Author: Papa Giorgio

Deism Defined, Are Miracles Impossible?

Published by Papa Giorgio

From a Debate on Deism (originally posted October 2007 — imported from RPT-Blogspot). This debate had to have taken place in early 2000’s. But, as it defines and argues a position often misunderstood, it makes it to PG’s Best. Enjoy:

Ahhh, Countess, what an honor it is that we meet again. Your name evokes wild pictures of moonlit nights from the pages of the Scarlet Pimpernel. I will indulge a further response from you, as your last post seemed contradictory. My question was simple, it was:

  • Are miracles – from the deist standpoint – possible?

You [Countess] responded in kind that:

“No, miracles would, logically, not be possible. In a straight-line explanation, God created the universe, and the laws of the universe are the boundaries of the possible. In theory, God could, as the creator of the universe, violate those laws; however, there is no evidence that he has ever done this.”

I need to clarify; I didn’t ask “if miracles were actual” (i.e., miracles have actually occurred). I simply asked if they are possible. Let me give some more ways of looking at it, since you brought up the fact of actuality, then I will return to your statement that I chose to display above.

  • The denial that miracles are possible, and the denial that they are actual;
  • The belief that miracles are possible, but the denial that they are actual;
  • Agnosticism about whether miracles are possible, but the denial that they are actual;
  • The belief that miracles are possible, but agnosticism about whether they are actual;
  • Agnosticism about whether miracles are possible, and agnosticism about whether they are actual.

I believe – reading your opening statement above – that you would fall under category B. I say this because you even admitted that God could, theoretically, “violate” these laws. This seems an anathema to deists, who view these laws of nature as not descriptive, but prescriptive. Let me quote C. S. Lewis on this matter for the sake of clarity in defining what these laws of nature do, and don’t do:

But if God comes to work miracles, He comes “like a thief in the night.” Miracle is, from the point of view of the scientist, a form of doctoring, tampering, (if you like) cheating. It introduces a new factor into the situation, namely supernatural force, which the scientist had not reckoned on. He calculates what will happen, or what must have happened on a past occasion, in the belief that the situation, at that point of space and time, is or was A. but if supernatural force has been added, then the situation really is or was AB. And no one knows better than the scientist that AB cannot yield the same result as A. The necessary truth of the laws, far from making it impossible that miracles should occur, makes it certain that if the Supernatural is operating they must occur. For if the natural situation by itself, and the natural situation plus something else, yielded only the same result, it would be then that we should be faced with a lawless and unsystematic universe. The better you know that two and two make four, the better you know that two and three don’t.

(C.S. Lewis, Miracles, pp. 92-93)

This is what I have come across in deism, is a belief that if God would “violate” (I am highlighting that word for a reason) His laws of nature that He set up, we would live in a “lawless and unsystematic universe” (to quote Lewis). However, let us continue with his remarks:

This perhaps helps to make a little clearer what the laws of Nature really are. We are in the habit of talking as if they caused events to happen; but they have never caused any event at all. The laws of motion do not set billiard balls moving: they analyze the motion after something else (say, a man with a cue, or a lurch of the liner, or, perhaps, supernatural power) has provided it. They produce no events: they state the pattern to which every event – if only it can be induced to happen – must conform, just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform – if only you can get hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe – the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums. For every law, in the last resort, says “if you have A, then you will get B.” But first catch you’re a: the laws won’t do it for you.

It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn’t. If I knock out my pipe I alter the position of a great many atoms: in the long run, and to an infinitesimal degree, of all the atoms there are. Nature digests or assimilates this event with perfect ease and harmonizes it in a twinkling with all other events. It is more bit of raw material for the laws to apply to, and they apply. I have simply thrown one event into the general cataract of events and it finds itself at home there and conforms to all events. If God annihilates or creates of deflects a unit of matter He has created a new situation at that point. Immediately all Nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it. It finds itself conforming to all the laws. If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break [violate] any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all normal laws, and nine months later a child is born…. Miraculous wine will intoxicate…. The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law’s provisio, “If A, then B”: it says, “But this time instead of A, A2,” and Nature, speaking through all her laws, replies, “Then B2” and naturalizes the immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess.

A miracle is emphatically not an event without cause or without results. Its cause is the activity of God: its result follows according to Natural law. In a forward direction (i.e., during the time which follows its occurrence) it is interlocked with all Nature just like any other event. Its peculiarity is that it is not in that way interlocked backwards, interlocked with the previous history of Nature. And this is just what some people find intolerable. The reason they find it intolerable is that they start by taking Nature to be the whole of reality.

(C. S. Lewis was quoted from his book Miracles, chpt. 8, “Miracles and the Laws of Nature”, pp. 94-96)

This is the case with deism. They presuppose that God created “Nature to be the whole of reality.” a miracle doesn’t “violate” any law, simply, that law will predict what should happen once a miracle event happened.

