It does prove us even. for instance prove to me that miracles can’t happen. Prove that it is 100% impossible for them to occur.
Can you?
No I can`t.
[/quote]
equal footing.
and?
so is mine when I fold it in half.
Your truth is relative.
[quote]
Go on, show that this is impossible, knowing that it is BS.
If you actually do that, I`ll do some theolo–, um, re-interpreting until it fits again, oh 15 inch sceptic.[/quote]
I never asked you to do any theology. I merely pointed out the problems with your assertions.
There is such as thing as a proper basic belief that all things have to start from. Science can’t prove these proper basic believes, they just exist.
for instance you would say you have not seen miracles, or God therefore they don’t exist.
I could easily counter by saying I have never seen your brain therefore it doesn’t exist, or that we were created five minutes ago, and we only imagine our memories because they were placed there. Science could not prove, or disprove these things since they are outside the scientific realm.
At this point though it becomes a lot of philosophy.
I don’t think you are truly interested in learning any of this. so do you really want to continue this talk?
[quote]kroby wrote:
If there’s one thing that is nearly unassailable, it’s a man’s faith in that which is beyond his comprehension. In other words, God.
Let me just offer this tidbit. Once upon a time, the Church, as being the Holy Word of God on Earth, declared:
The earth was flat - proven false
Earth was the center of the universe - proven false
God gave his Authority to rule over man to Nobles (Lords, Dukes, Emperors) as ordained representatives of His Holy Order. To this day, we still give prayers to “The Lord,” which is blatant god worship of the local ruler in the stead of God. A proxy, as it were. Thus setting up a government with complete control over it’s subjects, on pain of death. This has proven to be a very unstable form of government, as corruption runs rampant with those with complete power. Not to mention that people were praying to the local lord, as well as god. Thus creating a dual divinity. That, my friends, is heresy. “You shall worship only one God.”
If religions go wrong anywhere, it would be that God allows humans to be involved. The religions out there today are religions of man, not God.[/quote]
and that is why there was a reformation, and the coined term sola scriptura
I don’t think you are truly interested in learning any of this. so do you really want to continue this talk?
[/quote]
Am I really, truly interestd in learning about theology?
No.
Waste of time.
At least I thought so.
Unfortunately Voegelin seems to think that a lot of mass movements seem to have characteristics that can only be described in theological terms so far.
So maybe I am interested in some aspects of theology, just not the pixie dust part of it.
Damn. I spend a day away from the keyboard and miss all the fun. Instead of replying individually, I’ll address a few points here.
–
John S. wrote:
To me, the story of Adam and Eve has a lot of elements that don’t add up. For example, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong) prior to eating the fruits of the tree, so they couldn’t understand the difference between obeying God and disobeying. The usual counter argument is about God giving them free will. Granted, but by withholding the necessary knowledge to understand right and wrong, Adam and Eve had no way of objectively or morally deciding if obeying was better than disobeying.
There’s also the fact that God, being omniscient, had to know beforehand what would happen. His being angry about it is an odd reaction. If your “check engine” light comes on in your car, and you ignore it, will you be angry when your car breaks down? Or will you blame yourself because you didn’t do anything to prevent the problem when it was brought to your attention?
Third problem: Adam and Eve didn’t fall on their own. The Serpent was there to tempt them. Not only does God put the tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place; then deny Adam and Eve the intellectual tools for them to make the right decisions; He also allows another of His creations into the Garden knowing full well what the Serpent intends to do. Why is God apparently stacking the odds so unfavorably against His favorite creation?
My last point would be: Where was the loving and forgiving God at that time? Why punish not only Adam and Eve, but their offspring too for the rest of time? The doctrine of “Original Sin” has to be one of the worst example of injustice ever. A fresh-born baby, having done nothing of his own will, is considered a sinner. Theologians has wrestled with the problem of dying babies being sent to Hell (the logical consequence of applying God’s rules as written) for ages. So again, why does God get angry at something He not only knew beforehand would happen, but that He actually encouraged; and the not only punishes the “perpetrators” but their yet unborn descendants for all time?
