior, it makes sense that many humans would be genetically predisposed to having these experiences--they're an evolutionary leftover

Furthermore, if God cares about belief, then why not simply convince everyone of his existence? I mean he has allegedly revealed himself to some people by performing miracles and other supernatural acts to prove the truth of his claims--why is it that, for instance, iron age peasants in the middle east, or their counterparts in the rest of the world, get revelations and evidence, and yet 21st century skeptics with an understanding of the scientific method are just supposed to accept things on faith? Its completely senseless. God could easily re arrange the stars faster the light to spell out, Allah, or Yahweh exists. Astronomers could verify this and show that the stars broke the laws of physics to form the configuration. Realistically theists use faith as a convenient excuse.

Ultimately it all comes down to this--there is absolutely no way you can jump from deism to theism. You certainly can't prove it, and as ive shown experiences and visions and feelings are insufficient. People should accept the fact that they most likely cannot have special knowledge of God. If he wanted people to know of his existence then he could do so easily so it stands that he probably doesn't care about our belief or knowledge of his existence. The odds of selecting the proper theistic position is also very unlikely just by looking at all religions equivalently and assuming one is true--your odds of picking the correct religion is (1/(the number of religions)) * 100 = %. So take 10,000 religions and your odds are 0.01%. Not very good especially considering this ignores the fact that the correct religion may not have come into existence yet, or hasn't already been forgotten in ages past. Either way all theists and religious people are on extremely shaky ground--this is why they need faith in the first place; to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore all the strong arguments against theism and a particular religion. However, I do think the general existence of God is a genuine possibility that cannot be ignored. Still, theism is pure guesswork.

Isn't this pretty basic stuff? I mean in my experience most Theists have already asked and answered these questions for themselves and are satisfied.

 

[Laika]

People should accept the fact that they most likely cannot have special knowledge of God.

Assume for a moment that there is a god and that you know rather than believe that this god exists. If you have knowledge of god's existence, surely you can therefore have knowledge of the essence of who or what that god is? we commonly assume that theists don't have knowledge of god because we reject revealed religion as a form of knowledge.

The question we have to ask is when this was thought to be adequate basis for knowledge for thousands of years, why should we reject it now? Are we really so certain that it is absolutely false and how can we be on the basis of reason when it was reason that meant people inferred the existence of a god for so long? the majority of atheists "lack belief in god" rather than cliaming to know "there is no god". they attack the plausbility of a god, rather than the possibility of one. the debate is still open until there is proof that there is no god have a burden of proof if we are to convince theists that the majority view for most of human history is wrong (even if it may not necessarily be logical to do so).

 

[George-ananda]

So basically, how can someone move from the belief that there is a God to something much, much, much more significant claims about God intervening in reality and caring about things such as sexual intercourse, what holy days are observed, what propitiations are made, what food and beverages are acceptable, etc.

It can happen because people can believe God has spoken through humans (like Jesus and Mohammed) and people learn from what those teacher have said. In my case (as a Hinduish type), I believe there are advanced souls who take human birth to teach. These people can relate the infinite to our level.

 

[Nakosis]

It's like, how do you know the moon really exists? I mean if you never seen the moon yourself, lived in a cave all your life. Folks could tell you about their experience of seeing the moon. If enough folks say the same thing, it's likely your going to start accepting the moon exists even if you haven't see it for yourself.

On the other hand, lets say you have seen the moon. You happen on some fellow stuck in a cave who's never seen it. You tell them the moon exists, they don't believe it cause they haven't seen it for themselves. You rely on what you've experienced for yourself, whereas they based on a lack of what you've experienced decide to not believe your claims. You offer to show them but for whatever reason, they choose to not follow you out of the cave. So there they sit, writing how silly it is for anyone to believe they have knowledge about the moon.

 

[pacifica]

If I were a believer I'd tell you that once you have accepted the existance of a God in the pantheist/deist way, you might very well be willing to worship it. Humans feel awe. Humans need and enjoy rituals. Every time we are truly awed by something it's like we have an inborn reflex to not only feel a connection to it, but also pay some kind of tribute to it (and/or attribute qualities to it that are not empirically self-evident, even if just figuratively. I'm talking for example about some hardcore mountaineers who start referring to The Mountains as if they were sentient). It's not simple chance that reverence is a synonym of awe. So I think we as a species are hard-wired, when in front of an awe-inspiring object, to feel 1) small, 2) connected to it, 3) like there's 'more' to it than meets the eye and 4) reverent. This is the perfect humus for the development of rituals and complex dogma. And we can all agree that the concept of God is pretty, excuse the pun, awesome.

