True Miracles Don't Happen Today Because We Now Have Ways Of Explaining...

» Home » Miscellaneous

True Miracles Don't Happen Today Because We Now Have Ways Of Explaining Them Or Proving Them To Be False.

Nowadays people no longer pretend to have witnessed a miracle because there are too many CCTV cameras to lie. Mary will never visit lourdes again, no one will ever walk on water again. Should we await the 2nd coming to see? Or should we accept we were duped?

JiM_McG

27 Aug 2008 23:29

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Every miracle that has taken place can easily be explained

Tromanator

25 Sep 2008 12:38

Add a Comment

I agree with you on that. There are no miracles, everything has a rational explanation for it.

Tsuksa

11 Sep 2008 22:11

Add a Comment

Although I do believe there are amazing things that happen in life which cannot always be explained (we might call some of them "miracles" sometimes) I also get your point that many of the past events called miracles might not have been if a camera were recording what really happened. Yes, in the modern age of better recording technology the incidence of miracles has greatly decreased.

People have different threshholds for what they call a miracle too. Someone medically surviving what they weren't supposed to is one form of miracle (I'd agree with that). Someone noticing a wall stain is shaped kind of like the Virgin Mary may want to claim it's a miracle - but I'd say no it's not.

Grenache

29 Aug 2008 15:38

Add a Comment

Jesus was probably the cris angel of the 10 a.d.'s, i think he just failed on his last escape.

iLoveJesus

28 Aug 2008 05:08

2 Comments

Has Chris Angel brought back anyone from the dead after 3 days?
You did read about the lady in the hospital that died about a month ago, she had no heartbeat, no brain activity for like ten hours and they decided to pull the plug. Her body temperature was way down and she had gone into rigormortis. When they pulled the plug, she woke up with no ill affects.

paladen

28 Aug 2008 05:24

Comment

AAah! Well, your definition of a miracle is different to mine, an extraordinary or unexpected event to me is just that, unexpected, or extraordinary. But not a miracle, as i believe a miracle is something we cannot explain with science, it is unexplainable and therefore must be either "magic" or just plain "miraculous"

But i understand your terminology, watching someone carry a child from a fire is certainly miraculous. But I intended it more like someone FLYING a child from a fire??

JiM_McG

27 Aug 2008 23:59

3 Comments

That's the sort of miracle we need. Or the Angel delivering a winning lottery ticket. If god really wants to save me and is all powerful then he could pull a pretty incredible stunt that would leave me in no doubt of his existence. If I had his powers I would do it.

Mosschops

28 Aug 2008 01:07

Comment

Miracles happen just the same as they ever have. It is just that we now can explain them for what they are. Not acts of god.

Mosschops

27 Aug 2008 23:45

7 Comments

Nice!! But could you give me an example of a miracle that fits your description? A miracle not caused by any god? So does that only relate to miracles today or miracles in religious scripture too?

JiM_McG

27 Aug 2008 23:55

Comment

I define the term “miracle” as being "an extraordinary and often unexpected event". By my definition, miracles happen all the time. If you choose to define the word “miracle” as meaning “an act of a god” however, then you’ve already crossed the path into subjectivity through interpretation by entering the non-falsifiable zone.

Hizashi

27 Aug 2008 23:42

Add a Comment

Well honestly who ever made this must believe in miracles if they are mentioning the second coming....jesus here on earth was a miracle to us all.......and true miracles???? What is a false "miracle"????

UNC1saac

02 Sep 2008 04:41

Add a Comment

Well, logically you can not say that. You are not all places at all times.Their are not cameras everywhere.I will agree with you on one point. Alot of the false miracles will stop happening.

Bugman

30 Aug 2008 00:29

Add a Comment

I agree that there are unexplained miracles all the time, so I disagree with the premise here, Also Christians are the only ones who believed in the first "coming" of the messiah. Jews are still waiting, and no one else cares. Except Muslims, and they have their own messiah issues.

grokit

29 Aug 2008 15:46

Add a Comment

Loch Ness still happens. There's TV shows taking cameras into haunted houses. Get real.

Try again on your attempt to be controversial. Pfft

justsumguy

28 Aug 2008 03:38

21 Comments

Lock ness still happens?? The lake has been thoeoughly examined (using something like sonar) and they found zero evidence, plus the sides of the lake are too hard and smooth to hide any caves. There are tv shows where people fly and paint the future.

I cant believe i was just Pfft!!
hahaha! :D

JiM_McG

28 Aug 2008 03:42

Comment

ok Jim...here we go
1. I don't have a religion
2. You are starting topics (plural) which are offensive then claiming it's unintentional (answer the charges if you think you are a debater - pretend-lie-duped (don't blame me)
3. Already told you, those who believe don't share your reasoning about miracles. I couldn't care less about them. Your personal existence is the biggest miracle imaginable. Anything imaginable could happen right now and it wouldn't suprise me.
4. And you can hint at my indulgence but I'm simply speaking the truth.
5. What you describe in your last paragraph is exactly what I was doing. The FACT that Loch Ness is a topic on this site and STILL being believed by some after all the attempts to prove that the monster doesn't exist and the FACT there are tv shows with cameras trying to capture the evidence of spirits and ghosts  ANSWERS your debate.