What would you say if your father commited a crime and was sentenced to jail and then you got thrown in jail too and your kids got thrown in jail with a special clause that any offspring they eventually have is to be jailed from birth? That’s how your God’s love and mercy works in that story. Sound fair to you?
I’d also note that in the story, God lies to Adam and Eve while the Serpent tells them the truth. God tells them eating of the tree will kill them, while the Serpent tells them they’ll gain knowledge about good and evil. Isn’t honesty better than deception? Why didn’t God tell them the truth about the tree? It wouldn’t change anything about the rule of not eating of it.
Alternative explanation that doesn’t require you to twist your brain in a pretzel to accept it: It’s only a story, a creation myth with no ties to any objective reality. It’s flaws have no more relevance than a mistake in a romance novel.
Wow, that explanation doesn’t insult anyone’s intelligence in any way.
–
haney1:
Not only am I not compelled, it makes me feel silly to try and believe on such flimsy evidence.
[quote]My belief in miracles, and your disbelief puts us even.
Neither has scientific proof that it can or can’t happen.
(…and a bit later)
It does prove us even. for instance prove to me that miracles can’t happen. Prove that it is 100% impossible for them to occur.[/quote]
You asking for proof of impossibility is a bit disingenuous. Even if someone could prove that all recorded miracles are explainable using non-miraculous means, it still wouldn’t prove them impossible. It would simply mean that we have no memory of a miracle occurring, or that some might occur in the future. It is very hard, often impossible, to prove a negative (that something doesn’t exist, or doesn’t happen.) We generally ask to opposite: That someone claiming X offer supporting proof of X.
The most common reference to miracles is when people recover from a serious illness. You’ll often hear the family claim it’s “a miracle.” I think that all those occurrences have perfectly good rational explanations (even if we don’t know what they are) and that at no times were the laws of Physics suspended. It’s also always “invisible” illnesses that are healed. Why is it never an amputee growing back a leg? That would be a lot harder to explain. Is it that all amputees are unworthy and of too little faith?
So while you’re free to believe that miracles occur or have occurred, the evidence for them (or lack of such) supports the more reasonable view that they don’t.
Some people swear by homeopathy and colon irrigation - and those have never been shown to have any effect beyond a placebo one in properly controlled scientific studies. Very few people base their beliefs on proofs and facts.
[quote]orion wrote:
So maybe I am interested in some aspects of theology, just not the pixie dust part of it. [/quote]
Well religion is so wide spread and prevalent across all cultures and history, that we’re either wired for it genetically, or at one time it offered enough of a cultural advantage that all “atheist” groups were absorbed or eliminated.
The question is also whether it’s still relevant today, or if in and age of nuclear weapons and similar WMDs it exposes us to more conflicts than we’d have otherwise.
Leaving aside the consequences of believing something that might be entirely false…
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1:
he has even said he would like to believe but does not feel compelled by the evidence.
Not only am I not compelled, it makes me feel silly to try and believe on such flimsy evidence.
[/quote]
I knew I wasn’t far off the mark.
My belief in miracles, and your disbelief puts us even.
I am not going to spend to much time on this. Although it is an excellent post.
My reason for saying it was to point out that we are on equal footing no more no less.
good points. prove that no one has had a limb grow back. although we can say it is unlikely. Perhaps God has never been moved to restore a lost limb.
Shoot people being healed of being crippled, and blind seems to have dissappeared with the apostles (save the crooks on tv).
You know as well as I do an argument from silence is usually not a great one. I do concour though that either view point can be taken, but to not believe is the easier of the two.
Its understandable. Although I think the placebo effect is small form of a cure in its self. People having a good state of mind leads to other parts of their life being healthy, or aiding in other cures. While it by no means is the cure, it does have assisting values to the actual cure.
man I didn’t even want to respond that much… Thanks for sucking me in.
I don’t think you are truly interested in learning any of this. so do you really want to continue this talk?
Am I really, truly interestd in learning about theology?
No.
Waste of time.
At least I thought so.
