Leaderboard

The sentence "I hope this makes sense." was referring to my first paragraph. I was in a hurry to finish the post and stuck it at the end. It was a "haste makes waste" sort of thing. "Taking it on faith" is considered a strong virtue for those who believe in a religion. Even when their god(s) fail them, most will hold on to it still.

Why do we no longer see the miracles that were prevalent before we could scrutinize them and subject them to inquiry? Why is it easier to make excuses for why an omnipotent God is powerless to bring good to pass than it is to recognize he is a fictional character who could not affect our lives if he had an existence or will that wanted to?

Of course it makes sense. EVERY human is highly qualified to rationalize and therefore justify what they believe about anything, including what they consider God. Same goes for EVERY religion. There is no religion that can rightly claim their God (or god or gods) is/are the only true God and that they can prove it. It's all about taking it on faith. IOW, every religion has an origin story and a narrative about what they believe is THE truth.

Personally for me I mean unless people are talking about parking space miracles which is another story completely I don’t have periods of time in my life of walking on water in any sense. And so other times where I sink in water are pretty much normal. Should God make the Yankees or the Red Sox win the World Series? Which one would be bringing good to pass? How about war? Do Gods people always win? Who should God make win the next election? ”With great power comes great responsibility” Peter Parker, Spider-Man

It's ALL bull$ hit. Occam's razor, to me, suggests it's ALL nothing more/less than rationalization. Why do people fall for it? That's not an easy question to answer. I suspect academics (philosophers/psychologists/sociologists) have been pondering it for years. Maybe 200 years or more.

I disagree. I think you [not you, but the community of faith in general] posited a God who exists and who demonstrates his existence only to turn around and redefine existence so as to make it undetectable to account for the fact that he fails any test for existence. If you ever get a chance, look up Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage and you'll see my point. The Bible does not describe a God who will do His best to avoid detection as a test of faith. It describes a God who rewards those who diligently seek him with tangible evidence of his power. **** For anyone not following threads, this thread is intended as the unbeliever's answer to a similarly titled thread in doctrinal. Because doctrinal is supposed to explore the Biblical answer to the questions raised therein, I chose not to respond there. But why do we not see the same miracles today that we saw in the first century or in the 1970s when people told incredible [and coincidentally unverifiable] stories of miraculous healings? You guys are twisting yourselves into pretzels seeking an answer to the point of denying any such "scarcity" exists. My unbelieving ass is sitting here giggling vecause the answer is so painfully obvious: The scarcity of miracles is directly relate to the non-existence of a power behind them.