|
|
|
|
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:18:37 PM |
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?
Wow, it took you 4 paragraphs to dodge a question. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:29:31 PM | RE Msg: 76 by CountIbli:
Wow, it took you 4 paragraphs to dodge a question. I just decided that if we were to get on a debate about this, that it would stretch 15 pages, with no agreement. Far better to teach you to think for yourself, rather than just say what you were told. Then you will eventually think about it enough, to have a reasonable debate about it. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 3:58:32 PM | 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"
hi.. tell that to the people who witnessed the plagues of Egypt or the parting of the Red Sea... the evidence is overwhelming and that does not even include personal Living Truth... it is a personal choice not to believe in God, not a matter of lack of proof...sincerely ask God for proof and then wait to be amazed and humbled.... blessings | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:08:22 PM |
tell that to the people who witnessed the plagues of Egypt or the parting of the Red Sea... the evidence is overwhelming and that does not even include personal Living Truth
You're making an assumption that this happened. I say there's no more evidence of this happening than a children's tale in your local library.
it is a personal choice not to believe in God, not a matter of lack of proof
These aren't mutually exclusive.
sincerely ask God for proof and then wait to be amazed and humbled
I did. He gave me Mormons. They didn't have any proof either. I'm not humbled or amazed. I'm very aware of the effect of personal bias on research, and why it's CRITICAL to have safeguards against this (double blind for example).
You get yourself into a pickle anyway. Faith is a REQUIREMENT for you to get into heaven. You can't have evidence God exists, and have faith. Once you have conclusive evidence of something, it negates faith. Evidence and faith are mutually exclusive. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:02:34 PM | | Pick one"evidence that demands a verdict" or "don't check your brains at the door" first is college level the other any 8th grader can understand. Then go to the library and read it or buy it. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:53:46 PM | "You're making an assumption that this happened. I say there's no more evidence of this happening than a children's tale in your local library."
.. you are making an assumption that this did not happen
.. God did not give me Mormons He lead me to Seventh Day Adventists, and look again, God is still sending you Signs that He Exists and Pointing you in The Right Direction
.. faith fuels the connection to God, God provides the Evidence and Proof.. your faith in God is always Rewarded by Proof and Evidence.. you may be one of those people who has to go the distance before you see Gods Evidence but you will one day... the bible says every eye shall see the Glory of God, either from one side of the Gate or the other... blessings | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:56:20 PM | So, what are your arguments for or against God?
My personal experience with the numinous. Granted, a given experience is not an argument, per se, and is only evidence for myself. I will not relay the particulars, nor could I adequately, but for me there is 100% surety of a "higher power." I recommend seeking such an experience yourself.
| |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:15:43 PM | Physical Laws
There are such things as "physical laws." There are scientific theories made up by the minds of humans that are so well-supported that they are often called "laws." But even the most supported theories, such as gravitation, have unanswered questions (such as how to unify gravity with the subatomic events that Quantum theory describes), and multi-body problems, etc. The products of science are inductive and as such is always tentative. (We never know the degree of our ignorance and trust in the theories are simply pragmatic.)
At any rate, our perceptions of physical properties within spacetime have no bearing on the nature of something outside of spacetime, just like the internal states of a software system do not limit its creator on the "outside." Our perception of physical properties of spacetime are of no use in answering the question whether there is a power more fundamental than spacetime or not and whether or not "it" could arbitrarily tweak the state of the system ("miracles".) | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/1/2009 11:58:59 AM |
Pick one"evidence that demands a verdict" or "don't check your brains at the door" first is college level the other any 8th grader can understand.
(see bold) Unlike your sentence structure - I'm not sure any 8th grader could understand what you're trying to say. I think you're asking me to go read a book (for what, I don't know?), because your knowledge of the subject matter is too weak for you to make the case (or even a summary) on your own?
you are making an assumption that this did not happen
No, I'm not. I'm asking for evidence of it. Because there is no evidence what-so-ever of any of the events the bible actually happening... I'm not assuming they did. That's not assuming they didn't – there's a critical difference.