Unfortunately Voegelin seems to think that a lot of mass movements seem to have characteristics that can only be described in theological terms so far.
So maybe I am interested in some aspects of theology, just not the pixie dust part of it. [/quote]
Then ask away about what you want to know, and leave the attacks out of it.
I have no problem with you not believing, and I think I have shown that I don’t consider your disbelieve irrational. So why take a stance that I am irrational in my belief?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
I am not going to spend to much time on this. Although it is an excellent post.
My reason for saying it was to point out that we are on equal footing no more no less.[/quote]
I disagree on this point.
You supporting “X” and me “not X” does not necessarily imply we’re on equal footing.
If I claim that aliens are watching us from undetectable flying saucers in low earth orbit, and you think there aren’t; we are not on equal footing. It is far more likely than there aren’t any flying saucers than they are.
People can make endless amount of baseless declaration. Simply because they can’t all be refuted doesn’t mean they are all correct, nor even as likely to be correct as the opposite claim.
The argument is known as “Russell’s Teapot” and shows the fallacy of assigning equal value to two opposing views, when there is evidence for neither.
While they have equal evidence, they do not have equal likelihood of being true.
Again you ask to prove a negative.
I’ll say that there has never been a documented case of a limb growing back on a human being.
I’ll grant you lizards. Maybe they’re the one actually favored by God (after beetles, of course.)
Odd though, since missing limbs, especially extremities (fingers, toes) is not that uncommon. Has not a single amputee ever had enough faith to move God? What happened to “ask, and it shall be given to you?”
Or is the better, simpler explanation that miracle don’t happen (ever), hence limbs don’t grow back? (Or won’t until we figure out how those lizards do it and borrow those genes…)
Why is that? Why would God offer such convincing proof to those people at that time and not to anyone else since?
Anyone back then witnessing a miracle must’ve been compelled by the evidence to believe in God. Why can’t I enjoy the benefit of such evidence? Isn’t God fair and just in his dealing with us?
Easier? I’d call it more honest. You don’t generally accept other propositions (financial, social, etc) without some kind of evidence or verification, so why do you give religious ones a free pass?
Why must religion and belief be excluded from question and inquiry? Why can’t intellectual tools that work so well in other domains be applied to religion too? Yes, people apply them all the time, but when the results contradict their beliefs, they reject the result and keep the belief. You don’t do that in other domains.
People laughed at the “germ theory” of diseases initially. But, when it was shown that behaving as if that theory was true led to better results, people had to accept it. They didn’t reject it and claim “our evil miasma” theory is on an equal footing.
Yes, but when evaluating a treatment for effectiveness, you look for an effect beyond and above the placebo one.
No doubt, but if your treatment has no effect in addition to the placebo one, is it truly effective? If you take people suffering from an infection and give half of them sugar pills and the other half penicillin, you’ll see a much better recovery rate in the penicillin group. You’ll see a few recoveries in the sugar pill group too. That doesn’t mean sugar pills are an effective mean of combating infections.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing after my long “Adam and Eve” argument above…
Guess we don’t choose what piques our interest, now do we?
[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
So maybe I am interested in some aspects of theology, just not the pixie dust part of it.
Well religion is so wide spread and prevalent across all cultures and history, that we’re either wired for it genetically, or at one time it offered enough of a cultural advantage that all “atheist” groups were absorbed or eliminated.
The question is also whether it’s still relevant today, or if in and age of nuclear weapons and similar WMDs it exposes us to more conflicts than we’d have otherwise.
Leaving aside the consequences of believing something that might be entirely false…
[/quote]
What really, really sucks is that the very instant old religions lose their power, new ones are invented.
We are probably better off with a domesticated Christianity than true believers in communism or national socialism.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Damn. I spend a day away from the keyboard and miss all the fun. Instead of replying individually, I’ll address a few points here.
–
John S. wrote:
He created man, gave them one rule not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They where tempted and got kicked out.