Maybe this is going to be a weird example, but I'm thinking about erotic love. Have you ever felt so enthralled by a lover that you felt the need to worship their body, and them inside that body? I'm not talking about mere intercourse. And you're not doing it because you want something in return, like being loved more. You do it because it feels right to do it. It feels good. Your animal brain is compelled to show that devotion in a meaningful way. So, assuming that I'm correct, that humans generally need and enjoy paying unprompted tributes to the greatest, most important, life-altering facts of their lives, it's not too much of a stretch to think that, having accepted the idea of a God, one could decide (consciously or unconsciously) to channel that primordial sense of wonder in the ways that resonate the most to them, i.e. rituals. And that could also very well mean accepting the complexity and rigidity of religious laws.There is a leap, but not one as big as you think.

In a way, I don't think it's about God. As far as I know, at their intellectual cores the Abrahamic religions all posit that God is truly unknowable by the human mind. So it's about you, the believer. And maybe it's not about the laws per se either, the usual abstaining from eating pork or imbibing, but about the willingness to sacrifice some aspects of your life to honor the awe-inspiring idea that there is a God. Knowable or not, personal or not. And I can definitely see that being attractive for some.

 

[serp777]

It can happen because people can believe God has spoken through humans (like Jesus and Mohammed) and people learn from what those teacher have said. In my case (as a Hinduish type), I believe there are advanced souls who take human birth to teach. These people can relate the infinite to our level.

Yes and some humans believe scientologists talk to xenu, or that God tells terrorists they'll get 20 virgins in heaven when they blow up a school full of children along with themselves. Just because some humans have claimed they are intimately connected to the divine doesn't make it true; im sure you'd agree on this point. Why should I take the word of a 2000 year old dead guy written about after the fact and a terrorist who claims divine revelation? There is no reliable evidence and these prophets are mutually exclusive often times. None of these claims have any solid evidence and are all equally inconsistent and unreliable. There's no possible way anyone knows these claims are true to any degree of certainty. They happened so long ago and were done under the unscrupulous and easily fooled eye of bronze or iron age peasants. Not the most reliable judges of accuracy I would say. Again it would be easy for God to convince us of his truth--since he doesn't we can infer that he doesn't care about what we believe one way or the other.

Furthermore i've already refuted this point multiple times throughout my post. You have no evidence that any souls are more advanced than any others or that these people can bring the infinite down to our level.

 

[serp777]

I wonder the opposite. Once we accept the existence of a Creator, why should we assume that He has the intelligence to create such a complex world, the logic to formulate natural laws, but not the reasoning to do it all?
If you accept that there is a reason for all this, then its not a big jump to say that we, as a part of the creation are a part of that purpose and that He let us know what that purpose is.

One of your points that I think also needs addressing is where you say

If you think about it, what you are saying doesn't really follow. Omnipotence and infinite intelligence, means that the same amount of caring G-d has for the most important aspect of the world He created, He has for the least important creation. To Him, there is no 'most' and 'least' important because He is Infinite and they are finite and the chasm between them is infinity. But if we agree that there was some reasoning that drove G-d to create the world, then that reason is just as important as which path the leaf takes as it flutters to the ground- because in comparison to the omnipotent, infinitely intelligent G-d, they are both equally distant from Him.
Therefore, its exactly because of His omnipotence and infinite nature that G-d must care about every aspect of the world equally.

Once we accept the existence of a Creator, why should we assume that He has the intelligence to create such a complex world, the logic to formulate natural laws, but not the reasoning to do it all?

Just because he can create a complex world and formulate natural laws doesn't imply that he cares about us personally and worries about who we have sex with or what beliefs we hold.

