|
|
|
|
|
| He/She/It/Them - Yes/No/Maybe
Posted: 5/27/2009 10:24:09 PM |
That others may contend against the idea of god(s), doesn't give life to the existence of god(s)....only life to the debate about the idea of god(s)existing, being at best, a dubious proposition. Unless one defines, connotes, understands or interprets gods to be a construct, in which circumstance the existence of those gods is given life, as idea.
The existence of the cultural construct of the divine is a matter that is undeniable. No case needs be made. There is more than ample proof. If ideas exist, and gods are ideas, then does it not follow that gods exist?
Or is that some kind of accidentally fallacious argumentum ad sumtinsumtin dicto est conundrum?
But the existence of such constructsa no more dimishes the possible existence of the divine than a light bulb dimishes the possible existence of electricity. I wasn't suggesting it was. If a person posits that gods exist only in the minds of man, he is not negating the existence of gods, merely asserting that the existence is conditional...which is little different than a person saying that their one 'true' god exists, but that others do not. In each case, there are conditions on the existence.
The question is, how is it that all of these constructs are coming into being independently of each other, over vast areas of time and space? I'm not so sure they are all that independent of each other. We're all human, living under the same star, with such common experiences as illness, death, dreams, community, conflict, tradition, curiosity and storytelling...and similarly, there is much common ground to be found within the constructs.
It's really not that complex a matter ... until the entire point of one's ideology becomes a matter of teaching others how wrong they are for and how right you are. Agreed.
| |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 5/29/2009 7:05:52 PM | Faith is a state of knowing something that you can not prove..
It is a belief in someting you can not hold...
You cant hold love either but claim to have experienced it...
If you have no faith you can have no love...
If you have no faith you have no God... | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 5/30/2009 2:28:45 PM | | it's nice to find another intelligent debate. I'm definitely not a lawyer. Thank god for that lol. I haven't found anything to base a belief on the existence of an ultimate will in a god, only the ultimate 'love'. I've had some weird experiences thus far and if my life were recorded I would have a killer testimony. All in all the experiences with god are with the individual not the group. I haven't heard any stories of some atheist convention being miraculously converted to religion X. Certain events however can be highly spiritual for its participants. I never got to go to a live earth concert, but I'd bet they were intense. until there is love in science, they will never find god. It's all about perception. why can't an advocate for god leave an advocate against god be? and vice versa. It comes down to their own insecurities in their beliefs. has this ever been taken to court? has someone been sued on the basis of whether god exists or not? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 5/31/2009 4:01:58 PM | islandfires :
Faith is a state of knowing something that you can not prove.. You can not prove this. Some faith might be this kind of faith. Not all faith.
You cannot know anything without faith! | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 5/31/2009 5:29:32 PM | the precise physical laws of the universe, someone said, case for a creator, I would say so also.
gravity
electromagnetic force, if less, the sun wouldnt shine, more, it wouldnt last very long.
strong nuclear force, so that elements can form.
weak nuclear force, also controls rate of burning of the sun.
life on earth would not exist if the earth, and or sun happened to be a different size.
the earth rotates at the right speed to have moderate temperatures. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/15/2009 4:43:47 PM | | my case for God is that I know the mess my life was in when I asked Him into my life and how He changed it for me. I know that without Him I would have ended my life then and hurt so many people by doing so. I know that since then, I could not have gotten through some of the things that have come up without having Him to lean on. I know that I have lived the last year without any income at all and yet He has provided for me every month so that I don't have any bills that are behind and I have food on my table enough that I can share with others. I know that I have been diagnosed with a couple different diseases/ problems but when it came time to recheck those things they were gone with no explanation the doctor could come up with but I know what happened. I don't need "proof" that God is real- I know He is. I would rather live my life believing there IS a God than to live it not believing in Him only to die and go to hell and THEN find out then there is a God. God created all people and gave us the privilege of "choice"-you don't have to believe in Him, that's your choice. He doesn't send you to hell-you make that choice. we don't have to understand the things He does do, we just have to know that He has us in His hands and as long as we trust Him everything will work out according to His plans for us. God let His son die on the cross so that we could be free-what greater sacrifice than to offer your son for a world that doesn't deserve it. I know I couldn't do that-so I thank Him for loving me enough to let His son take my place. God is real and there is nothing anyone can say that would make me believe otherwise. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:30:15 PM | The theories of evolution and of the big bang seem to become more concrete every day. As we look further back into time with better and newer telescopes and we look at the data and the different paradoxes it is clear there was a beginning to the universe. As we learn more about our DNA and the DNA of other life forms and we look over prehistoric evidence it all points to evolution as being a correct theory also. These ideas do not correspond to what the bible has to say.
But lets just say that there is a god an all powerful, all present and all knowing god. Should we not also ask the same questions how something like that could have come to be? People ask how did we get here with out a god all the time and as the different theories starts to show us how it makes many of them frightened, others are now saying that is how god did it lol. Even if that does not jive with the bible.
That is why I am sure there is no god. After reading the bible even if I believed there was a god, I would not worship it. Because if an all knowing, all powerful all present god did the things in the bible it would clearly not be all knowing and all powerful and it would also be a vengeful abomination. Instead of worshiping something like that it should be scorned. I pity the people that can not look at the evidence that there is no god and I don't understand why any one would worship the god from the bible even if they wrongly believe it to be real. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:35:04 PM |
I'd like to respectfully submit exhibit A:
http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/galindex.html
You won't be disappointed.
Cool pictures. They have nothing to do with any gods. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:50:48 PM |
the precise physical laws of the universe, someone said, case for a creator, I would say so also.
I'd say the opposite. The existence of a Creator actually requires a violation of those laws. If the energy of the universe was created out of nothing then we have a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Look at the stories in the Bible (or any religious system for that matter) and you will see violations of the laws of nature all over the place. Joshua stops the sun in the sky (or the rotation of the Earth if you prefer). Jacob gets goats to produce spotted offspring by having them mate near spotted sticks. Moses turns a staff into a snake (as do Egyptian priests). Wandering Jews get bit by brass colored snakes die by poison unless they look upon a giant snake made of brass. These same Jews get food that falls from the sky. Water in Egypt turns into blood. The New Testament isn't any better. Water gets turned into wine. A blind man is healed when saliva mixed with dirt gets rubbed in his eyes. A man 3 days dead comes back to life. Zombies invade Jerusalem. Stars falls to Earth from heaven. If I'm to believe the Bible then there are no physical laws because literally anything could happen.
gravity
electromagnetic force, if less, the sun wouldnt shine, more, it wouldnt last very long.
strong nuclear force, so that elements can form.
weak nuclear force, also controls rate of burning of the sun.
life on earth would not exist if the earth, and or sun happened to be a different size.
the earth rotates at the right speed to have moderate temperatures.
The problem with this whole line of argumentation is that you don't have any evidence that if the laws of physics were different then there wouldn't be life. Also, there are billions and billions of stars and we now know that planets are ubiquitus. I think they just found 32 more. If conditions for life weren't right on Earth they'd probably be right somewhere else (and probably are). | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/20/2009 11:56:33 PM |
I know that I have lived the last year without any income at all and yet He has provided for me every month so that I don't have any bills that are behind and I have food on my table enough that I can share with others.
Where exactly did this money and food come from? Did it magically appear in your wallet and on your table? Did it rain down from Heaven? Or did some human give it to you? If you did get it from a human don't you think you're being incredibly rude for not giving them credit for keeping you alive?
I know that I have been diagnosed with a couple different diseases/ problems but when it came time to recheck those things they were gone with no explanation the doctor could come up with but I know what happened.
Why won't God heal amputees? Why are they so less deserving of magical cures than you? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:23:36 AM | I will answer your last question about amputees. The miracles Jesus performed during his 3 and 1/2 year ministry were a fulfillment of messianic prophecy ( see Isaiah 29 as an example). He did nothing randomly.
There is one case where Christ "restored" an amputee. In Luke 22 we see a disciple of Christs' striking off the right ear of a servant of the high priest. Christ restored the ear. This could be an instance of God having mercy upon those he chooses or then again, part of prophetic realization. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:25:04 AM | Re Message #61 abby156
I will answer your last question about amputees. The miracles Jesus performed during his 3 and 1/2 year ministry were a fulfillment of messianic prophecy ( see Isaiah 29 as an example)
It would seem that the prophecy that Isiah 49 is referring to is the defeat of the Assyrians in a prophesised assault against the Israelites in Jeruselam by Sennacherib and his host. I could not elucidate any reference to a messiah, and more specifically to a messiah with miraculous healing abilities. it might be helpful if you would reference the verses in Isiah chapter 49 that supports your thesis.
He did nothing randomly
He (God) seems, according to his biographers to act consistently at times...and inconsistently at other times.....sometimes kind...sometimes cruel....like any absolute despot.....the lord giveth and the Lord taketh at his whim....that which doesn't have any reasonable explanation is sloughed off as "God moving in mysterious ways"....don't question the whys or wherefores....just accept, and have faith.
There is one case where Christ "restored" an amputee. In Luke 22 we see a disciple of Christs' striking off the right ear of a servant of the high priest. Christ restored the ear.
Luke 22: verses 49-51 are deliciously ambiguous about the nature of healing performed by Christ. The verses do not indicate that the servant's ear was "restored" to its original condition and position on the servant's head, merely that servant was healed. This could just as well have been achieved by rendering mundane first aid, as by a miracle....but miracles are much more interesting and impressive, and are more likely to make for better reading than bandaging a bloody head.
49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
All sorts of maladies have been alleged to have been healed by the supposed intervention of divine, supernatural agencies, for which there is no, as yet alternative explanation. Some of these claims have been proven to have been patently fraudulent, others may have a rational explanation, but not explicable by current scientific bio / technology. The microscope, stethoscope, and other scientific instruments have provided rational explanations for pathologies that were once assumed to have had supernatural origins. I think it may be safe to say, that improvements in birthing survival has had more to do with effective hygiene practices, and an understanding of the microbiology of sepsis than the efficacy of prayer.
Of the alleged miraculous healings attributed to god, there is one class of miraculous healing that is apparently conspicuously absent from human history and God's grace, and that is the regeneration of amputated human limbs. Certainly some reptiles, amphibians and crustacians are capable of regenerating limbs, does that mean that God favours cold blooded animals over hominidae???  | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:26:08 AM | | Isaiah 29 NOT 49. Read carefully ok? lol In regards to the servants ear. The word used for healed in the greek concordance is iaomai. It translates into "heal, cure or make whole". | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:26:22 AM |
I will answer your last question about amputees. The miracles Jesus performed during his 3 and 1/2 year ministry were a fulfillment of messianic prophecy ( see Isaiah 29 as an example). He did nothing randomly.
There is one case where Christ "restored" an amputee. In Luke 22 we see a disciple of Christs' striking off the right ear of a servant of the high priest. Christ restored the ear. This could be an instance of God having mercy upon those he chooses or then again, part of prophetic realization.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. Why won't god heal amputees now? Since I don't view the Bible as historically accurate I'm certainly not going to believe that the miracles it talks about actually happened. So if god heals all sorts of diseases now, why are amputees singled out for never being healed? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 10:36:15 AM | | I dont recall Christs ministry as being one that was dedicated to physical healing. The healings he did perform were by in large prophetical realization. Man in an unregenerated state is blind, deaf, lame etc to the matters of God. The physical healings were symbolic of what was taking place spiritually. Why God does or does not heal amputees today, I cannot answer. I suspect the healing of the ear may have had to so with messianic prophesy. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:13:32 AM |
I dont recall Christs ministry as being one that was dedicated to physical healing.
You might want to reread your gospels. Hardly a page goes by without Jesus healing someone.
The healings he did perform were by in large prophetical realization.
Which prophecies?
Man in an unregenerated state is blind, deaf, lame etc to the matters of God. The physical healings were symbolic of what was taking place spiritually.
Is man still not in an unregenerated state? The thousands of Christian sects can't agree on the matters of god (and even within sects there is dissention). There wasn't even spiritual healing in the early church because there was dissent among Christians as far back as there were Christians. Also, your line of argument contradicts Jesus' own words. He told people that they would be able to perform miracles if they just had faith. Jaycee claims to have been healed by god and have thousands of others. Too bad there's no actual evidence of it.
Why God does or does not heal amputees today, I cannot answer. I suspect the healing of the ear may have had to so with messianic prophesy.
What leads you to suspect this? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/21/2009 11:35:45 AM | Yes, alot of healings happened during Christs earthy ministry. As I said they were largely messianic realizations. The apostles also healed people during their ministry. If this happens today, I have yet to witness it although during my medical career I did see a numbers of things the docs could not explain.
The prophecies are found in the OT. I gave the example of Isaiah 29 as an example. All people are in an unregenerated state until they are called by God to Christ. An impressive example is the thief on the cross. He acknowledged the office of Jesus, admitted his guilt as a malfactor and was in turn promised paradise that very day. He was not baptised nor did he do any good works, yet he was granted paradise simply because he believed.
As for the church, that too is addressed by Christ and the apostles. They warned of wolves infiltrating the church and it is pretty obvious that this has happened and continues to happen. Christianity is the most splintered religion in history.
Why do I suspect the servants was made whole? I cannot be sure of course but the ear does have the ability to hear. It could have been a case of God having mercy upon those He chooses or a symbolic healing of the spirit. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/22/2009 11:28:54 PM | Matt. 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
It appears that faith can magically cure people of diseases. Why can't faith do that now? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/23/2009 6:00:44 AM | | The word for "whole" in Matthew 9 :22 is sōzō. It can mean to restore one to health as well as to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment. I tend to believe its the latter. Who said faith cannot heal now? Because I have not personally witnessed a miracle, I dont doubt they can happen. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:31:38 PM | | our lord does heal now.h i have been healed in many ways.just the love he has filled with in me and that has overflowed to others is a testament to amazing healing.being an ex athiest i can tell you,god is so very real,just ask him.by yourself alone with your thoughts,just ask him.i am going to pray with all those out there that know his love that he does answer you in wonderful ways.when i asked for god to save me i ,really didnt believe he was there.he was and still is and always will be.you just have to ask.god bless and keep asking. | |
|
| He/She/It/Them - Yes/No/Maybe
Posted: 10/23/2009 2:44:25 PM |
if indeed,one takes the position that the bible is not considered objective truth and at the same time uses the bible to try and prove the bible wrong,wouldn't that be somewhat of a contraction?
Not at all. By pointing out contradictions in the bible, we can prove it's fallibly. The bibles contradictions are well documented: http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm . Since we can show the bible has so many flaws, it raises doubts to the legitimacy of the rest of the passages in it. If we doubt the legitimacy of the passages, then it raises doubts about God's participation in the writing and assembly of the bible. If we're not how involved God was – we have to question if it's really the word of God at all.
I think that one would have to give the language used a clear identity in order for logical consequence to follow
I believe this is why the bible has lasted as long as it has. Anytime a Christian is “loosing”, all they have to do is change the meaning of a passage. It's done all the time. For the last two thousand years, the Church has used passages like these to repress women:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
- 1 Corinthians 14:33-35
Now the church just calls it “a mistranslation”. How convenient.
So far, the only cases being made for God fall under: He saved my life many times when I've made stupid choices. I can provide anecdotal evidence for astrology too *yawn* Anyone got any real evidence? A single shred of proof? Anyone?
Therefore, I will honestly admit I have no black-n-white paper evidence at this time.
So, you admit you just blindly accept what your told? You can't support your statements – because there may not be any support? Yeah, that's helping your credibility.
For the existance of god(s) = zero evidence.
Against the existance of god(s) = zero evidence.