God did not give me Mormons He lead me to Seventh Day Adventists, and look again, God is still sending you Signs that He Exists and Pointing you in The Right Direction
Please provide me with specific examples of the evidence for his existance.
faith fuels the connection to God, God provides the Evidence and Proof.. your faith in God is always Rewarded by Proof and Evidence.. you may be one of those people who has to go the distance before you see Gods Evidence but you will one day
Specific example please.
Oh - and I'd like to see canon that states you no longer need faith once God provides you with evidence of his existence.
the bible says every eye shall see the Glory of God, either from one side of the Gate or the other
A book saying God exists, and the proof of his existence is the book, is call circular reasoning – a logical fallacy – and therefore isn't any evidence at all:
http://www.numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
http://www.conservapedia.com/Circular_reasoning
My personal experience with the numinous
So, your evidence is... you can't provide any evidence?
We never know the degree of our ignorance
No, but (from the perspective of science) we do know there's a difference between physical laws, and laws of nature. “Physical Laws” account for the differences between gravitational law (which is an excellent predictor @ macro level, and a poor predictor on a micro level) and Quantum Physics (which is an excellent predictor @ micro level, and poor on macro level) because their own respective definitions state where they're accurate, and where they're not. Therefore within the definitions of their respective laws, they've always fit the criterion for being a physical law (scientifically). Physical law, by definition, is also open to the idea that the law is wrong - unlike the bible - which is what makes Science to unique. It's open to the idea that understanding can be improved upon as we learn more.
For a greater understanding of hypothesis, theories, and laws, you can educate yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Your second sentence doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of God. It just states that we don't know what we don't know... which isn't any evidence for or against, and therefore makes it off topic. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:58:57 PM |
"You're making an assumption that this happened. I say there's no more evidence of this happening than a children's tale in your local library."
.. you are making an assumption that this did not happen
No assumption on the skeptics part. The archeological evidence contradicts the Bible. See The Bible Unearthed by Silberman and Finkelstein. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/1/2009 6:00:09 PM |
I just decided that if we were to get on a debate about this, that it would stretch 15 pages, with no agreement. Far better to teach you to think for yourself, rather than just say what you were told. Then you will eventually think about it enough, to have a reasonable debate about it.
Another dodge. The reason why god doesn't heal amputees is that god is imaginary. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/1/2009 7:49:26 PM | | I told you once before countIbli, The healings Jesus did during his 3.5 year ministry were fulfillment of OT prophecy. If God chooses to heal now, it is only because he chooses to. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/2/2009 3:40:37 AM |
The healings Jesus did during his 3.5 year ministry were fulfillment of OT prophecy.
Canon to support this please
If God chooses to heal now, it is only because he chooses to.
He didn't ask why he chooses to heal "now" , he asked: "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" Your answer didn't address his question at all. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/2/2009 7:22:19 AM | | Isaiah 29 is one example. I had already mentioned that Peter severed the ear of a servant of the high priest and Christ restored his ear. I believe this passage is found in the book of Luke. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/2/2009 4:28:51 PM | So, your evidence is... you can't provide any evidence?
Your quote of me is out of context. While my experience of the numinous may not be considered evidence by him (unless he trusts that I'm not crazy or a liar), I suggested seeking the experience for himself. That certainly would be evidence to consider.
Your second sentence doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of God. It just states that we don't know what we don't know... which isn't any evidence for or against, and therefore makes it off topic
Apparently you misunderstand the point of my statement, which is that scientific understanding of spacetime is useless with regards to the nature of ontologies outside of spacetime, which was directed at the fellow who said something to the effect that our current understanding of physics and spacetime rules out God. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/2/2009 7:44:39 PM |
I told you once before countIbli, The healings Jesus did during his 3.5 year ministry were fulfillment of OT prophecy. If God chooses to heal now, it is only because he chooses to.
Then why doesn't god ever choose to heal amputees now? | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/5/2009 1:44:46 PM | Then why doesn't god ever choose to heal amputees now?
