Why Miracles ?

1- We're not talking about metaphysics but about what Jesus taught and did not teach.

2- "Until you realize this and apply it in your life, you level of understanding of what we both read in the bible will most like remain less accurate than mine." ------------- rephrase it slightly and voila we're on the same page, "until you accept the teachings of my church and apply them in your interpretation of the Bible, your level of understanding of what we both read in the bible will most like remain less divorced from the teachings of Jesus than mine."

Rephrasing what I said totally changes its meaning---and thus you provide an example of your misinterpreting what I say just as you misinterpret what the bible says---you change it just enough to destroy the truth it contains.

Well, yes we are talking about metaphysics.  Because metaphysics tells you what it takes for human beings to accurately understand what God is saying in the scriptures.

I suspect God created Aristotle so that people like the Jehovah Witnesses and others wouldn't come to the erroneous conclusions based on misinterpretation of the concepts in the bible that they now teach. 

People who understand Aristotle understand what it takes to comprehend reality beyond what is written about it.

False prophets don't have to have evil intent, they just have to preach things that aren't true.

That's why I judge what you do, not you personally.




This post was edited by tom jackson at July 5, 2017 6:20 PM MDT

Not sure what Aristotle has to do with the Bible? He was an intelligent man but made mistakes as well.

[Aristotle Adopted by the Church
A further step leading to the confrontation between Galileo and the church occurred in the 13th century and involved Catholic authority Thomas Aquinas (1225-74). Aquinas had a profound respect for Aristotle, whom he referred to as The Philosopher. Aquinas struggled for five years to fuse Aristotle’s philosophy with church teaching. By the time of Galileo, says Wade Rowland in his book Galileo’s Mistake, “the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome.” Keep in mind, too, that in those days there was no scientific community as such. Education was largely in the hands of the church. The authority on religion and science was often one and the same.
The stage was now set for the confrontation between the church and Galileo. Even before his involvement with astronomy, Galileo had written a treatise on motion. It challenged many assumptions made by the revered Aristotle. However, it was Galileo’s steadfast promotion of the heliocentric concept and his assertion that it harmonizes with Scripture that led to his trial by the Inquisition in 1633.
In his defense, Galileo affirmed his strong faith in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. He also argued that the Scriptures were written for ordinary people and that Biblical references to the apparent movement of the sun were not to be interpreted literally. His arguments were futile. Because Galileo rejected an interpretation of Scripture based on Greek philosophy, he stood condemned! Not until 1992 did the Catholic Church officially admit to error in its judgment of Galileo.]

[In the third century B.C.E., a Greek named Aristarchus of Samos put forth the hypothesis that the sun is at the center of the cosmos, but his ideas were dismissed in favor of Aristotle’s.]

1- "you change it just enough to destroy the truth it contains." ----------- If I'm quoting from the bible I quote verbatim.

2- It is THE LANGUAGE which tells you what God is saying in the scriptures, not metaphysics.

3- I'm sure a JW would be pleased to explain to you their basis for "the concepts in the bible that they now teach." and I'm sure they don't see their understanding as "erroneous conclusions based on misinterpretation"

4- A "reality beyond what is written about it" is a "reality" you will need to be able to demonstrate to others as a reality. If you fail to do that then it just remains as nothing more than a subjective claim.

5- "False prophets don't have to have evil intent, they just have to preach things that aren't true." -------- fine, that's why we ask them to justify what they preach in a way that we can check it out for ourselves.

6- "That's why I judge what you do" ------------- that's a bit difficult over the internet where the best you can do is judge what I say.

You mean you use pseudoscience, which is better than normal science.

And they are only inconsistencies that exist in your mind, not in reality. 

"they are only inconsistencies that exist in your mind, not in reality." -------------- they start off as perceptions of YOUR reality [for example, the trinity] and on analysis are stored as inconsistencies in most rational minds.

"they are only inconsistencies that exist in your mind, not in reality." -------------- they start off as perceptions of YOUR reality [for example, the trinity] and on analysis are stored as inconsistencies in most rational minds.

How could anyone not be present to witness the ongoing miracles that occur each and every instant? 

Yeah, there is.   There are none so dense as those who are stuck seeing only one way. 

Prove there are miracles. Show scientists they are wrong, and you should win a Nobel Prize. There are none so dense as those people who blindly believe in dumb hoaxes.

Definition of miracle (internet)---an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

Literally, they exist by definition---conceptually at the very least.  Or if you want to get technical, as possible happenings.

There is no objective evidence that they exist.

Totally missed the point---Never studied Aristotle, I guess.

I read some of Aristotle and Plato when I was young. They had some good ideas, but some are obsolete by now. Aristotle is often called the father of logic, but it has expanded since his time.

Of course some of his explanations of nature were quite simply wrong, but his Metaphysics was and is a significant, lasting contribution.

I've read some excerpts from medical texts---but you won't find me claiming that I know medicine.

There is dispute about the value of metaphysics. Guatama the Buddha rejected it, and so have some philosophers.

And atheists dispute the value of the bible---pick a reasonable target rather than just firing at will.  Anything can reject anything---the ultimate question is whether it is actually being rejected because it is false.  Truth, including "true" philosophy is not determined by popular vote.

Atheists agree that the Bible, Quran, Torah, Book of Mormon, Vedas, Eddas, etc. are only primitive fiction. It is quite logical to reject sacred texts, for they are obviously fiction used in scams. Some philosophers debate the validity of metaphysics, and some reject it. There may be valid reason or not for rejecting anything. You seem biased. I took some philosophy in college. The Bible and other sacred texts are quite obviously false, so it is logical to reject them. Some philosophers have logical arguments about metaphysics. You cannot casually brush that aside.

I'm sure atheists agree on many things, including that comment about religious texts being works of fiction.  but I certainly brush that aside.

And no I am not "biased"---I simply take for granted that anything not inherently self contradictory can exist as a possible being.