Okay, but I can also say:
Against the existence (note spelling please) of extraterrestrials throwing a party in my colon = zero evidnece
If you have a religion that claims there's supernatural intervention, and claims there's a rule set for that intervention, that rule set is testable. If the rule set fails that test, it's reasonable to conclude the claimed supernatural intervention doesn't exist (and therefore the claimed supernatural being / power doesn't exist either).
Do I have empirical evidence that there's absolutely no higher power out there what-so-ever? No, but there's gobs of empirical evidence against the teachings (and therefore instructions) of Christianity, Astrology, Greek Mythology etc
* explain to me how you know love exists?
* Take love for instance; how different is it trying to prove the existence of love as it is proving the existence of the divine?
Love's observable: http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm
Do we thus state that love doesn't exist? Despite all of the varied people that experience it and express their understanding of it?
Most (read: practically everyone) people thought the world was flat at one point. Try as they might, that didn't make it true. People also thought sickness was the act of god (or the deamons) before we learned about micro organisms. The mass believing X is true simply because X is the predominant thought is circular reasoning – a logical falacy.
Asking a person who has never had a divine experience, and refuses to even acknoweldge such experineces as anything but psychopathology
I'm not refusing to acknowledge such experiences, I'm asking for evidence of them. To date, no one's been able to provide evidence of a “miracle” or “divine experience”. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/24/2009 12:17:19 AM |
Who said faith cannot heal now? Because I have not personally witnessed a miracle, I dont doubt they can happen.
Which leads me back to the question: Why won't God heal amputees? We have no lack of people coming forth claiming God healed their alcoholism, drug addiction, cancer, homosexuality, insomnia, etc. Why is no one coming forth claiming that God heal their amputation? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/27/2009 4:49:34 PM | RE Msg: 72 by CountIbli:
Which leads me back to the question: Why won't God heal amputees? We have no lack of people coming forth claiming God healed their alcoholism, drug addiction, cancer, homosexuality, insomnia, etc. Why is no one coming forth claiming that God heal their amputation? That is a good question. All good questions have good answers. Answers are questions that validate their answers, by providing a reason for those questions. Otherwise, they're stupid questions, because the question alone doesn't really elucidate enough to give us any insight.
Now, let us ask another good question: what would happen IF G-d healed amputees? What would you say? Would you say G-d was evil? Would you say that G-d MUST exist, and that G-d has denied you the free will to choose to believe in him, or not? Would you say that healing of amputation was not a miracle, and was a natural occurence, and not down to G-d?
These other questions, along with your questions, give us a little bigger picture. We're no longer looking at one perspective, and saying that because the stars appear to rotate around the Earth, that they must do. Rather, we are looking at things from several different angles, and with that wider perspective, we can then make a balanced and non-biased judgement. It is only in this method of logic, lateral thinking, that logical thinking stops being navel-gazing, and becomes productive and useful.
Of course, the answer may not be to your liking. But then, if it was to your liking, it would probably be an answer that you've already thought of, and agreed with, and then you wouldn't have a question to ask. Answers only tell us new things that we not only don't know, but don't like. That's why there is an expression called "the ugly truth". The truth, when it reveals something to us, is "ugly". It forces us to accept truths we truly don't like at all. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:34:29 PM | | hi... for God >> His Written Account which contains the accounts of people who witnessed Gods Power and Christs Miracles first hand.. my progressive understanding of Spiritual Matters taught to me by Gods Holy Spirit... the miracles and changes in my character and situation as I submit my life over to His Will.... Living Truth is very powerful... blessings | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:47:04 PM | RE Msg: 59 by CountIbli:
I'd say the opposite. The existence of a Creator actually requires a violation of those laws. If the energy of the universe was created out of nothing then we have a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. The Big Bang violates the law of conservation right away. No universe, no matter. Universe, matter. Instant violation.
Look at the stories in the Bible (or any religious system for that matter) and you will see violations of the laws of nature all over the place. The laws of nature as based on the law of scientific induction, that if we look at things happening often, that that's probably what usually does happen. Of course, it doesn't always. Even the Law of Conservation of Energy has been found to be violated by nature, because some situations in nature "borrow" some energy and then repay it in the future.
Joshua stops the sun in the sky (or the rotation of the Earth if you prefer). That doesn't exactly violate the laws of nature, not unless there is a specific law that says that no moving body can ever stop or even slow down.
Jacob gets goats to produce spotted offspring by having them mate near spotted sticks. Genetics. Maybe a bit advanced for us. But then, we still cannot make a crane that can capsize boats using wood and ropes.
Moses turns a staff into a snake (as do Egyptian priests). Wandering Jews get bit by brass colored snakes die by poison unless they look upon a giant snake made of brass. These same Jews get food that falls from the sky. Water in Egypt turns into blood. The New Testament isn't any better. Water gets turned into wine. A blind man is healed when saliva mixed with dirt gets rubbed in his eyes. A man 3 days dead comes back to life. Zombies invade Jerusalem. Stars falls to Earth from heaven. If I'm to believe the Bible then there are no physical laws because literally anything could happen. No. You're just expected to realise that even in nature, we find that no law is unbreakable, just like the Law of Conservation of Energy.
RE Msg: 71 by NerdStatus:
if indeed,one takes the position that the bible is not considered objective truth and at the same time uses the bible to try and prove the bible wrong,wouldn't that be somewhat of a contraction? Not at all. By pointing out contradictions in the bible, we can prove it's fallibly.
The bibles contradictions are well documented: http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm . If we can prove numerous contradictions, then we have a point. But to do that, we must prove it is a contradiction in the original text, and not in a translation that misses something in the contradictions. An example is:
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28 http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
Different words used here, words which mean different things.
Unfortunately, that means that we need to quote the HEBREW, and show contradictions in the HEBREW, not a translation, and that's something these sort of pages generally don't do.
Since we can show the bible has so many flaws, it raises doubts to the legitimacy of the rest of the passages in it. If we doubt the legitimacy of the passages, then it raises doubts about God's participation in the writing and assembly of the bible. If we're not how involved God was – we have to question if it's really the word of God at all. Except that we can't show lots of flaws in the Bible, only in the translations of the Bible.
So far, the only cases being made for God fall under: He saved my life many times when I've made stupid choices. I can provide anecdotal evidence for astrology too *yawn* Anyone got any real evidence? A single shred of proof? Anyone? That's the only proof you can have, because anyone can argue almost anything about anything, without rules. Lawyers can easily argue the case for and against murder on the same trial, depending on who is their client. Generally, science has rules to it, so that makes it easier to prove. Maths has lots of rules to it, which is why you nearly always can prove something right or wrong in Maths. But when it comes to the Bible, the people arguing over it don't really seem to agree to any rules at all on how to study it, which means that it's about as provable as lawyer's arguments in a trial.
Against the existence (note spelling please) of extraterrestrials throwing a party in my colon = zero evidnece Ever heard that bacteria exist in your alimentary canal? Ever got stomach flu? They're bacteria/viruses. Can they be extraterrestrial? We hope not, because if they do, we might not have a cure for it. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. All that matters is if get well from them. Mostly, you do. But sometimes, you don't. Then, we'd rather not say they are of extraterrestrial origin, even if they did something that's never been seen before, because that would be quite frightening. The universe is a big place, a lot bigger than Earth. If extraterrestrial bacteria can make it here, then we've got a lot more to worry about than just terrestrial bacteria.
I'm not refusing to acknowledge such experiences, I'm asking for evidence of them. To date, no one's been able to provide evidence of a “miracle” or “divine experience”. And no-one will. A fundamental way that many people use science, is that if we see something that goes against the rules of nature, that we simply need to adjust the rules to include them, and it doesn't matter how crazy those rules get in the process. So with that attitude, there really is no way to prove a miracle. The minute you do, those people will say that it's not miracle, it's just a part of nature. Like I said, you can prove anything if you want to. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
