What’s a flawed creature? A wanting one? Well, I don’t believe this is the definition of a “flawed” creature. In any case, you’re assuming that a very deterministic God who controls every facet of existence; He doesn’t. He only controls that which He wishes to control - usually very little.
As far as the “Christian position,” there are many of those. Which are you referring to? I consider myself more Kierkegaardian in thought.
First, great, now we use the Matrix for theology too.
Second, no. The telelogical sense is much higher than the aesthetic sense. Indeed, it’s higher than the ethical.
I am not using the Miracle at Lanciano as a proof.
I’m using it as evidence of supernatural phenomenon that coincides with the existence of God.
As far as your objections go,
The story goes that the Priest only turned around for a moment - as traditional Mass usually facilitates - and so the idea that he could just, voila, get a heart and a pint of blood from thin air without divine presence is a little difficult to work with.
To actually cut a perfectly full heart out of a human being takes quite a great deal of skill and precision that would have been unheard of in those days.
Even today, the heart and the blood have not disintegrated. Why? Well, you could suggest that there are preservatives, but those were tested for. You could also suggest that the Church just switches out the hearts every day, but that too seems unlikely.
Again, I will proclaim this as evidence, not proof, that God does exist - or at least a supernatural being exists - and that He does wish to reveal Himself to us.
But it’s not evidence of anything. Not unless you can prove it’s real.
You’ve never seen a stage magician?
It doesn’t take any skill to cut a heart out of person; and it’s not a full heart anyway, just a little piece (assuming it’s heart at all).
Doesn’t seem terribly unlikely to me. Far more likely than that it used to be a piece of bread! But there are other examples of tissues not decaying, etc.; I don’t know what conditions are required.
Well, I gave him the chance!! (seriously, I really did get a piece of bread, etc.). You’re saying he wishes to reveal himself to that monk in 700, but not to me? Or to anyone else who does the experiment. Seems a tad unfair…
Ever since you wrote your post, I’ve consistently doubted that you would send me $100. Sure enough, you didn’t. I conclude that you don’t exist.
–Len
Nobody ever suggested that I go around sending $100 to people, but Niccolò did suggest that God goes around turning bread into meat (in fact, that this happens on a regular and predictable basis…just not usually when anyone can see it…)
To be clear, I’m not knocking your post as a theist. Were I an atheist, I’d still knock your frivolous “experiment.” Niccolò didn’t state the conditions under which God supposedly does this, so your experiment is invalid anyway. Had Niccolò suggested that God always turns bread into meat whenever anyone wishes for it, your experiment would have proven that Niccolò’s assertion is incorrect. Which you could prove more easily by spectometry of a communion wafer received from a priest at mass, which would prove it to be bread, which would provoke Niccolò to claim that it’s “chemically” bread but “mystically” meat, or some such nonsense. By the same direct approach, you could poke holes in all manner of silly Catholic superstitions.
I merely point out that none of that is relevant to the existence or nonexistence of non-human, non-terrestrial sentience, including anything from ETs to gods to the God of Abraham. (Also note: calling Him “the God of Ahraham and Niccolò” begs the question whether Abraham and Niccolò worshiped the same God. Abraham might take offense at that implication, were he here to do so.)
–Len.
As a general request, I would like for you all to remain respectful toward one another, lest I have to start moderating this thread. Personal attacks are superfluous and in no way contribute to the discussion.
hahaha sectarian religious debates are funny. In my opinion, Niccolo is in the lead by virtue of reading Kierkegaard.
Ignored the word “flawed”, then. Why would God create beings and want their worship?
You said God doesn’t “care” about things because it’s a human emotion; how is “caring” or “minding” any more human than “desiring”?
You’re asking for a logical explanation of a particular being’s subjective values. As well ask why I like curry, or why my son likes baseball. Sentient creatures have subjective preferences, and they can’t be reduced to a syllogism.
I can’t speak for Nick, but it is fair to observe that an alien being may or may not see things as we do. From the alien’s perspective, we might be potential friends, or potential food, or insignificant as a bug, or an interesting specimen, or an infestation harming the whale population that the alien really cares about. So asking whether the alien “cares” about us may not even be meaningful outside our own frame of reference.
–Len
Brainpolice, if you don’t acknowledge that a system in which the majority of individuals can vote themselves “free” money, paid for by a minority of individuals is more self-perpetuating than a system in which the majority of individuals can vote to send their brothers, husbands, and friends to die in foreign wars, paid for by every individual roughly evenly, there isn’t much more to say.
I will comment about the NAP and how it applies to wars: this discussion was played it in the Trolley thread, but I harming human shields doesn’t mean you’re violating the NAP; it means the people using the human shields are violating it.
Except it has been proven to be real…
Wow.. Grasping on straws are we?
Oh no, it is a full heart and it certainly is a heart as the testing showed in 1971 and in 1973 by the WHO.
Actually, it takes a great deal of skill to cut out a heart without accidentally tearing it.
The heart and blood were left out in the atmosphere with no special preservations for over half a millenium.
His revelation to the monk was a revelation to you. You simply reject it.
In any case, again, it doesn’t seem important for God to reveal Himself to those that already reject Him. He’s not a magician to do tricks for all to see. He’s the Holy Lord Our God.
I said I don’t know if “care” is the correct word. I wouldn’t apply words of humanity to a being that is separate from them. I believe “care” is a weak way to refer to God’s ambitions and emotions.
I’m atheist, but I do hope God exists. My only point was that regardless of whether He exists, I see absolutely no reason to worshipping Him; the desire for others’ attention seems to be a very human thing.
:the ignostic sits back and eats popcorn: