The cake is a lie.

Cory,

1. My series of articles is about what I would qualify as proof of god's existence. We are obviously having a difference of opinion on what constitutes a miracle.
I think you missed that what my article was saying is that IF miracles occur, only the ones following those conditions would qualify as proof of god's existence.  Otherwise... they just don't. That doesn't mean they don't happen.  But they also aren't proof of the existence of god. I'm not going to argue weather or not you think someone surviving cancer is a miracle.  But I will argue if it is any indication that God exists.

2. I personally don't believe that eyewitness testimony SHOULD be enough to condemn a person to death (or life in prison).  Frankly, the fact that there ARE people on death row that are actually innocent makes my point exactly why eyewitness accounts are not 100% accurate.
There is a difference between a group of people thinking something is true and something actually being true. I'm not arguing what the popular consensus thinks is true. I'm arguing about what IS true regardless of how many people think it is.
If I have a box, and I say that there is a cake in the box, it doesn't matter if everyone in the universe THINKS there is a cake in the box.  Even if people thought they saw me put a cake in the box and testify that they did: If there's no cake in the box... there's just no cake in the box.
We cannot take eyewitness testimony as proof of miracles.  If we do, we may believe events like the Virgin of Guadalupe, but we also have to believe events like the testimonies during the Salem Witch Trials. Every religion has eyewitness testimony to their own particular miracles.  It's impossible to believe them all.

3. This is going to get into a religion specific area. Since we've alluded to it, I don't know how to not address it without bringing up Christianity.
I'm not arguing that the Bible is not an historical text.  It's a great way to learn about the politics and culture of those times. But it's not exactly the most accurate of texts either.  It doesn't take long to read it and realize that it contradicts itself in many areas. It cannot be taken as absolute infallible truth. If you're going to believe the Bible is true, you have to assume parts of it are inaccurate and/or metaphorical.

As a parallel comparison: I can argue that the Greek mythology is true, because the stories have historical accuracy.  That doesn't mean that Zeus existed or that Dionysus (the son of Zeus and a mortal woman) actually turned water into wine, died as a martyr, and then was resurrected. It also doesn't prove that eating bread and wine transubstantiated into his flesh and blood.





Thanks for the quick response! I'm looking forward to what else you have to say this weekend!


-Mike