firstly, my arguement isn't "circular". I get what you mean by that, but semantically that is not correct. A circular argument is something like "it's wrong because it's wrong"
secondly, what you're saying implies that people can't both be intelligent and believe in the possiblility that SOME things cannot be explained. It is indeed possible to believe that some things that were miracles can be explained, while still believing that miracles are possible.
both of your analogies are faulty. Consider for a second that Jesus was real (I'm not saying you have to actually believe it, but enter this arguement with the premise that it's possible that he was). Is it not possible to believe that he actually DID turn water into wine, even though it is possible to create an effect (if not many) that would replicate the result.
Ditto for the iPod analogy - all because people couldn't imagine how it was done, doesn't make the device miraculous. It just means they did not have the intellect to understand how it was possible. Again, that says nothing about the human ability to simultaneously believe in miracles and understand trickery through scientific principle.
My point is not to argue the existence of miracles, it's to argue that religion is only a barrier to presentation if you see it as such, and don't take appropriate actions to avoid any objections. Salespeople know this. When someone says they don't want something because of X reason, the problem is not X reason, the problem is how you presented the product without avoiding an X reason objection.
That, and you were factually incorrect. To my knowledge, no religion explicitly bans the practice and performance of illusions - they ban blasphemous presentations of it. Despite what you may think, there IS a difference.
DUDE. you are giving me a circular argument! You believe in miracles because you do. That's it, bro. A circular argument!
And again, it's like you see my point but will not act logically.
The followers only listened to Jesus because they couldn't imagine how he did what he did! If they could explain what he did, he would be nothing but a crazy person that can perform magic!!!! And if you could explain what he did and even then still believe what he did to be a miracle and not an illusion, even though you could explain it, then YOU would be the crazy person. There's no reason for you not to believe that I am not the Messiah if you have no problem with believing that, even with an explanation, it can still be a miracle.
Yes, you could believe that Jesus actually DID turn water into wine only because you DO BELIEVE IT. This is a circular argument, as you said yourself. You do because you do.
I'm not trying to tell you that you are wrong for being religious.
All I want you to admit is that because of this discussion, you have to conclude that you are religious because you want to be. You are right in your free mind to do whatever you want. You are not wrong to do anything, though again, I want you to admit that you do the religious thing because you want to. Any argument you present to me will be circular and not sound.
Religion is a good thing. It makes you happy and has something great in store for you. It provides you with a good system of morals and also helps out charity.
Last edited by a moderator: