Misconceptions of Christianity

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

I just noticed this (I only caught your second reply). I’m glad to hear that it (whatever “it” may have been) worked for your friend.

I can’t really comment on it any more than that since I would need more details than I think you were given.

Your last paragraph is more what I was looking for in this discussion, though - a reason why God was such a prolific miracle worker in Biblical times yet has been (as far as I can tell) inexplicably absent now that we have better tools to observe the universe, a more involved understanding of natural phenomena, and a greater importance placed upon rational, “scientific” explanations for what we experience.

It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence.

*edit[/quote]

2000 years ago God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was dead then came back to life and was witnessed walking around by dozens of people. I guess we should take the words of scientists that tell us God does not exist, and not the words of average Jews that witnessed a dead person alive walking around? You want the proof of a miracle there is the greatest miracle of all. Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago, so there is no current miracle that anyone here would beleive if they do not believe in the greatest miracle of all.[/quote]

Ancient Sumerians believed that they could study the stars and animal intestines as a means of investigating disease.

In an era where knowledge of the natural world was primitive and the supernatural was routinely looked to as a means of explaining various observations, you will have to forgive me if I take the word of “average” (comparatively undereducated and highly superstitious) folk regarding dead men walking with a pinch of salt.

Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago? Arguable. But, even so, what makes those individuals so special that they were privileged with the opportunity to witness a resurrection firsthand whereas we - 2,000 years later - need to rely on a book subjected to numerous translations and dozens of interpretations over the years?
[/quote]

Well, if you are Catholic then you get your stuff directly from the authority.

[quote]
If that miracle won’t suffice, then none will? Again, arguable. But, wouldn’t even be necessary to “one-up” that miracle. Just do it again for us. It would be infinitely more useful this time due to not only medical technology and knowledge but ALSO because we have significantly better means of documenting/recording the important details for future millenia.

Besides, so what if it doesn’t convince every. single. person on the planet? For a being of unlimited power, performing such a task would take absolutely nothing. It would just be as He commands it. And yet, for zero effort, this being can’t be bothered to perform a task that would undoubtedly bring tens of thousands AT THE VERY LEAST to his side.

What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?

That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Jesus said the same thing I just posted. Jesus had raised a man from the dead, Lazurus, and people said, “Jesus if you will only preform another miracle then I will beleive.” He just raised a man from the dead, what more proof do you need? Blessed are those that have not seen and yet beleive. [/quote]

Well, one man’s blessed is another man’s gullible, I suppose.

Why punish those who, through perhaps no fault of their own, take a stronger push to believe than others? Again, to say that there is absolutely no way to convince the nonbelievers is wrong - people convert to religion after years of atheism fairly frequently. And if comparatively smaller things can get thousands to convert, why are we to believe that HUGE things won’t/can’t?[/quote]

[anonym]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god? [/quote]

Talk to a person who has seen a miracle and you will know someone who has encountered at the very least a god.
[/quote]

OK, give me an example of a miracle then.[/quote]

Typically, G-d uses miracles in Judaism to give a given person the “street credibility” that he is a representative of G-d. Example, Elisha dividing water or Moses turning a rod into a snake, etc.

Modern miracles are often more subtle.

One miracle, to me, at least, has been the continued existance of the Jewish people as a people and the re-assembly of Israel in Israel.

The scattering and near-destruction of my people has been foretold some 3,500 years ago.

Basically every major power has attempted to eliminate us: Babylonians, Pagan Romans, Papal States (with forced conversions and kidnapping of children), various pogroms in Russia, Germany, England, et al, Hitler, Stalin, modern muslim nations.

There is NOTHING special about my people. We are not bigger, stronger, faster, or more numerous.

And yet we remain while most all on that list are nothing but dust.

And not only have we remained, but have somehow managed to be at the turning points of civilization:

from Chris Columbus (yeah, his mother was Jewish, so he’s Jewish),
to Leanardo DaVinci
To ending WWI for England by inventing certain explosives
To ending WWII for the Allies by inventing nukes
To Jonas Salk (vaccines)

Even Christianity (while the theology is certainly disagreed with by Jewish people) follows the core philosophical and ethical guidelines set forth in Judaism (and, more precisely Rabbi Hillel, who first espoused the “Golden Rule — love thy neighbor as thyself” about a century before Christianity came about. (Indeed, the entire Sermon on the Mount is highly derivative of Rabbi Hillel’s teachings.)

Christianity changed the world, generally for the better.

However imperfectly, Judeo-Christian ethics are the ethics of the modern world, or at least the goal.

It staggers me that a completely insignificant semi-migratory tribe from the backwaters of Judea — has played such a vital part in civilization.

There is no rhyme or reason for us to have played the role we have played in the world, but that G-d picked up and decided that he would use this least-of-the-peoples in the world as evidence of Him.

Our existence is a miracle.

And it is also why truly evil people – Hitler, Stalin — seek to destroy Jewish people first, as they are rebelling against G-d Himself.

[/quote]

Not really a miracle though because you can explain it perfectly without recourse to the mystical.

A group of people that has a common belief and suffers a lot of hardship, they use that hardship to draw strength and also draw themselves together, supporting each other in whatever community they arrive in, lending money to start up businesses, giving emotional and physical support. Due to the wandering nature there are Jewish communities pretty much everywhere therefore there is a good chance that there will be Jewish people involved in many of modern history’s important moments.[/quote]

Yeah, but, pretty much admittedly, you are not going to see a miracle in any event, no matter how grand. [/quote]

Can we start with some examples of modern miracles then and at least try to have something that doesn-t have an easily explained mechanism behind it?[/quote]

Well you could look at all the people that have had tumors, &c. that after being prayed over disappear from x-rays, MRI’s, &c.

You could look at the Nun who was cured of Parkinson’s disease after asking John Paul II to pray for her illness.[/quote]

OK now we are talking. Please post links to where I can see the evidence of these miracles. If it’s happening a lot, that should be easy right?[/quote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547146/Miracle-nun-talks-of-her-Parkinsons-cure.html[/quote]

I assume you haven’t read the articles that state there was a relapse?

Pope's sainthood setback after 'miracle cure' nun reported to be ill again

[/quote]

And this shows…[/quote]

That one of the doctors charged with reviewing her case suspects she might not have actually had Parkinson’s, but instead a similar disease which has been KNOWN TO RELAPSE. Hey - a probably medical solution!

Besides, I imagine her entire order had been praying for her for some time, so the idea that an out-of-left-field prayer cured her is a stretch.

What else does it show? Hmm… well, you cited it as a miracle. From the article YOU posted: To qualify as a miracle in the eyes of the Vatican, a patientâ??s recovery must be sudden, complete and permanent, as well as inexplicable by doctors.

I bolded the important part to save you some reading. I’m sure you will try harder with your next retort.

[anonym]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

I just noticed this (I only caught your second reply). I’m glad to hear that it (whatever “it” may have been) worked for your friend.

I can’t really comment on it any more than that since I would need more details than I think you were given.

Your last paragraph is more what I was looking for in this discussion, though - a reason why God was such a prolific miracle worker in Biblical times yet has been (as far as I can tell) inexplicably absent now that we have better tools to observe the universe, a more involved understanding of natural phenomena, and a greater importance placed upon rational, “scientific” explanations for what we experience.

It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence.

*edit[/quote]

2000 years ago God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was dead then came back to life and was witnessed walking around by dozens of people. I guess we should take the words of scientists that tell us God does not exist, and not the words of average Jews that witnessed a dead person alive walking around? You want the proof of a miracle there is the greatest miracle of all. Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago, so there is no current miracle that anyone here would beleive if they do not believe in the greatest miracle of all.[/quote]

Ancient Sumerians believed that they could study the stars and animal intestines as a means of investigating disease.

In an era where knowledge of the natural world was primitive and the supernatural was routinely looked to as a means of explaining various observations, you will have to forgive me if I take the word of “average” (comparatively undereducated and highly superstitious) folk regarding dead men walking with a pinch of salt.

Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago? Arguable. But, even so, what makes those individuals so special that they were privileged with the opportunity to witness a resurrection firsthand whereas we - 2,000 years later - need to rely on a book subjected to numerous translations and dozens of interpretations over the years?
[/quote]

Well, if you are Catholic then you get your stuff directly from the authority.

If that miracle won’t suffice, then none will? Again, arguable. But, wouldn’t even be necessary to “one-up” that miracle. Just do it again for us. It would be infinitely more useful this time due to not only medical technology and knowledge but ALSO because we have significantly better means of documenting/recording the important details for future millenia.

Besides, so what if it doesn’t convince every. single. person on the planet? For a being of unlimited power, performing such a task would take absolutely nothing. It would just be as He commands it. And yet, for zero effort, this being can’t be bothered to perform a task that would undoubtedly bring tens of thousands AT THE VERY LEAST to his side.

What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?

That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Jesus said the same thing I just posted. Jesus had raised a man from the dead, Lazurus, and people said, “Jesus if you will only preform another miracle then I will beleive.” He just raised a man from the dead, what more proof do you need? Blessed are those that have not seen and yet beleive. [/quote]

Well, one man’s blessed is another man’s gullible, I suppose.

Why punish those who, through perhaps no fault of their own, take a stronger push to believe than others? Again, to say that there is absolutely no way to convince the nonbelievers is wrong - people convert to religion after years of atheism fairly frequently. And if comparatively smaller things can get thousands to convert, why are we to believe that HUGE things won’t/can’t?[/quote]

If you were Catholic you would already be a believer and as such needn’t be bothered to wait for God to show Himself to you.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< This is what I was looking for. I don’t have a problem with “We don’t know”, but when people try to claim that miracles happen all the time, all over the place, and that for some reason only the believers can recognize them for what they are… well, I don’t have a “problem” with that, either, but it’s not like I am just going to purse my lips and nod stiffly before ducking out.[/quote]
In case it isn’t clear I absolutely believe everything I’m saying in this forum. In that light I live every moment of my life in unspeakable gratitude to the merciful loving God and Savior I have been here describing. I may be tougher to convince than you are about alleged miracles occurring in Jesus name.

When unbelievers heap scorn and profane ridicule on Christ and the gospel, I don’t like it, but that’s what they’re supposed to do. Jesus Himself promised they would. However, when I see somebody claiming to be a member of the body of Christ proclaiming falsehood in His name that is a different story altogether. Whether it be heretical doctrine, damnable moral teaching or phony miracles. When they try to tie the name of Jesus to their vane delusions or designed deceptions that is when the church is commanded to judge and quite decisively so.

The healing of my friend’s legs is the one instance I have been near that I have no doubts about. I should throw in here though that I see and experience supernatural “stuff” all the time. I wouldn’t call those miracles though.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others. >>>[/quote]
God is not tearfully wringing His hands praying to Himself that more people will believe. Also, regeneration from very dead to eternal life is not a religion and has nothing whatever to do with acquiescence to sufficient proof regardless of standard.[/quote]

But ISN’T He (minus the dramatics, of course)? Why else would He reveal himself to people and inspire conversion if it isn’t something He wants for one reason or another? Why else would Matthew 28:19 state “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?

I recognize the Bible also has quotes that essentially say to not waste your time one some people, but there is a clear difference between people who express skepticism and people who express derision.

That He might simply not care (how omni-benevolent of Him) to save more people from eternal damnation would make sense if no one admitted to ever converting as a result of God revealing Himself to them by some means… but, as it stands, all we can really go on are these ambiguous situations that suggest God only chooses to convert people when it is a figurative cherry picking expedition for Him. The rest will burn for eternity for want of a single moment of clarity that is as of much effort for God to bring them as it was for Him to give everyone else.[/quote]Oh boy my friend, you are steering us right into one the oldest and most fundamental theological controversies there is. God does indeed desire that people believe the gospel and be saved. That’s the whole point from our perspective. However, He doesn’t “hope” anything. Indeed He CANNOT hope anything. Hope implies a desire, the accomplishment of which may not occur due to circumstances beyond your control.

No such circumstances are so much as possible with the God of all creation who upholds all things by the Word of His power.

[pat]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?

What are your thoughts on it?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/[/quote]

It’s a gay argument. First of all, you cannot know it’s never happened. And even if it didn’t, the only thing it would prove is that amputees haven’t been healed.
It goes to the “God doesn’t act like I think he should therefore he must not exist” argument.[/quote]

I’m guessing you haven’t read the rest of this thread where the deeper issue is expounded upon.

(hint: it’s not just about amputees)
[/quote]

It’s still irrelevant and proves nothing.

I don’t get into miracle discussions on the internet, they are impossible to prove.

[anonym]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others. >>>[/quote]
God is not tearfully wringing His hands praying to Himself that more people will believe. Also, regeneration from very dead to eternal life is not a religion and has nothing whatever to do with acquiescence to sufficient proof regardless of standard.[/quote]

But ISN’T He (minus the dramatics, of course)? Why else would He reveal himself to people and inspire conversion if it isn’t something He wants for one reason or another? Why else would Matthew 28:19 state “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?

I recognize the Bible also has quotes that essentially say to not waste your time one some people, but there is a clear difference between people who express skepticism and people who express derision.

That He might simply not care (how omni-benevolent of Him) to save more people from eternal damnation would make sense if no one admitted to ever converting as a result of God revealing Himself to them by some means… but, as it stands, all we can really go on are these ambiguous situations that suggest God only chooses to convert people when it is a figurative cherry picking expedition for Him. The rest will burn for eternity for want of a single moment of clarity that is as of much effort for God to bring them as it was for Him to give everyone else.[/quote]Oh boy my friend, you are steering us right into one the oldest and most fundamental theological controversies there is. God does indeed desire that people believe the gospel and be saved. That’s the whole point from our perspective. However, He doesn’t “hope” anything. Indeed He CANNOT hope anything. Hope implies a desire, the accomplishment of which may not occur due to circumstances beyond your control.

No such circumstances are so much as possible with the God of all creation who upholds all things by the Word of His power.[/quote]

The idea that everything is ultimately under His control is what I find interesting. He charges His followers with doing what the can to convert nonbelievers and even pitches in Himself from time to time… but there appears to be this threshold at which He simply shakes His head and decides to push no further - when at one time in history this wasn’t the case.

It suggests that there is a certain “type” of person God will ultimately bother Himself with pursuing, after which He simply decides to continue no further. And, it just so happens that these people who are such a bother to reach are also the ones who wonder what makes people 2,000+ years ago special enough to deserve irrefutable proof of His existence but who, themselves, are expected to suspend their disbelief over the various reasons that would explain dodging traffic tickets and vanishing tumors in ways just as possible - and to them, even more believable - as a divine creator would.

And, once we are singled out as being particularly tough skeptics, we are dismissed and lumped in with the derisive, foaming-at-the-mouth atheists as people who simply find joy in taking shots at religion… and everyone else is told that there is simply nothing that can convince us when, in reality, anything BUT everything has been done to give that declaration any credibility.

[anonym]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?

What are your thoughts on it?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/[/quote]

It’s a gay argument. First of all, you cannot know it’s never happened. And even if it didn’t, the only thing it would prove is that amputees haven’t been healed.
It goes to the “God doesn’t act like I think he should therefore he must not exist” argument.[/quote]

I’m guessing you haven’t read the rest of this thread where the deeper issue is expounded upon.

(hint: it’s not just about amputees)
[/quote]

It’s still irrelevant and proves nothing.

I don’t get into miracle discussions on the internet, they are impossible to prove.[/quote]

No offense, but this is particularly funny coming from someone arguing about the existence of God.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< The idea that everything is ultimately under His control is what I find interesting. He charges His followers with doing what the can to convert nonbelievers and even pitches in Himself from time to time… but there appears to be this threshold at which He simply shakes His head and decides to push no further - when at one time in history this wasn’t the case.

It suggests that there is a certain “type” of person God will ultimately bother Himself with pursuing, after which He simply decides to continue no further. And, it just so happens that these people who are such a bother to reach are also the ones who wonder what makes people 2,000+ years ago special enough to deserve irrefutable proof of His existence but who, themselves, are expected to suspend their disbelief over the various reasons that would explain dodging traffic tickets and vanishing tumors in ways just as possible - and to them, even more believable - as a divine creator would.

And, once we are singled out as being particularly tough skeptics, we are dismissed and lumped in with the derisive, foaming-at-the-mouth atheists as people who simply find joy in taking shots at religion… and everyone else is told that there is simply nothing that can convince us when, in reality, anything BUT everything has been done to give that declaration any credibility.[/quote]
OH NO NO NO!!! I don’t have time at the moment, but you brushed against a particle of truth in this post, but in the main you are not even close. For now I’ll just say that there is NO, NONE, NADA, ZILCH certain “type” of person that God is more or less likely to save that is in any way knowable by us.

[pat]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?

What are your thoughts on it?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/[/quote]

It’s a gay argument. First of all, you cannot know it’s never happened. And even if it didn’t, the only thing it would prove is that amputees haven’t been healed.
It goes to the “God doesn’t act like I think he should therefore he must not exist” argument.[/quote]

I’m guessing you haven’t read the rest of this thread where the deeper issue is expounded upon.

(hint: it’s not just about amputees)
[/quote]

It’s still irrelevant and proves nothing.

I don’t get into miracle discussions on the internet, they are impossible to prove.[/quote]

No offense, but this is particularly funny coming from someone arguing about the existence of God.[/quote]

Why?

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Can we start with some examples of modern miracles then and at least try to have something that doesn-t have an easily explained mechanism behind it?[/quote]

I missed you asking for a modern example. So I apologize for not replying.

I will be the first to tell you that I do not understand why God heals people miraculously and others he does not. Jesus did not heal everyone in Israel. Jesus could have said everyone in Israel is healed, and it would have been so, but he only healed the ones that had faith that he could heal them. They physically come to him to be healed.

I had a friend in college, still my friend by the way, made his living singing. He went in for a scope of his vocal cords because it hurt to sing. He had a bump on his vocal cord, and it was biopsied. They found it was cancer, and told him to come back in for another scope. Myself, and a group of friends prayed for him. He went back in and when they scoped him again the bump was gone. Completely gone. The doctors could not explain it. It was written of by some as a bad first scope, and that the pathologist had the wrong sample, to many other things, but my friend and I know it was a miracle.

Many Medical Doctors, MD, have stories of these types of miracles happening all the time in hospitals. MD’s have a tendency to have some tie to Religion, because they understand there is something beyond just the medication working. If it was just the medication then all patients would be healed not just a percentage.

Another miracle are the random things that happen to discover a cure of a disease. The inventor of pennicelen, my spelling is bad, used mold that grew on cheese. Who would have thought to eat the green nasty looking hair on cheese to kill bacteria?

There are many miracles that are never seen, that happen every day. Most people discount them as just coincedences, but IMO they are not. There are many miracles that happen and you do not even see them. Sometimes they save a life, sometimes they may keep a fire from happening in a house, or your child from falling down the stairs. Maybe you not dropping the weight on your throat because your spotter actually was paying attention even though you had lifted that 225 lbs many times before. Maybe you thought to drive the speed limit today and the cop was just on the other side of the hill. Miracles do not have to be big, like raising someone from the dead, but can be a small like a smile from your 6 week old child, or your child just saying I Love You out of the blue.[/quote]

So even the doctors were saying that it was down to a bad scope on the first bioposy. And they are the experts on this and obviously see this happen repeatedly yet instead of believing them, you decide it must have been God because obviously you prayed better and your friend was more worthy than the thousands of people who die each year wracked with pain from throat cancer.[/quote]

Guys, like I have said, I do not understand why God heals some and not others. Some people who pray really hard, and have faith sometimes are not healed, and their are people who are atheists that get healed. I do not know the reasoning, and will never say that I do know the reasoning.

Some of the doctors tried to explain it away as not a miracle. Some of the doctors that treated him said it was a miracle. These are doctors calling it a miracle. I beleive MDs are more predisposed to Religion and miracles because they see things that they can not explain. Just because they can not explain it and call it a miracle, does not mean that they are stupid, closed minded, or beleive in fairy tales as some like to call them. Maybe the explanation is it is a miracle. You can not discount that it could be a miracle, because it could be.

I like the explanation of the the parting of the red sea from the bible. There was a volcanoe that erupted and sent a tsunami across the mediteranian and this tsunami pulled back the red sea so the israelites could cross, and then the tsunami is the one that killed the egyptians. I just find it amazing is that it happened at that exact moment when the israelites were trying to get away from the egyptians. Coincidence or Miracle?[/quote]

On your first point, MDs are also more prone to alcoholism, I guess they need a crutch because of how depressing their job can be.

On the second point. Didn’t happen. The Red Sea didn’t part, the Israelites were not in bondage, the Egyptians were not killed, the Bible on that part is totally made up, not based in history other than the missasigning of some popular folk stories that were going around.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

I just noticed this (I only caught your second reply). I’m glad to hear that it (whatever “it” may have been) worked for your friend.

I can’t really comment on it any more than that since I would need more details than I think you were given.

Your last paragraph is more what I was looking for in this discussion, though - a reason why God was such a prolific miracle worker in Biblical times yet has been (as far as I can tell) inexplicably absent now that we have better tools to observe the universe, a more involved understanding of natural phenomena, and a greater importance placed upon rational, “scientific” explanations for what we experience.

It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence.

*edit[/quote]

2000 years ago God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was dead then came back to life and was witnessed walking around by dozens of people. I guess we should take the words of scientists that tell us God does not exist, and not the words of average Jews that witnessed a dead person alive walking around? You want the proof of a miracle there is the greatest miracle of all. Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago, so there is no current miracle that anyone here would beleive if they do not believe in the greatest miracle of all.

Jesus said the same thing I just posted. Jesus had raised a man from the dead, Lazurus, and people said, “Jesus if you will only preform another miracle then I will beleive.” He just raised a man from the dead, what more proof do you need? Blessed are those that have not seen and yet beleive. [/quote]

Ok, there are one or two tiny holes in your argument but we would have to start off with understanding why you believe what you read in the Bible to be actual reports of facts and that is a whole other topic.

[pat]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others. >>>[/quote]
God is not tearfully wringing His hands praying to Himself that more people will believe. Also, regeneration from very dead to eternal life is not a religion and has nothing whatever to do with acquiescence to sufficient proof regardless of standard.[/quote]

But ISN’T He (minus the dramatics, of course)? Why else would He reveal himself to people and inspire conversion if it isn’t something He wants for one reason or another? Why else would Matthew 28:19 state “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?

I recognize the Bible also has quotes that essentially say to not waste your time one some people, but there is a clear difference between people who express skepticism and people who express derision.

That He might simply not care (how omni-benevolent of Him) to save more people from eternal damnation would make sense if no one admitted to ever converting as a result of God revealing Himself to them by some means… but, as it stands, all we can really go on are these ambiguous situations that suggest God only chooses to convert people when it is a figurative cherry picking expedition for Him. The rest will burn for eternity for want of a single moment of clarity that is as of much effort for God to bring them as it was for Him to give everyone else.[/quote]Oh boy my friend, you are steering us right into one the oldest and most fundamental theological controversies there is. God does indeed desire that people believe the gospel and be saved. That’s the whole point from our perspective. However, He doesn’t “hope” anything. Indeed He CANNOT hope anything. Hope implies a desire, the accomplishment of which may not occur due to circumstances beyond your control.

No such circumstances are so much as possible with the God of all creation who upholds all things by the Word of His power.[/quote]

The idea that everything is ultimately under His control is what I find interesting. He charges His followers with doing what the can to convert nonbelievers and even pitches in Himself from time to time… but there appears to be this threshold at which He simply shakes His head and decides to push no further - when at one time in history this wasn’t the case.

It suggests that there is a certain “type” of person God will ultimately bother Himself with pursuing, after which He simply decides to continue no further. And, it just so happens that these people who are such a bother to reach are also the ones who wonder what makes people 2,000+ years ago special enough to deserve irrefutable proof of His existence but who, themselves, are expected to suspend their disbelief over the various reasons that would explain dodging traffic tickets and vanishing tumors in ways just as possible - and to them, even more believable - as a divine creator would.

And, once we are singled out as being particularly tough skeptics, we are dismissed and lumped in with the derisive, foaming-at-the-mouth atheists as people who simply find joy in taking shots at religion… and everyone else is told that there is simply nothing that can convince us when, in reality, anything BUT everything has been done to give that declaration any credibility.[/quote]

Hmmm, Much anger in him there is…Sounds like your just pissed off at Christians…If that’s the case, why don’t you just go to God directly? You don’t need anybody to talk to God.

[anonym]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?

What are your thoughts on it?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/[/quote]

It’s a gay argument. First of all, you cannot know it’s never happened. And even if it didn’t, the only thing it would prove is that amputees haven’t been healed.
It goes to the “God doesn’t act like I think he should therefore he must not exist” argument.[/quote]

I’m guessing you haven’t read the rest of this thread where the deeper issue is expounded upon.

(hint: it’s not just about amputees)
[/quote]

It’s still irrelevant and proves nothing.

I don’t get into miracle discussions on the internet, they are impossible to prove.[/quote]

No offense, but this is particularly funny coming from someone arguing about the existence of God.[/quote]

Why? [/quote]

Sorry, I will rephrase.

No offense, but that is particularly funny coming from someone arguing about the existence of his particular God.

I’m not currently interested in being drawn into a discussion about where I believe my initial statement would lead. I’m finding the one I’m involved in right now to be more relevant to my interests.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

I just noticed this (I only caught your second reply). I’m glad to hear that it (whatever “it” may have been) worked for your friend.

I can’t really comment on it any more than that since I would need more details than I think you were given.

