I should add that the author would probably agree with much of what I've just written. However, my concern was in defending more traditional religions (and more specifically Christianity). The author basically writes them off as unscientific and therefore not worthy of devotion(in a more diplomatic, indirect way) yet I contend that they might not be as unscientific as many suggest, and that Christianity might provide some powerful answers in those areas which Buddhism shares the arena, and some other answers that Buddhism doesn't answer or answer as sufficiently.

Pelican- you criticise Runner for believing such things, but I contend that you, too believe in miracles. Everyone does. Why? Existence itself is a miracle.

After all, what is a miracle? I had some thoughts about this after reading an essay by CS Lewis, and I agreed with Lewis in that there were a couple of key points that I thought would make something a miracle: Something unexplainable, and something that doesn't ascribe to any natural laws we know of. Under this definition, the existence of the universe fits the definition.

I googled "miracle" and the definitions agreed with the definitions I'd been pondering, for example:

This website: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God

Now, the part about God isn't important to my argument. Whether or not someone holds something inexplicable to be supernatural or an Act of God is really an act of faith. And that's the whole point, isn't it? We have this something called existence which we can't really explain, making it very much miraculous. Regardless of what you believe about existence, you'll be believing on faith and faith alone. And that brings me back to the original point: We all believe in miraculous things by faith, whether we want to or not. So why berate those who believe in a few more miraculous things, and have a little more faith than you do?

Trav
I merely asked runner what makes him so sure that there is a God (or the one he subscribes to). That is all. I was hoping that runner might open his mind and question - not to take things purely on faith. Although I accept already this is unlikely - unless there is a true miracle. :)

As for miracles - our existence is indeed a marvel and many things remain unexplained, however why must something miraculous (unexplained) immediately earn the supernatural tag. Especially as the supernatural is accepted purely on faith (of man's making) rather than on evidence.

Why can we not just say we don't know the reason yet but with further advancements in technology and in knowledge may know the answer one day.

The lack of an answer to a mystery is not in itself a miracle.

Probably in our lifetimes we won't know the exact origins of the universe and the answers to the questions why? We will probably never know the why. But that does not mean a supernatural explanation is the correct one even if many take various religious dogmas as faith (whether it be Islam, Christianity etal).

Do we have to know the Why to be content? Maybe some have more of a need for explanation, others just content to marvel and accept the natural beauty around them.

Hi Trav,

Please tell us which of these two assertions is more likely to result in scientific progress, and why:

1. An intangible being with unfathomable motives used some inconceivable powers to carry out an unspecified sequence of irreproducible actions over an unmeasurable period of time which in some inexplicable way produced the Universe.

2. The Universe was produced by some natural process we don't know much about yet.

Here's a hint: how is 1. distinguishable in practice from "I don't have a clue! Stop asking me!"?

Pelican

Your pathetically inept explanations for life dressed in science certainly makes me surer about my faith. To deny design defies what is obvious to anyone not blinded by dogma like yourself.

runner
Why don't you answer the question instead of getting into hateful name calling. Accusations of being pathetic only detract from your failure to answer the question.

Atheism is not a religion so it cannot be dogma.