a logical explanation doesn't that neccesarily put them or anyone who thinks in this way in denial of spiritual acts of God even if they were personal witnessess to God performing such acts?
2007-11-18 17:28:06 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Absolutely! What happened when Jesus did miracles? The Jews decided He was a magician...."If one rose from the dead,they still would not believe."
I would like to answer the guy above me, if I may.The way a Christian knows the voice of god is through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jesus said "My sheep know my voice and another, they will not follow."
2007-11-18 19:49:35 · answer #1 · answered by BERT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Logic is not a branch of science it is a branch of philosophy. Not all things have logical explanation, some system is so complex that causality is not clear. People tend to make one-to-one causality concept in their mind, when things are not always works like that.
If you don't understand what I say in this point, then you will have to learn more before you can even understand your own question, least the answer.
Worry not though, life itself is an answer for questions we have, never expect answers that can be easily understood without effort or further study, because you wont get anything out of it.
2007-11-19 02:02:03 · answer #2 · answered by seed of eternity 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
Science is a branch of study. It is not a being or an entity that can make claims. It is correct to say that *scientists* have found that many many ''things'' have a logical explanation.
Would you define ''spiritual acts of god"?
2007-11-19 01:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Every one of them can tell you what the fruits of the spirit are. The concept is used to demonstrate the shallowness of many Christians in that they are not able to interpret their own scriptures. But when pressed to discuss things pertaining to the spirit you will run up against much opposition. It is absolutely vital that they not discuss things of the heart and soul, for in that realm lies evidence of God, and sufficient evidence could serve as proof. The practice is intellectual dishonesty. Every explanation will move back to the idea that only empirical evidence is valid.
Why would a Christian bother to answer a question directed toward atheists? At one time I might have been able to teach you something.
Edit:
imalcoholic2, in his post just above mine, has stated the simple truth of what has been practice in this forum. Honest and open discussion of spiritual matters has been hi-jacked, to a great extent, by those who only have empirical evidence to support their position. The incessant demand to produce the same, evidence which can be examined by scientific method, is a straight-jacket. In light of many valid arguments for the existence of God the abundance of His work in the natural world serves as supporting evidence. Scientific method alone would rule out this evidence as invalid.
2007-11-19 01:56:16 · answer #4 · answered by sympleesymple 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not logical explanation, unless you mean internally logical. Supported by the evidence, perhaps. Personal witnesses are anecdotal evidence, thus not data. That is why replication in many different locations and observable by none human instrumentation is so important to science. Probability is important, also. It is more probable, very much more probable, that 80000 people had a mass self induced delusion, than the sun lurched in the sky. ( not seen by people 5 miles away )
2007-11-19 01:49:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What... does this question actually mean? I'm not quite sure. But if you're suggesting that if we witnessed a miracle we still wouldn't believe, it depends. If there is any other possible explanation, I'd still not be convinced. If all-powerful God wanted to send me a sign to make me belive, he'd make sure there was no way I could explain it away.
Otherwise I have no clue what you're talking about.
2007-11-19 01:34:28 · answer #6 · answered by avacado pie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not if said spiritual acts do not exist, or have a natural explanation--which they do. Everything has a natural explanation. No supernatural event has ever been scientifically examined. Every 'spiritual' event which has ever taken place has been subjective, and completely incapable of being studied by science. Most probably because they were perfectly natural events redefined by a primitive mind to take on characteristics of the supernatural, and of God.
2007-11-19 01:33:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
40% of scientists in the US believe in God. How could that be?
the job of scientists is to explain the natural world through experimentation and application, which doesn't exist for the spiritual world. why would a scientist assume a spirit is doing something when they can't see it, test it, or predict?
btw: why address a science question to atheists and post it in R+S? why not ask scientists in the science section?
2007-11-19 01:53:12 · answer #8 · answered by Holy Smoked 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Logical explanations included that the observer was deluded or mistaken - hence the processes of a court of Law.
2007-11-19 01:37:43 · answer #9 · answered by Freethinking Liberal 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is easy enough for a person to be delusional or simply lying about seeing god perform an act. It is bull ****.
2007-11-19 01:39:45 · answer #10 · answered by Shit 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