I've addressed this already. You're talking like you know the mind of God. You don't know God that God cares at all. For all you know this may just be an interesting scientific experiment for him--to create universes and see them unwind in a random way. Perhaps god is infinitely bored or is curious about the possible universes he can make and we are just another interesting mechanism like fusion in a sun. Furthermore just because he is infinite doesn't mean that he doesn't consider things more or less important. How does it follow from A to B? Can you prove that an infinite being would inherently be unable to make judgments regarding more or less important things. What you're also saying is that humans have equal importance to a piece of poop if nothing is more or less important to God. That surely means that God doesn't care about us to any special degree.

Therefore, its exactly because of His omnipotence and infinite nature that G-d must care about every aspect of the world equally.

Its a complete non sequitor to say that an infinite being must care about every aspect of the world equally. You don't know the characteristics and mind of an infinite being. As neils bohr famously said "don't tell God what to do"--God can do anything he wants regardless of whether you tell him he has to behave to your preconceived ideas. Otherwise you're saying God has no free will--he has to care about every aspect of the world equally-he has no choice. THis is just plain inconsistent with everything you've said.

 

[serp777]

It's like, how do you know the moon really exists? I mean if you never seen the moon yourself, lived in a cave all your life. Folks could tell you about their experience of seeing the moon. If enough folks say the same thing, it's likely your going to start accepting the moon exists even if you haven't see it for yourself.

On the other hand, lets say you have seen the moon. You happen on some fellow stuck in a cave who's never seen it. You tell them the moon exists, they don't believe it cause they haven't seen it for themselves. You rely on what you've experienced for yourself, whereas they based on a lack of what you've experienced decide to not believe your claims. You offer to show them but for whatever reason, they choose to not follow you out of the cave. So there they sit, writing how silly it is for anyone to believe they have knowledge about the moon.

False analogy. The moon is an observable object whereas God is inherently not.

Here's a better analogy though--one guy comes up to you: he tells you that a block of cheese is orbiting the planet. Another person comes to you and says: there's a massive floating celestial teapot stuck in the sky. The next person then comes up to you and says: the world is flat and there is no moon. You soon head out side and realize that the a giant cloud of impenetrable fog covers the entire planet (and no ocean so you couldn't observe the effects) and you thus realize that no one could possibly know whats in the sky; the other people with mutually exclusive reports have faith that they're correct though, and they also claim they have a special, magical connection to a satellite in orbit which has assured them of the object they believe in. So you realize that everyone is full of it or delusional or insane or has subconscious desires, or is trying to gain social power by sharing a belief, etc. So your analogy assumes that its easy to see the moon, that the moon really exists, and that it would be inherently silly to question it. All of those assumptions cannot be verified. my analogy is much more accurate because it accounts for the vast discrepancies and inability to observe the thing everyone makes claims about.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes and some humans believe scientologists talk to xenu, or that God tells terrorists they'll get 20 virgins in heaven when they blow up a school full of children along with themselves. Just because some humans have claimed they are intimately connected to the divine doesn't make it true; im sure you'd agree on this point. Why should I take the word of a 2000 year old dead guy written about after the fact and a terrorist who claims divine revelation? There is no reliable evidence and these prophets are mutually exclusive often times. None of these claims have any solid evidence and are all equally inconsistent and unreliable. There's no possible way anyone knows these claims are true to any degree of certainty. They happened so long ago and were done under the unscrupulous and easily fooled eye of bronze or iron age peasants. Not the most reliable judges of accuracy I would say. Again it would be easy for God to convince us of his truth--since he doesn't we can infer that he doesn't care about what we believe one way or the other.

Furthermore i've already refuted this point multiple times throughout my post. You have no evidence that any souls are more advanced than any others or that these people can bring the infinite down to our level.

Because not every claim is true does not mean that no claim is ever true. I evaluate and consider the claims before accepting them on a case by case basis. For example my evaluation of the evidence and argumentation leads me to believe that Jesus and Mohammed were inspired by higher sources than themselves. Also I believe many Hindu teachers are advanced souls returning to teach spiritual truths. I consider all things before forming my opinion as to what is most reasonable to believe.

 

[serp777]

Assume for a moment that there is a god and that you know rather than believe that this god exists. If you have knowledge of god's existence, surely you can therefore have knowledge of the essence of who or what that god is? we commonly assume that theists don't have knowledge of god because we reject revealed religion as a form of knowledge.

