If God exists and the Holy Spirit exists can't we just empirically figure out which of them is the true religion is by checking which of them is doing the most miracles
If God exists and the Holy Spirit exists can't we just empirically figure out which of them is the true religion is by checking which of them is ...
Jesus is greater than God and the Holy Ghost in the miracles department.
Still can't we check which church is getting the most feedback from Jesus?
No because that would make sense. Each Church gets it's go ahead from the Holy Spirit which is formless.
But trying to make sense of the trinity is just working backwards through 2000 years of justification of tradition.
If they are performing actual miracles maybe their doctrine is right
Then bring forth the miracles?
>Then bring forth the miracles?
the universe isn't enough for you?
The universe is hardly miraculous because miraculous implys something supernatural happening and the universe existing is not a supernatural occurance. It's a natural occurence.
Just because you weren't around for something beginning doesn't mean that beginning is miraculous or that thing is miraculous because it occured within the realm of natural possibility and action.
>The universe is hardly miraculous
stopped reading there
A miracle is usually understood as something out of the normal, that doesn't follow the laws of nature. Like levitating, raising the dead, summoning fire from the heavens, this sort of stuff. The universe is wonderful and complex, but it's also nature itself. Everything in it follows nature and is basically normal. Not miraculous.
yet the laws of nature had to be created somewhere along with everything else in the universe. it's the act of creation that gave rise to everything else; that's the miracle
You're completely missing the point. The OP is suggesting we decide which is the true religion by checking which of them is doing the most miracles. Creating the universe as an act is surely miraculous. But we can't check who is doing it. Could be the Christian God. Could be all a dream from Brahman. Could be a result of Odin slaying Ymir. And then which interpretation of those events is true? We need miracles we can check. Then we count which religion is doing the most miracles, and that is the true one. The problem as I noted here:
is that we don't see actual miracles anymore.
>is that we don't see actual miracles anymore
Is it that we don't see miracles or that we miss them because we no longer expect them?
Nowadays if someone summoned fire from the heavens or parted the red sea I'm sure we would have a ton of evidence. When people speak of miracles nowadays it's always conveniently hard to verify stuff. Let's take Buddhism for example: Buddha was said to be able to walk through walls and teleport. Dalai Lama is said to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteśvara, he should have similar abilities, yet we don't see him doing any of that and he doesn't use it to reclaim Tibet from China. We can dismiss Tibetan Buddhism as a religion then.
>Dalai Lama
a weird old paedo and professional con-man
>Nowadays if someone summoned fire from the heavens or parted the red sea I'm sure we would have a ton of evidence
If we saw that regularly would we even still call it miracles or would it just be taken as part of nature?
If some guy could regularly strike down his cane and tell the sea to separate and we couldn't find any scientific mechanism for why it's happening, while also only the guy with a lot of faith in a specific religion is able to do it, at that point only morons would deny a miracle.
it could be magic
To extend my point. If you went back in time and prophesied about events that you have knowledge of are you making a miracle? Hardly.
We can. The result, as you can see, is that none of them are doing miracles. Most religions talk about grandiose miracles ages ago, like parting the seas, gods physically fighting in wars where many can see them, supernatural feats like flying... yet now that we have cameras this sort of thing no longer happens. The only way you get to keep religion then, is by believing one that has no miracles. Like the ancient Stoics who if I'm not mistaken argued something like God's creation being perfect, therefore the laws of nature are perfect and God wouldn't break them by doing miracles. Or any kind of tradition where God doesn't intervene. Everything else is cope.
>And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
But it would still be cool
The inquisition is dearly missed
>Holy Spirit
Isnt that what God literally is?
Whoever he is he's supposed to perform miracles