I got a wee bit ahead of myself here, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that a proper understanding of the laws of Nature in no way restrict miracles, and that any further use of violate by me (and you) should encapsulate this definition. And all I was asking at this point was if miracles were possible. As one writer wrote of Deism:

“A being who could [as deists believe] bring the universe into existence from nothing could certainly perform lesser miracles if He chose to do so. A God who created water could part it or make it possible for a person to walk on it. The immediate multiplication of loaves of bread and fish would be no problem to a God who created matter and life in the first place. A virgin birth or even a physical resurrection from the dead would be minor miracles in comparison to the miracle of creating the universe from nothing [as deists believe]. It seems self-defeating to admit a great miracle like creation and then to deny the possibility of lesser miracles.”

(Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, by Norman L. Geisler, p. 189.)

I will conclude with a mock conversation from the book Answers for Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Thoughtful Skeptics: Dialogues About Christian Faith and Life. This conclusion is only meant to elucidate in laymen’s terms (laymanize) what C. S. Lewis has already said. Enjoy:

The very next day Dave was at Jim’s door again. Now he was more eager than ever to talk.

  • “You know that book you loaned me last night?” he said. “Well, I could hardly put it down today. It’s tough going, but it’s really interesting. I never knew there was so much historical evidence for the Bible.”
  • “Glad you’re enjoying it,” Jim said. “But last night you wound up by saying you couldn’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection because you think it’s unscientific to believe in miracles, right?”
  • “Right. They’re contrary to the laws of nature.”
  • “So?”
  • “Well, the law of nature can’t be broken.”
  • “And miracles, if they happen [are possible], would break them?”
  • “That’s what I’ve always understood.”
  • “Let me suggest another way to think of the laws of nature, Dave. The laws of nature don’t tell us everything that can possibly happen. They just tell us what can happen naturally – that is, by nature working on its own. They don’t tell us anything at all about what happens if something outside of nature acts on nature.”
  • “But there isn’t anything outside of nature.”
  • “Really? I thought we’d been through that already. You remember – entropy, creation of the universe, God, all that?” (pp. 73-74)

See Countess, you — by default — believe something to be outside the universe, and that this God actually did the greatest miracle of all time… that is, “creating the universe with laws and motion with mankind as its goal.” If that isn’t a miracle, then what is?

$10 To Pakistan For Flood Relief-$5 Million To Daughters Wedding

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is from Kicken’ and Screamin’ – I want to put up K&S’s subtitle to their blog, I found it humorous:

… I went to bed a conservative gun owner but awoke the next morning, according to the DHS, a possible member of a right wing extremist group needing to be watched.

Here is the quick story from K&S:

Hillary Clinton, defender of the poor and down trodden, our Secretary of State who’s supposed to be empathetic to the tragedies around the world, has no problem dropping $5 million dollars on a wedding and getting dressed like a cheap whore but when it comes to the victims in the flooding in Pakistan she donates a WHOPPING TEN DOLLARS!

Of course this story is new so we may find out she gave more… but with knowing the “donations” given by Democrats (even compared to Republicans), it is safe to say this will stay at ten.

To Sell Lemonade Or Not To Sell-That Is The Question

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Independent Women’s Forum:

It’s not uncommon to read about heavy regulations and licensing requirements burdening small business across America, but one in particular caught my eye this week.  In Portland, Oregon, a state health inspector shut down a 7-year-old’s lemonade stand.  She was told she needed to leave or face a $500 fine.  Under state law, even a lemonade stand in your front lawn must obtain a $120 license to operate.  Another small business bites the dust.

To be fair, this lovely young girl did go to a large event and set up shop, the story tells of this:

…Technically, any lemonade stand — even one on your front lawn — must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state’s public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday.

“When you go to a public event and set up shop, you’re suddenly engaging in commerce,” he said. “The fact that you’re small-scale I don’t think is relevant.”…

In my mind’s eye its sorta like the regulations about smoked covers over break lights on cars. Yes there is a danger in dimming these lights, but this isn’t enforced widely. However… it serves the police well when they want to pull someone over whom they suspect for trouble. (If only the crack houses would have lemonade stands.) I do recommend a book for parents about this very issue, where some kids set out to make some money by setting up a lemonade stand in front of their house, and they run into Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and others along the way. Very funny.

Tea Party Express vs. Reporters

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is with thanks to Tundra Tabloids.

  • Two reporters engage in a heated exchange with black conservative leaders at a press conference at the National Press Club on August 4, 2010 challenging the NAACP on its charges of racism within the tea party.

(As an aside of a comment from the above presser… If one wants to see all the camera angles during the time these congressman said the “N” word was used and the spit was issued – GO HERE.)