The question we have to ask is when this was thought to be adequate basis for knowledge for thousands of years, why should we reject it now? Are we really so certain that it is absolutely false and how can we be on the basis of reason when it was reason that meant people inferred the existence of a god for so long? the majority of atheists "lack belief in god" rather than cliaming to know "there is no god". they attack the plausbility of a god, rather than the possibility of one. the debate is still open until there is proof that there is no god have a burden of proof if we are to convince theists that the majority view for most of human history is wrong (even if it may not necessarily be logical to do so).

How can you assume this knowledge is correct though in the first place? You cannot have knowledge of the accuracy of this understanding since it could be a delusion or some other neurological phenomena, or the ingestion of certain chemicals, etc.

We are not absolutely certain though--nobody is and that's the point. We can't realistically say we know the truth of something which has so many discrepancies and mutually exclusive reports as well as being inherently unverifiable.

 

[serp777]

Because not every claim is true does not mean that no claim is ever true. I evaluate and consider the claims before accepting them on a case by case basis. For example my evaluation of the evidence and argumentation leads me to believe that Jesus and Mohammed were inspired by higher sources than themselves. Also I believe many Hindu teachers are advanced souls returning to teach spiritual truths. I consider all things before forming my opinion as to what is most reasonable to believe.

Nothing you've said justifies the superiority or "more reasonableness" of your belief. I never said that because not every claim is true, it therefore means that no claim is true--thats a strawman. The point is that if you have a variety of claims with equivalent evidence, then all claims become equally likely. You have no basis to assume your belief is more valid that the terrorsit's belief. You assert quite boldly that hindu teachers are superior spiritually without showing how. Your opinion needs to have some justification to be warranted.

 

[serp777]

Isn't this pretty basic stuff? I mean in my experience most Theists have already asked and answered these questions for themselves and are satisfied.

Yes and plenty of people lie and deceive themselves to believe something with no evidence where millions of others believe mutually exclusive things on the same basis. Just because you propose an argument of popularity that most theists are satisfied, it doesn't really mean that any of their beliefs are true.

 

[serp777]

If I were a believer I'd tell you that once you have accepted the existance of a God in the pantheist/deist way, you might very well be willing to worship it. Humans feel awe. Humans need and enjoy rituals. Every time we are truly awed by something it's like we have an inborn reflex to not only feel a connection to it, but also pay some kind of tribute to it (and/or attribute qualities to it that are not empirically self-evident, even if just figuratively. I'm talking for example about some hardcore mountaineers who start referring to The Mountains as if they were sentient). It's not simple chance that reverence is a synonym of awe. So I think we as a species are hard-wired, when in front of an awe-inspiring object, to feel 1) small, 2) connected to it, 3) like there's 'more' to it than meets the eye and 4) reverent. This is the perfect humus for the development of rituals and complex dogma. And we can all agree that the concept of God is pretty, excuse the pun, awesome.

Maybe this is going to be a weird example, but I'm thinking about erotic love. Have you ever felt so enthralled by a lover that you felt the need to worship their body, and them inside that body? I'm not talking about mere intercourse. And you're not doing it because you want something in return, like being loved more. You do it because it feels right to do it. It feels good. Your animal brain is compelled to show that devotion in a meaningful way. So, assuming that I'm correct, that humans generally need and enjoy paying unprompted tributes to the greatest, most important, life-altering facts of their lives, it's not too much of a stretch to think that, having accepted the idea of a God, one could decide (consciously or unconsciously) to channel that primordial sense of wonder in the ways that resonate the most to them, i.e. rituals. And that could also very well mean accepting the complexity and rigidity of religious laws.There is a leap, but not one as big as you think.

In a way, I don't think it's about God. As far as I know, at their intellectual cores the Abrahamic religions all posit that God is truly unknowable by the human mind. So it's about you, the believer. And maybe it's not about the laws per se either, the usual abstaining from eating pork or imbibing, but about the willingness to sacrifice some aspects of your life to honor the awe-inspiring idea that there is a God. Knowable or not, personal or not. And I can definitely see that being attractive for some.

