There's no evidence that there is a creator?

[Kenny]

Not necessarily from the human perspective. At present the claimed miracles remain anecdotal.

With what critical thinking did you use to come to that conclussion?

It is not a matter of belief it is a matter of context. Even if I 'believed' I experienced a miracle it remains possible that there is a natural explanation.

Actually in other Baha'i writings the supernatural and the miraculous are actually the natural not understood from the human perspectve, and boundary is not clear.

OK... then what you have defined, basically eliminating the spiritual which is not natural.

Doesn't that mean, in essence, that there are no miracles?

and I dont think you answered this:

So, now that we have established there are miracles, could you please reference me where I EVER said "but the claims to justify and attribute to ONE religious belief is egocentric"?

Or is that just another one of not explaining yourself well?

 

[shunyadragon]

With what critical thinking did you use to come to that conclussion?

Claims of the miraculous do not have objective verifiable evidence that may be consistently verified, and most claims are by those with a religious agenda.

OK... then what you have defined, basically eliminating the spiritual which is not natural.

Doesn't that mean, in essence, that there are no miracles?

and I don't think you answered this:

No, the spiritual is spiritual not of this physical world and a different realm of existence. The problem with miracles is the claim and justification from the human perspective.

 

[Audie]

Not necessarily from the human perspective. At present the claimed miracles remain anecdotal.

It is not a matter of belief it is a matter of context. Even if I 'believed' I experienced a miracle it remains possible that there is a natural explanation.

Actually in other Baha'i writings the supernatural and the miraculous are actually the natural not understood from the human perspectve, and boundary is not clear.

Now, personally, I am not a miracle-believer. Also, I think that if there
are miracles, that the very vast majority of reports / claims of miracles are
just bs.

If there is "God" in the Christian sense, then He is not out to prove his
own existence, scrupulously avoids it, seemingly. So He wont be doing
miracles that can be shown to have happened. Faith, and all. What
use is faith if you have proof.

I dont see any use in belief, Iit wont get one any miracles. If you get one,
it wont matter if you didnt believe; you will then. I see no point in even talking
about them other than maybe discussion of the latest fraud.

Of course, it is noted that the great majority of people (put in your chosen percent)
do believe in the supernatural. Which perforce includes belief in miracles.

This belief is considered innate, and to be deeply significant as evidence of
the supernatural.

What is your take on that?

 

[Audie]

Claims of the miraculous do not have objective verifiable evidence that may be consistently verified, and most claims are by those with a religious agenda.



No, the spiritual is spiritual not of this physical world and a different realm of existence. The problem with miracles is the claim and justification from the human perspective.

People talk a lot about "spiritual planes" and "different realms", but,
it all sounds like hooey to me. Why doesnt it to you?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not so much that it doesn't matter if It exists or not, but that It's existence is irrelevant for us in this life. But that still doesn't address the Why? of it.

Because He's on permanent vacation. He's done His work, and now He is happily retired, sipping the nectar of the gods on the edge of some spiral galaxy somewhere. I honestly don't see how anything else makes sense.

 

[SomeRandom]

The first step to that wisdom you speak of is learning when to be serious, when not, and telegraphing same in some manner--which is especially important with delicate discussions on a board using written language. The problem with never being serious (which I feel certain you don't really mean) is that no one would ever take you seriously, and you soon become a 100% joke.

In all seriousness, I am flippant and snarky by default.

 

[Audie]

In all seriousness, I am flippant and snarky by default.

Sometimes that is wiser and easier to take seriously than when
someone gets all ponderous and profound.

Snark, rightly applied, is a terrific tool. Satire is an older word for it.
Satirists are of a proud tradition.

Done badly of course, it is awful. Like a souffle, that way.

Humour often cuts right to the heart of something-that is a lot of what
it is for.

Keep it up.

 

[shunyadragon]

People talk a lot about "spiritual planes" and "different realms", but,
it all sounds like hooey to me. Why doesnt it to you?

Difficult question. The atheist/strong agnostic would hold your view. I am a Baha'i theist and will give it some thought. I do believe there is evidence for this, but it is very inconclusive.

 

[Audie]

Difficult question. The atheist/strong agnostic would hold your view. I am a Baha'i theist and will give it some thought. I do believe there is evidence for this, but it is very inconclusive.

Evidence, or suggestions?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Anything supernatural, or Godcentric is just too fantastical to believe to me. But a natural intelligent cause for life to me is very appropriate even though there are random processes in nature. I think that life is a fringe part of existence, but it had to always exist.

Given the finite history of the universe there had to be a first designer that came about without any help from another intelligence, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I vote yes. I have seen the evidence. I have seen patterns everywhere. But, not just in the physical subject matter but in the supernatural phenomenon all around us and I have reasoned that the weird stuff that seems to exist all around has to have greater stuff than it is just like I exist under greater stuff than I am in this world. I looked up above all the wonderful Earth real stuff and all the spiritual weird stuff and I saw God there.

Could you share what some of that evidence is?

 

[Audie]

Given the finite history of the universe there had to be a first designer that came about without any help from another intelligence, wouldn't you agree?

Why?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Human beings do not have the capacity with all of their science to make something that lives, grows, and evolves.

Apparently, your parents didn't teach you about the birds and the bees. Do you not know where babies come from? I think you will find that humans make new humans all of the time.

Even if you say, did abiogenesis in a lab. That's life, created, in a lab. The whole premise proves, not disproves causal life. This by definition has a creator, just as you had to work to make it in a lab. Suddenly declaring what you spent hours or days (or weeks or years on) as without author would likely be enough to make you quit, and sue for lack of credit.

If we make lightning in the laboratory, does this mean that all lightning requires a supernatural creator?

But suppose you say that such arose randomly. Alrighty, then. Let's put monkeys in a room and surely they'll produce Shakespeare.

When have we ever observed a supernatural deity creating life? Why don't you hold your beliefs to the same standards that you hold abiogenesis to?

Evolution is not, nor shall it ever be, mutually exclusive with the idea of a deity.

I agree. The problem is that there is no evidence for a deity. It is the lack of evidence for a deity that is the problem here.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Why?

Why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given the finite history of the universe there had to be a first designer that came about without any help from another intelligence, wouldn't you agree?

By this logic the intelligence needs an intelligence to create it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

With what critical thinking did you use to come to that conclussion?

Evidence needs to be independent of the person making the claim and verifiable.

 

[Audie]

Why not?

Coz Kalan-Kalan is tiresome

 

[Audie]

Evidence needs to be independent of the person making the claim and verifiable.

Why?

 

[Audie]

By this logic the intelligence needs an intelligence to create it.

Or another way, the universe is like, kinda big, and that is amazing!

The only explanation for it is that something even bigger made it.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Why?

"People lie."--Dr. House