Maybe he does and you don't know about it. Are you privy to the personal lives of all 6 billion people on earth? Or maybe God thinks amputees need to remain amputees to learn from that, and sees no reason from his perspective to heal them at this time. Or maybe there's no God. Or maybe God exists, and he's busy watching a very interesting super-cosmic television show at the moment.
You can ask why all day long, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It never ever is, not scientifically. Lack of answers to such questions only serves to feed your preexisting intuitive bias, which, if like most humans, is entirely untrustworthy. Bottom line, such questions are less than useless. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/5/2009 6:04:29 PM |
You can ask why all day long, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It never ever is, not scientifically
WRONG
There ARE times where this is scientifically relevant. And there are times it isn't... let me educate you...
If, in science, we postulate that we can do X and get [insert result prediction hereafter referenced as 'Y'], we can test that hypothesis. If we do X, and get Y = our prediction, then we can move said hypothesis to peer review, and if it's repeatable - voila - we have a Theory. If, however, Y not= our prediction, then our hypothesis fails, and therefore our postulate fails.
The bible claims we can do certain things to influence our world (heal the sick, walk on water, move mountains etc) through Jesus. We've tested this, and the prediction not= Y, THEREFORE, the bible is WRONG. Jesus either lied, or God doesn't exist. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/5/2009 7:13:05 PM | If, in science, we postulate that we can do X and get [insert result prediction hereafter referenced as 'Y'], we can test that hypothesis...
You're right. Scientific hypotheses consist of making specific, distinguishing and falsifiable predictions. Lack of a predicted result is a falsification, given the trustworthiness of the conditions of the experiment or the evidence. You can strike my reckless comment.
The bible claims we can do certain things to influence our world (heal the sick, walk on water, move mountains etc) through Jesus. We've tested this, and the prediction not= Y, THEREFORE, the bible is WRONG. Jesus either lied, or God doesn't exist.
So you've trusted in God and haven't doubted in your heart? OK, I'll take your word for it. Of course, the Bible isn't a scientific theory. It's a collection of writings, some of which may be true and some of which may be false. Falsifying one part of it doesn't necessarily falsify all of it. But I'm not going to argue hard for the validity of any particular part, so I'm the wrong guy to spar with on that subject.
| |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/5/2009 7:53:27 PM | | Let's see, Jesus appears on a piece of toast and it's national news. A statue of the Virgin Mary bleeds/cries and it's international news. But a person regrowing an amputated limb? No, I guess that's not newsworthy at all. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/6/2009 2:33:23 AM |
So you've trusted in God and haven't doubted in your heart? OK, I'll take your word for it.
You don't have to. You can trust in God, and not doubt, and prey the same way (by the way, there's no canon that says you have to actually believe for it to work) and see if you do better than a control group. If you can prove your prayers do more good than a control group, you've proven the bible to be true. Good luck.
It's a collection of writings, some of which may be true and some of which may be false.
Bingo - the errancy in the bible proves the point doesn't it? Unless you want to argue an all powerful God can't create and accurate & verifiable text. Which would be interesting, since you'd be saying your all powerful God can't make a more accurate text than man. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/6/2009 7:06:07 AM | by the way, there's no canon that says you have to actually believe for it to work)
I figured you had Mark 11 in mind, where Jesus says, "Have faith in God...does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him...whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours", where total faith is specified. What I was asking is, have you ever tested that?
the errancy in the bible proves the point doesn't it? Unless you want to argue an all powerful God can't create and accurate & verifiable text. Which would be interesting, since you'd be saying your all powerful God can't make a more accurate text than man.