The answer is a clear NO regarding the cctv cameras. You see, when I debate...I debate the issue. Of course, you didn't care about the issue any more than the bad teeth and acne topic. They're all the same to you. Then I have Mosschops wanting to take this serious and feeling sorry for you. What a couple of babies. lol

Comment

JSG - just got back on today and read all of this.  Apologies for thinking you were speaking to me and I can see why you thought Jim was being provaocative but don't understand why it got you so upset.  You poked a bit of fun at me and on my part it is taken in good spirits providing you can take a little back.  I am sure you can.

This is a valid topic aimed at those that believe in the bible being an exact story that should be taken at face value.  That does not include you apparently but it does include millions of people and plenty of whom are on this site.  It is a question of breaking down how ridiculous their beliefs are, (that Jesus was the son of god and that the Bible should be used as anything more than a story book to teach some good morals), piece by piece.  There is evidence that people do believe in miracles and think that things like a gun not firing is gods work.  I find this interesting as it highlights how the human mind works and the lack of understanding we have of probability.  A subject that facinates me.  If you don't have any interest in this subject then why comment? I think you don't realise how relevant this subject is to the big picture.  All you have done is get on your highhorse.

I am sorry I don't get the Loch Ness remarks.  Nor do I understand how you could say that Jesus could destroy this universe with a thought.  That is pure opinion and nothing of it can be considered fact as it is based on nothing but your thoughts.  You entitled to believe it but you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Just out of interest why say Jesus when you previously stated you weren't religious, just spiritual?  Surely Jesus is connected directly to the religion of Christianity.  If you are just spiritual wouldn't you consider the whole Jesus/son of god business a bit fictional?

Comment

Good question.

As usual, we debaters take off from different starting lines on these topics. I usually try and take them at face value. When I read this topic I see two major issues. The first, is the what I consider to be the criteria of the topic which is the existence of cctv cameras (recording equipment) to offset rediculous claims. My first comment directly addresses this issue. I thought it was simple so I didn't go into detail. If anything, the manipulation of recorded data in todays world is even more preposterous. We see it everyday on utube. The fact that some people are still fascinated by Loch Ness is another great example. After all the modern technology applied to Loch Ness, you would think it would be finally dismissed. The only reason I'm using Loch Ness (there are many better examples) is because I saw it here as a topic of discussion. Again, I think the claim of this topic is poor. My assessment has NOTHING to do with the validity of miracles.

The reason I was beligerent is because I like dishing back what is dished out. The terminology used in the description is arrogant and beligerent. And yes, I take offense to your comment to me while you disregard the purpose of my comment. (Don't get me wrong - it's all fun to me) I know through our exchanges that you have a brain and can be reasonable. I respect your assessments. When I fire off in one of these debates, there is a purpose. I want the reaction so I can start breaking the debate down where it needs to be.

I'll take your last paragraph before the 3rd. I am not a member of a religion. I do not go to church. There is no such thing as the religion of Christianity. It is frustrating having to perpetually deal with comments which make no sense. The arguments between non-believers and believers are of absolutely NO value unless the words and phrases are defined. The two sides are not debating the same things. They are going around in circles saying nothing. The basis of both sides are null and void when addressing the other.

I will tell you what I know. I know a perfect, eternal God who created me. I know him more than I know anything. In fact, eternity is all I can know. Everything temporal, that would be everything that comprises the universe, which would include every single aspect of your reasoning (as long as you claim to have no connection to eternity), is for me, not knowable. Please try and understand this fact:
I do understand your reasoning. I am here in this universe. Our experiences are much the same. I am not writing from a mental institution. My life is what most people (including atheists) would consider quite normal. This is a VERY important point.

ok...you can dismiss me as either lieing, or misguided. If I'm lieing there is no reason to debate with me. It's silly. If I'm misguided, you can try to guide me. It's the same for me applied to you.

But please try to understand, there is a big difference. I, do have some sort of common ground with your universal reasoning. I am able to debate on your grounds.

But come on Mosschops. By your definition, my grounds are what? Lies? Misguided? Whatever the case....how close can you come to my reasoning which seems so alien to you. Do you see my point? I'm not talking right or wrong here. I'm talking about the ability to reasonably debate the opposing reasoning of two persons.

I'm not just spiritual. Jesus is my saviour. That's another 1000 word essay.

Comment

So why Jesus and not Muhammed or Haile Selassie?   Christianity is a religion.  How can you just decide alone to change that fact that is recognised across the world?  The Christian religion states that the Christian God put Jesus, his son (or he himself) on this earth, to save and direct us.  If you believe that you are a Christian regardless of whether you agree or not.   Quite where you fit in to that spectrum is open to debate.

I am sorry much as enjoy talking with you and consider you a well educated person I really don't understand the grounds you are debating on.   It may be my lack of nouse.   There is no need to mention lies to me again, I don't think you are lying but the more you say it the more reason I have to think thou doth protest too much.   I don't understand why you think we are eternal, I have heard you say this many times yet you have not explained the grounds as to why you think this.   Until you do it is impossible for me to understand your point of view.  I think it needs some elboration with sound reasons.   My position is quite clear, until I have a reason to believe in something I won't believe it, I can see no problem in this stance.

As for the offence I caused that was a simple misunderstanding that I hope we have put in its place and can forget.