To me, the story of Adam and Eve has a lot of elements that don’t add up. For example, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong) prior to eating the fruits of the tree, so they couldn’t understand the difference between obeying God and disobeying. The usual counter argument is about God giving them free will. Granted, but by withholding the necessary knowledge to understand right and wrong, Adam and Eve had no way of objectively or morally deciding if obeying was better than disobeying.
There’s also the fact that God, being omniscient, had to know beforehand what would happen. His being angry about it is an odd reaction. If your “check engine” light comes on in your car, and you ignore it, will you be angry when your car breaks down? Or will you blame yourself because you didn’t do anything to prevent the problem when it was brought to your attention?
Third problem: Adam and Eve didn’t fall on their own. The Serpent was there to tempt them. Not only does God put the tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place; then deny Adam and Eve the intellectual tools for them to make the right decisions; He also allows another of His creations into the Garden knowing full well what the Serpent intends to do. Why is God apparently stacking the odds so unfavorably against His favorite creation?
My last point would be: Where was the loving and forgiving God at that time? Why punish not only Adam and Eve, but their offspring too for the rest of time? The doctrine of “Original Sin” has to be one of the worst example of injustice ever. A fresh-born baby, having done nothing of his own will, is considered a sinner. Theologians has wrestled with the problem of dying babies being sent to Hell (the logical consequence of applying God’s rules as written) for ages. So again, why does God get angry at something He not only knew beforehand would happen, but that He actually encouraged; and the not only punishes the “perpetrators” but their yet unborn descendants for all time?
What would you say if your father commited a crime and was sentenced to jail and then you got thrown in jail too and your kids got thrown in jail with a special clause that any offspring they eventually have is to be jailed from birth? That’s how your God’s love and mercy works in that story. Sound fair to you?
I’d also note that in the story, God lies to Adam and Eve while the Serpent tells them the truth. God tells them eating of the tree will kill them, while the Serpent tells them they’ll gain knowledge about good and evil. Isn’t honesty better than deception? Why didn’t God tell them the truth about the tree? It wouldn’t change anything about the rule of not eating of it.
Alternative explanation that doesn’t require you to twist your brain in a pretzel to accept it: It’s only a story, a creation myth with no ties to any objective reality. It’s flaws have no more relevance than a mistake in a romance novel.
Wow, that explanation doesn’t insult anyone’s intelligence in any way.
[/quote]
Actually, You missplace some facts and don’t understand some parts of the story so please allow me to explain it.
First, the reason for the tree. God wanted to be worshiped by man. Forcing us to follow everything he said would just make us a robot. He gave us a way not to believe in him but in are selves(making it so we had a choice).
Second, God did not lie, Adam and eve where given eternal life, once they ate from the tree they no longer had eternal life they would die at some point. The snake(satan) actually told them they would not die if they ate it.
Third, You say its unfair? When that moment of sin was born everyone was born into sin. They no longer could be in that perfect place. But God promised them his son would die for the sins of the world making us able to get in to heaven. So we lost eden but gained heaven.(pretty fair trade if you ask me).
Fourth, There should be no debate on if a child dies he goes to hell, he doesn’t. at the age of 12 is when a person is considered a man, then they are to take responsability for there action in the eyes of God and then they will be sent to hell if they do not believe in him.
Fifth, God does know beforhand but think of it in a bigger picture. With free will we are given many choices, God knows the paths for each choice but its up to us to make the choice, we make some good choices we make some bad(but we always had the option to make the good choice).
I hope I hit on all your points. If I missed any please let me know.
You supporting “X” and me “not X” does not necessarily imply we’re on equal footing.
If I claim that aliens are watching us from undetectable flying saucers in low earth orbit, and you think there aren’t; we are not on equal footing. It is far more likely than there aren’t any flying saucers than they are.
People can make endless amount of baseless declaration. Simply because they can’t all be refuted doesn’t mean they are all correct, nor even as likely to be correct as the opposite claim.
[/quote]
I am implying from a scientific point we are on equal. I would like to address your probability argument. The most probable solution/answer should not always be assummed the correct one.
I am assigning that science is equal on both sides. So that the conclusion scientific is still an up in the air conclusion. That is what I was addressing orion on.