Personally, I don't think any part of New Testament is "inerrant, God-breathed scripture". The fingerprints of humans are all over every part of it. I'm not a fundamentalist or anything close to it. You'll have to go elsewhere for that. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/6/2009 9:33:00 AM | RE Msg: 86 by CountIbli:
I just decided that if we were to get on a debate about this, that it would stretch 15 pages, with no agreement. Far better to teach you to think for yourself, rather than just say what you were told. Then you will eventually think about it enough, to have a reasonable debate about it. Another dodge. The reason why god doesn't heal amputees is that god is imaginary.That's the easy answer. It's also the stupid answer. One might as well ask why doctors didn't use maggots, that eat necrotic flesh, rather than amputate, and conclude that all doctors are just sadistic b*astards that like making people suffer.
Why is it that when we look around us, it is almost always the people in remission from cancer, who really take a joy in life, and who are the ones to really tell us that we should live each day as if it was our last? Why is it that it is those who have suffered, who have the most wisdom on what is truly important? It seems to me as if we are still in the stage of philosophical evolution, that if it only when we lose something, that we learn to appreciate it. If anything, we should all gather around amputees. If anyone can teach us the value of having 2 functioning arms and 2 functioning legs, it is they. They are our teachers. If we are too stupid to see that, then more fool us, for we are the amputees, not valuing the great gifts we have every day. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:54:37 AM |
That's the easy answer. It's also the stupid answer. One might as well ask why doctors didn't use maggots, that eat necrotic flesh, rather than amputate, and conclude that all doctors are just sadistic b*astards that like making people suffer.
No comparison. Doctors are not omnipotent beings.
1) If god is able to heal amputees, but unwilling, then how is he good or loving?
2) If god is willing, but unable, to heal amputees, then how is he god?
3) If god is will and able to heal amputees, then why are there amputees?
If anyone can teach us the value of having 2 functioning arms and 2 functioning legs, it is they. They are our teachers. If we are too stupid to see that, then more fool us, for we are the amputees, not valuing the great gifts we have every day.
So god tortures people with phantom limb pain so that the rest of us can appreciate having 4 limbs? That's one sick puppy of a god your worship. | |
|
| Your case for/against God.
Posted: 11/6/2009 12:26:21 PM | RE Msg: 99 by CountIbli:
That's the easy answer. It's also the stupid answer. One might as well ask why doctors didn't use maggots, that eat necrotic flesh, rather than amputate, and conclude that all doctors are just sadistic b*astards that like making people suffer. No comparison. Doctors are not omnipotent beings.
But I do have to wonder why there are billions of questions you could ask, and yet you happen to keep pushing on a particular question that simply has not been addressed in the knowledge of religion that exists in the common populace. I also have to wonder why you automatically jump to calling G-d a "sick puppy", without considering the huge amount of experience of people who have suffered much, and yet now see the benefits in the outcomes that came directly from those ordeals. It makes me wonder if you are truly considering anything at all, or simply have an agenda to try and criticise those who have a theistic religious faith. From my experience, most people with high levels of criticism of a certain group or of a certain group's views, are people who have had personally negative experiences with a tiny minority of that group, but who took that to be indicative of the world in general, even though it wasn't, usually from people who were just as harmful to all people, including others in their same group, and were really more representative of people generally called "a**holes" that are just hurtful to everyone. Some people attempted to understand what has happened in their life, and recognised this. Some don't and continue to blame whole groups for their negative experiences. It is a shame, because most of their experiences are usually not so pained, and much of it was good, but their lack of effort in therapeutic resolution has kept them trapped in the past, and unable to escape the negative experiences of their past.
1) If god is able to heal amputees, but unwilling, then how is he good or loving? The Hollywood version of Santa Claus doesn't exist. There are people in the world who realise that Hollywood productions are only what they were intended to be, fictitious escapist entertainment.
2) If god is willing, but unable, to heal amputees, then how is he god? See #1.
3) If god is will and able to heal amputees, then why are there amputees? See #1.
If anyone can teach us the value of having 2 functioning arms and 2 functioning legs, it is they. They are our teachers. If we are too stupid to see that, then more fool us, for we are the amputees, not valuing the great gifts we have every day. So god tortures people with phantom limb pain so that the rest of us can appreciate having 4 limbs? That's one sick puppy of a god your worship. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
