Questions for MysticPhd

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Well, I think in opinion something is going on

I do not think anyone - or at least anyone I have noticed myself on the thread - is denying something is going on. The question is "what" and above you claimed "miracles". Yet you appear unwilling to answer what you think these miracles are - or how you are defining what constitutes a "miracle".

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Going through Lourdes and Fatima stories

Stories. Anecdotes. Such stories exist all over the place. If "Stories" are your measure then everything from "miracles" - to "homeopathy" - will see true to you because all these things have "stories" supporting them.

Lets get out of the realm of storytelling and into the realm of reality? To my knowledge no one has yet levitated - without the assistence of technology. And if you believe stories that someone did - this says more about you than about reality.

[alexcanter]

Originally Posted by monumentus

I do not think anyone - or at least anyone I have noticed myself on the thread - is denying something is going on. The question is "what" and above you claimed "miracles". Yet you appear unwilling to answer what you think these miracles are - or how you are defining what constitutes a "miracle".



Stories. Anecdotes. Such stories exist all over the place. If "Stories" are your measure then everything from "miracles" - to "homeopathy" - will see true to you because all these things have "stories" supporting them.

Lets get out of the realm of storytelling and into the realm of reality? To my knowledge no one has yet levitated - without the assistence of technology. And if you believe stories that someone did - this says more about you than about reality.

Alright I will try to explain if possible ,

but I'm not going to contradict myself out of an entry made just this week where I expanded on an answer with Box ( not good at names-apologies) .

The entry suggested it is believed a contradiction to try and present concrete evidence of a superior power or God because it would suggest man can control the introduction of such a thing and command at a creatures will .

Not talking about inspiration which is what miracles are, I don't think I know of a miracle where a superior power has left something unusual not of this world behind for example.

Something unusual and not of this world left behind would be the criteria I'm guessing.

So if story telling won't work then it is something left behind, a raider's ark of sorts or chariot, can this be more specific. ( once the terms become material it introduces another problem for the evidence.

[monumentus]

The above just sounds like a cop out excuse for not presenting evidence for god(s). We see that a lot around here. Rather than give arguments for why we should think there is a god - we instead hear people give us excuses for why they will never do so.

If you want to define "miracles" as "inspirtation" and nothing more - then why even use the word "miracles". We have a perfectly coherent and useful word for inspiration - it is - wait for it - "inspiration". And it does not come with any of the baggage that "miracles" comes with.

If "miracles" is to be defined as "not of this world" then I like you can think of no example of this whatsoever. I can think of nothing that fits any of the tradition definitions of the word. So you appear to be redefining it for no reason - other than to hold on to the word.

[alexcanter]

Originally Posted by monumentus

The above just sounds like a cop out excuse for not presenting evidence for god(s). We see that a lot around here. Rather than give arguments for why we should think there is a god - we instead hear people give us excuses for why they will never do so.

If you want to define "miracles" as "inspirtation" and nothing more - then why even use the word "miracles". We have a perfectly coherent and useful word for inspiration - it is - wait for it - "inspiration". And it does not come with any of the baggage that "miracles" comes with.

If "miracles" is to be defined as "not of this world" then I like you can think of no example of this whatsoever. I can think of nothing that fits any of the tradition definitions of the word. So you appear to be redefining it for no reason - other than to hold on to the word.

I didn't say miracles were inspiration and nothing more. And I can think of incidence's or miracles which contain all the requirements of, not of this world, but there is nothing material left behind so it becomes a story. Well, the non-corruptible's would be an exception and a few other's but the few other's I don't think would be things of interest . Im not really into proving things and seldom get into this area of things .

[monumentus]

I was responding to the line "Not talking about inspiration which is what miracles are" where you clearly did equate the two. If your meaning was intended to be something else - then I can only request you be clearer.

So you can think of examples - but they are just stories? Sounds like you got nothing really.