True, but once again probability should not be associated as the correct one.
I would agree.
You are now asking me to prove a negative. I have no documented case of an amputee that has ever even requested that.
ocams razor? simple is not always correct.
Lets say God shows you pookie. what happens in 100 years when you are dead? Someone else will come along and ask for the same proof. When does it end? When has God proved miracles happen? Why does God have to be subject to ever moving goal posts?
I would say so, but then you have would have to ask though how do I know what is just. What is enough proof for me isn’t enough for you. There go those goal posts moving.
not really. Take for instance the Christ Myther’s, or those who say Christ didn’t rise from the dead. They still argue from silence. Are they being honest when they say Christ never existed?
I don’t think I am.
I think you are no longer referring to me. I apply those rules all the time. I don’t let my faith squirm out. I put it to the test. Some tests I am not qualified at this time to administer properly.
Unfortunately 90% or more of western Christians get their knowledge of Islam directly from Zionists.
As I said earlier, the video is PROPAGANDA put out by the group “Memri”. It is DESIGNED to fool gullible Christians and average Americans into hating Muslims.
When the war comes, guess who will be sitting on the sidelines again…
The following video is an incredibly EXCELLENT example of how Zionists have been shaping people’s minds for YEARS about Arab Muslims. Even includes a clip from an old Bugs Bunny cartoon–probably the first exposure to Arab culture for most people in their 30’s to 50’s.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
I am implying from a scientific point we are on equal. I would like to address your probability argument. The most probable solution/answer should not always be assummed the correct one.[/quote]
By the very definition, the most probable has, well, the most probability of being correct. That’s what the assigned probability indicates. If the weatherman says there’s a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, you can still plan a picnic; there’s no absolute guarantee you won’t have sunshine, but the odds don’t favor you.
Claiming that it’s going to rain tomorrow is not on an equal footing with the claim that there will be sunshine.
The science is equal in the sense that there is no evidence on either side; that does not mean that the probability that either is true is equal.
The absolutely correct one, no. The most probable, yes. That’s why we assign probability in the first place. It gives us data about the likelihood of the final outcome.
Come on. Of all people who have lost a limb, are you going to tell me that you really believe not a single one ever prayed for his limb back?
People pray to win at Bingo, don’t tell me no one has asked that ever.
Obviously. But when there is no evidence whatsoever, even for the simple claim of existence, increasing the complexity baselessly is not warranted. It’s like building a warehouse where the Tooth Fairy can store all those teeth without first establishing whether there actually is such a being.
Occam’s Razor has endured since the term has been coined because when two explanations explain equally well the same set of facts and evidence, the simpler one is generally prefered (and more likely correct.)
What moving goal post? I’m asking for the same evidence to be presented to everyone. How hard can that be for an omnipotent being? I’m not moving any goal post, I’m simply following from what’s been written in the book God is claimed to have inspired. It is repeatedly claimed that prayers will be answered; why can’t I ask for evidence? I’m not asking something selfish or greedy, it can be answered in any which way God pleases; it doesn’t have to be something I can show others, I’m just asking for something that’ll let me reconcile faith and reason.
I’m not following all those goal posts of yours. I didn’t ask for A and then claim I was asking for B when A was provided, which is generally what “moving the goal posts” refers to.
I must be having a dumb night, because I’m not following your claims of arguments from silence either… who’s arguing what with silence?
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
I am implying from a scientific point we are on equal. I would like to address your probability argument. The most probable solution/answer should not always be assummed the correct one.
By the very definition, the most probable has, well, the most probability of being correct. That’s what the assigned probability indicates. If the weatherman says there’s a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, you can still plan a picnic; there’s no absolute guarantee you won’t have sunshine, but the odds don’t favor you.
Claiming that it’s going to rain tomorrow is not on an equal footing with the claim that there will be sunshine.
[/quote]
What is the probability of us even existing on this planet? one in how many? Probability is also determined by how much information we have about something at the time. Sure the odds favor you, but odds don’t determine correctness. Which is the whole point of this.
I wasn’t arguing probability. I told you what I was addressing. So why address something that wasn’t my point?