  • A resident of the Austin community, Jean Ray, says after 40 years of Democratic party control over the black community, the policies “are hurting,” and if there were Republicans willing to do the right job in her community, she would vote for them. (BREITBART)

What IS a Mosque?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Watch an undercover documentary on the famous “moderate” mosque in Britain:

Dispatches – Undercover Mosque from Ole Olsen on Vimeo.

Prime Minister Tony Blair recently described tolerance as ‘what makes Britain Britain’ but in this extensive investigation Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia.

Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.

He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs – and predict a coming jihad. “An army of Muslims will arise,” announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must “dismantle” British democracy – they must “live like a state within a state” until they are “strong enough to take over.”

The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.

Stop Islamisation of the world – http://www.siotw.org

One year after the above video, Dispatches went back:

Here is an partial interview with Sam Solomon, but first, let us KNOW who he is first (via Bare Naked Islam):

Sam Solomon came to embrace Christianity after spending 15 years training in Sharia law in the Middle East. That decision saw him arrested, sentenced to death, and exiled from his home land.

VLADTEPES~Sam Solomon, a former Islamic jurist, born and raised as a Muslim, had trained in Sharia law for 15 years before converting to Christianity. As a leading experts on Islam and Sharia law, Mr. Solomon has testified before the US congress and is a consultant/advisor to British and European Parliamentarians on Islam. He lectures around the world on religious issues and is an expert witness on Islamic and religious matters.

Solomon explains that, “Islam is not simply a religion. Islam is a socio-political system. It is a socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economic, socio-educational, socio-judicial, legislatic, militaristic system cloaked in, garbed in religious terminology.  Islam has always been about conversion by force. When Islam came out from Arabia, it did not go out with missionaries peacefully talking to their neighbors and saying “here is what our prophet Mohamed has come with and so on and so forth. No. There were hordes of assassins who marched into the surrounding world and subjugated them by force. Islam is a system. And wherever there is a Muslim community there will be a sharia. And wherever there is a sharia there is an Islamification of the territory and ultimately of that nation.“

SOLOMON recently spoke at Tennessee Tech  one of several stops he’s making in Middle Tennessee in the coming days — to share his story of conversion and discuss different aspects of Sharia law, which is the legal system of the Islamic religion.

Here is more from Vlad Tepes:

Gordon: Greetings Mr. Solomon and thank you for consenting to this interview. Let us start with the simple question, what is a mosque and what is its basic function in the Muslim community?

Solomon: A mosque, totally unlike a church or a synagogue, serves the function of orchestrating and mandating every aspect of “life” in a Muslim community from the religious, to the political, to the economic, to the social, to the military. In Islam, religion and life are not separate. They are indivisible. In Islam religion is not just a part of life, but “life” is absorbed and regulated to the tiniest detail by religion (See Figure 1). In other words every aspect of a man or woman’s life must be defined and governed by religion. So there is no concept of personal choice whatsoever, or in theological terms, there is no “free will,” but only limited preferences between prescribed courses of action. In addition, there is no concept of a personal relationship between the person and the entity being worshiped, so “worship” itself, is of a different nature than that performed in a church or synagogue.

Islam Religion Church Life Mosque CLEAR

[….]

Every single mosque in the world, by definition, is modeled on the mosque of Muhammad in Medina in accordance with the Sunnah. The Sunnah interprets the Qur’an by reporting exhaustively on everything that Muhammad said, did, or consented to. Therefore, his Medina mosque, the first mosque, was a place where he gave judgments, where he decided who would be executed, where he instituted policy—domestic and military— where Jihad war strategies were designed. Consequently, it was a storage place for arms, a military training base, and was where troops were blessed and dispatched. Literally they were sent to conquer – first the whole of Arabia, and then the rest of the known world. Therefore if the present-day mosque is modeled as per the Sunnah of Muhammad then there should be very serious concern. As is well-known, Muslims are required to follow the example (Sunnah) of Muhammad—and according to Sura 33:36 it is not an option or a matter of opinion: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.”  This explains and establishes beyond doubt why arms have been found in mosques in various countries, and in different capital cities.

In addition to the undisputed significance of the Medina mosque as the role model for all Mosques, there is also the Islamic policy of establishing strategic Mosques as beachheads with interconnected networks. Taken together, these two policies do constitute a clear and present danger—and a need for concern.

For example, when Abu Hamza was the Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque in the United Kingdom, he trained people, he sent out terrorists  and British authorities found arms stored there.  He was well within his Islamic mandate as these activities were sanctioned by Islam. He didn’t find it wrong because it is in the Islamic manuals. Another prime example of a mosque being found to have engaged in high-level political, military and intelligence activities is the Munich Mosque, which is now considered by Islamists to be on a par with some  of highest-ranked Mosques in Muslim countries….

(read it all)

MOSQUES are not like a church!!!!!