But it would be a non sequitor to go from that to knowing the mind of God. I don't see how the experience of love and the desire for religion means you know that God has certain attributes or characteristics. Being attractive has nothing to do with the reality of that thing, which I would hope all people recognize. Its the difference between what you want to be true and what actually is true. Furthermore just because something is awe inspiring or something doesn't mean whatsoever that God cares about who we have sex with lol. I fail to see the connection whatsoever. Its a giantic, massive, mega leap to say you can know the mind of an infinite being with a finite mind just because you have a sense of wonder. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[George-ananda]

The point is that if you have a variety of claims with equivalent evidence,

I argue the evidence for every claim is not equivalent. Some of the things I consider in spiritual claims is the quantity and quality of the evidence supporting a claim. Multiple witnesses of miraculous events by credible people is an example of something I consider (not blindly accept). The evidence for each of my beliefs would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[serp777]

I argue the evidence for every claim is not equivalent. Some of the things I consider in spiritual claims is the quantity and quality of the evidence supporting a claim. Multiple witnesses of miraculous events by credible people is an example of something I consider (not blindly accept). The evidence for each of my beliefs would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

BUt you haven't done that because you haven't provided any evidence demonstrating your beliefs are more valid whatsoever. Why aren't you a muslim though? I can cite you hundreds of examples of miracles that and eye witness account including those who claimed to see Mohommad fly to heaven on a winged horse. People have also allegedly had their cancers cured by people like Mother Theresa after she laid hands on the person with cancer. There are millions of reports of miracles and so many have been debunked or shown to be, at the very minimum, questionable. Furthermore miracles haven't occurred on video camera or in a laboratory where it could have been verified. it sure is convenient though that most miracles occur in very poor parts of the world with uneducated superstitious people or in times where people didnt even know the earth orbited the sun. Tricking these people would have been easy enough--magicians today are good enough to fool most people and we know that they are cheating somehow. Furthermore it may not be a miracle either--it could be just an advanced phenomena that science hasn't been able to explain yet. Or it could be a biological fluke for instance where a person is born spontaneously without a father and from a virgin. So you have to do a lot more than just assert the evidence exists. I think you look for so called evidence to try and support your predetermined position rather than letting evidence determine your position objectively.

 

[serp777]

It can happen because people can believe God has spoken through humans (like Jesus and Mohammed) and people learn from what those teacher have said. In my case (as a Hinduish type), I believe there are advanced souls who take human birth to teach. These people can relate the infinite to our level.

You believe in God and you're a hindu? So you've also invented your own religion almost--just like good old elron. Perhaps you should start a church and attempt to see life enhancing packages with a sprinkle of voodoo magic. But hinduism is a fundamentally polythestic religion while Christianity or Islam is a monothiest religion, unless you consider the trinity to be polytheism, which has always been a weird aspect. So if you believe in God then hinduism is basically irrelevant. You sound more like a non denominational christian.

 

[George-ananda]

BUt you haven't done that because you haven't provided any evidence demonstrating your beliefs are more valid whatsoever. Why aren't you a muslim though? I can cite you hundreds of examples of miracles that and eye witness account including those who claimed to see Mohommad fly to heaven on a winged horse. People have also allegedly had their cancers cured by people like Mother Theresa after she laid hands on the person with cancer. There are millions of reports of miracles and so many have been debunked or shown to be, at the very minimum, questionable. Furthermore miracles haven't occurred on video camera or in a laboratory where it could have been verified. it sure is convenient though that most miracles occur in very poor parts of the world with uneducated superstitious people or in times where people didnt even know the earth orbited the sun. Tricking these people would have been easy enough--magicians today are good enough to fool most people and we know that they are cheating somehow. Furthermore it may not be a miracle either--it could be just an advanced phenomena that science hasn't been able to explain yet. Or it could be a biological fluke for instance where a person is born spontaneously without a father and from a virgin. So you have to do a lot more than just assert the evidence exists. I think you look for so called evidence to try and support your predetermined position rather than letting evidence determine your position objectively.

First of all,. I think miracles have occurred in all the world's major religious traditions. Are you thinking that only one tradition is 'correct' and can have miracles? I consider at all the evidence for a miracle claim before forming my opinion. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that miracles do occur.