It is a limited conclusion. You may never see the one time occurance, but if it happens than all probablity is thrown out the window.
Honestly it has never really crossed my mind, other than when an atheist brings it up. Which when they do I think if I lost a limb would I pray to be healed of it. I honestly think I wouldn’t. If I do ever lose a limb though I will let you know. I have never prayed to be healed of anything really.
Yes, but your original statement was shut to the possibility to open it up for more complexity.
Why isn’t once for all good enough? Why must he come do something every 20 years to prove something? You personally are not moving the goal posts, but that line or God has to show me something individually is an ever moving goal post.
If we both look at the same piece of evidence and come to different conclusions who is right? What proof would need to be provided for you and I to come to the same conclusions?
The moving goal posts perhaps was not the best description to use. I am trying to convey that everyone has a different standard of what is suffecient proof. No matter what proof is provided someone will always reject it, and some will always accept it too quickly, and the rest will fall in the middle. When though can we say that enough has been provided? When does has God fulfilled His requirement?
Christ Myther’s argue from Silence.
i.e There are no contemporaries who wrote of Christ out side of the gospel’s so He must not exist. The Gospels are also questionable, because the don’t say who wrote them directly in side the text.
That argument is from silence, and it is a very week one.
I could easily say that no one disputes the ressurrection that the early church claimed so the silence is very telling.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
What is the probability of us even existing on this planet? one in how many? Probability is also determined by how much information we have about something at the time. Sure the odds favor you, but odds don’t determine correctness. Which is the whole point of this.[/quote]
There’s a lot we still don’t know to be able to determine accurately these types of probability.
Nonetheless, my base argument was simply that claiming that both are claims where on equal footing was incorrect; whether mine or yours is more likely is related, but not the main point I was trying to make.
Maybe your mom or some other relative or friend would pray for you.
I think you’re being a bit obtuse here; you’re looking for a way to explain why we never had a case of an amputee being healed by God (ie, miraculously.)
Many people who lose fingers are manual workers and laborers who need those fingers to do their jobs. Losing their fingers or hand means a lot of hardship ahead for their families. If someone has true faith in God and knows that to Him nothing is impossible, don’t you think the logical thing to pray for is for a miraculous healing of whatever limb is missing?
Every year, dozens if not hundreds of cancers go into remission; tumors shrink unexplainably; people come out of year long comas, etc. Most of these get attributed to God; so why not replace a limb? Why can He answer a prayer to heal a brain tumor, but not reattach a hand?
He doesn’t have to come every 20 years; and it doesn’t have to be anything spectacular. I’m not asking to witness Jesus tap-dancing on the surface of my swimming pool some morning; I’m simply wondering why all those Bible characters got to witness miracles; see God’s face or hand; witness plagues, etc.
If God is actually just and fair and loves us more than we can know, why wouldn’t He allow each of His beloved children the same amount of evidence for His existence?
God can do what He wants; I’m just pointing out that in the Bible, miracles and apparitions and countless other reality-defying occurrences are common.
But since they never occur nowadays, when more people could benefit, or when they could be properly recorded for posterity, you can reach one of two conclusions: A) The time of miracle has passed; or B) miracles never occurred in the first place and the stories are simply embellished or greatly exaggerated.
Which is more likely? That for about 4,000 years, God performed miracles, apparitions and direct communications and then stopped; or that none of that ever happened except in oral folk tales that eventually became Judaism?
Well me, of course. : )
That’s exactly what’s interesting in these discussions. We live in the same world, have access to the same information, but reach conclusions that are polar opposites. I find it very interesting to understand how you’re reaching you’re conclusions. My only problem so far is that many steps in your reasoning are “leap of faith” so to speak.
Evidence?
According to the Bible, God personally carved the 10 Commandments in stone tablets. Why didn’t He carve them in the side of a mountain, or on the moon’s surface? 100 kilometers high hebrew letters on the moon’s surface would’ve cleared up a lot of speculation about who’s God is real.
where are those tablets now, anyway?
Maybe we can try another tack: What constitutes, for you, sufficient proof for the existence of God; and why is the Biblical God the “correct” one.
When all believers can agree with each other. When 6000 faiths can be united as one; when believers in Allah don’t war with believers in Yahweh or God.
[quote]Christ Myther’s argue from Silence.
i.e There are no contemporaries who wrote of Christ out side of the gospel’s so He must not exist. The Gospels are also questionable, because the don’t say who wrote them directly in side the text.
That argument is from silence, and it is a very week one.[/quote]
The argument that Jesus never wrote anything is weak because Jesus never wrote anything?
In a time when there was no recording technology, don’t you think that 60 years is a long time to preserve a life story using only oral word of mouth communications?
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney1 wrote:
There’s a lot we still don’t know to be able to determine accurately these types of probability.
Nonetheless, my base argument was simply that claiming that both are claims where on equal footing was incorrect; whether mine or yours is more likely is related, but not the main point I was trying to make.
[/quote]
From the stand point I was saying equal footing I.E. science can’t test either, and can’t prove either. So while you added a new dynamic that is correct, so is my original premise is as well.
Perhaps.
make sense yes. The problem is I see it as more “fatal”. Meaning the worker would probably not ask for it to be reattatched, but would accept his fate and not pray for it. Similiar to when someone dies. I have never seen a group of Christians get together and pray that they be raised from the dead again.
When you bring this topic up I think the same thing. I understand the reasoning behind your question, but I also think you are not considering the instant reaction of certain said amputee.
I have heard of people praying for healing of disease, I have never heard of someone losing a limb and asking God to reattach it. So my best case guess it… No one has had enough faith to reattach a limb, because they have just accepted their fate.
read previous paragraph.
I would imagine it would have to be spectacular even on the smallest scale.
There seem to be dry spell’s of the miraculous through out the Bible.
although the Bible written over 1500 years, in comparison the miraculous been very limited.
a tad over simplified. Perhaps miracles occur on a more personal level. Perhaps they are less glorified because God does not use one person like He used to in those times. Perhaps those instances of cancer being cured are miracles.
again with the likely argument. Miracles by definition are unlikely. Even if we were certain they existed, and happened. How likely would it be that one happened to you individually? 1 in say 100,000? so if there are 6 billion people on the earth only 60,000 would have a miracle performed. It is not very likely that you would have a miracle performed in your life.
nice…
yes and no. I am keeping this at a cursory level right now because I dread this conversation go where it may. At some point though when I do reveal all my reasons it will still be me having faith, and you still saying my pov lacks reason.
Honestly the only miracle in the Bible that I hold stead fast to is the ressurrection. Which I base off of all the historical evidence of the early church. Something that we are both on equal footing on, but come to a different conclusion.
who knows? He could of done a lot of things differently. although had he done those we would still argue about who really did those things.
suppossed to be with the ark of the cov. That is a different topic altogether.
answered above with the NT.
That may never happen in this lifetime.
I never said that. I said the argument that Jesus never existed is weak because someone not writing about Him in his lifetime does not discount Him being real.
Yes, but I don’t think it took 60 years eaither. The latest date for Mark, which I don’t agree with is 35 -38 years after His death. Also that doen’t take into account the Q hypothesis containing many of these stories.
It might not have. according to Eusebius Matthew had a gospel in aramaic that has been lost. It is very possible it was written well before Mark, and possibily completed with in 10 - 20 years of His death.
I don’t usually participate in religous threads. Kind of pointless.
Religion is a matter of faith, not proof. I also think a single God exists and that all religion was created by man to explain what he cannot comprehend.
I believe that when you pass on that you will find God gets a good chuckle over religion. As Bart Simpson said: “We should celebrate our stupid similarities rather then fight over our stupid differences.”
In life you should live a good life, help where you can, try and make a difference in the life of others. Be an example as best you can. If your religion helps you do that, I’m all for it.
If it wants to kill me, doesn’t think I’m a chosen one or thinks I’m not going to heaven because I ate meat on a Friday, to me that sounds like man talking, not God. But that’s what I believe.