Your last paragraph is more what I was looking for in this discussion, though - a reason why God was such a prolific miracle worker in Biblical times yet has been (as far as I can tell) inexplicably absent now that we have better tools to observe the universe, a more involved understanding of natural phenomena, and a greater importance placed upon rational, “scientific” explanations for what we experience.

It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence.

*edit[/quote]

2000 years ago God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was dead then came back to life and was witnessed walking around by dozens of people. I guess we should take the words of scientists that tell us God does not exist, and not the words of average Jews that witnessed a dead person alive walking around? You want the proof of a miracle there is the greatest miracle of all. Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago, so there is no current miracle that anyone here would beleive if they do not believe in the greatest miracle of all.[/quote]

Ancient Sumerians believed that they could study the stars and animal intestines as a means of investigating disease.

In an era where knowledge of the natural world was primitive and the supernatural was routinely looked to as a means of explaining various observations, you will have to forgive me if I take the word of “average” (comparatively undereducated and highly superstitious) folk regarding dead men walking with a pinch of salt.

Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago? Arguable. But, even so, what makes those individuals so special that they were privileged with the opportunity to witness a resurrection firsthand whereas we - 2,000 years later - need to rely on a book subjected to numerous translations and dozens of interpretations over the years?
[/quote]

Well, if you are Catholic then you get your stuff directly from the authority.

If that miracle won’t suffice, then none will? Again, arguable. But, wouldn’t even be necessary to “one-up” that miracle. Just do it again for us. It would be infinitely more useful this time due to not only medical technology and knowledge but ALSO because we have significantly better means of documenting/recording the important details for future millenia.

Besides, so what if it doesn’t convince every. single. person on the planet? For a being of unlimited power, performing such a task would take absolutely nothing. It would just be as He commands it. And yet, for zero effort, this being can’t be bothered to perform a task that would undoubtedly bring tens of thousands AT THE VERY LEAST to his side.

What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?

That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Jesus said the same thing I just posted. Jesus had raised a man from the dead, Lazurus, and people said, “Jesus if you will only preform another miracle then I will beleive.” He just raised a man from the dead, what more proof do you need? Blessed are those that have not seen and yet beleive. [/quote]

Well, one man’s blessed is another man’s gullible, I suppose.

Why punish those who, through perhaps no fault of their own, take a stronger push to believe than others? Again, to say that there is absolutely no way to convince the nonbelievers is wrong - people convert to religion after years of atheism fairly frequently. And if comparatively smaller things can get thousands to convert, why are we to believe that HUGE things won’t/can’t?[/quote]

If you were Catholic you would already be a believer and as such needn’t be bothered to wait for God to show Himself to you.[/quote]

Wait, what? Where did I say I was waiting or looking for a miracle.

You assume I do wait for a miracle. (hint: I am Catholic) I however do not, but I have seen and heard of miracles.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Look, you will never see me say there is no god. There could well be a god, I find it unlikely but obviously not impossible. My view is that I am yet to encounter anything that either cannot be explained without recourse to a god or at least has no hint of an explanation that would therefore necessitate a god. Even if I were to encounter something like that, my first recourse would be to assume that either more data or more time to think was needed. The system works perfectly well without a god so why assume a god? [/quote]

Talk to a person who has seen a miracle and you will know someone who has encountered at the very least a god.
[/quote]

OK, give me an example of a miracle then.[/quote]

Typically, G-d uses miracles in Judaism to give a given person the “street credibility” that he is a representative of G-d. Example, Elisha dividing water or Moses turning a rod into a snake, etc.

Modern miracles are often more subtle.

One miracle, to me, at least, has been the continued existance of the Jewish people as a people and the re-assembly of Israel in Israel.

The scattering and near-destruction of my people has been foretold some 3,500 years ago.

Basically every major power has attempted to eliminate us: Babylonians, Pagan Romans, Papal States (with forced conversions and kidnapping of children), various pogroms in Russia, Germany, England, et al, Hitler, Stalin, modern muslim nations.

There is NOTHING special about my people. We are not bigger, stronger, faster, or more numerous.

And yet we remain while most all on that list are nothing but dust.

And not only have we remained, but have somehow managed to be at the turning points of civilization:

from Chris Columbus (yeah, his mother was Jewish, so he’s Jewish),
to Leanardo DaVinci
To ending WWI for England by inventing certain explosives
To ending WWII for the Allies by inventing nukes
To Jonas Salk (vaccines)

Even Christianity (while the theology is certainly disagreed with by Jewish people) follows the core philosophical and ethical guidelines set forth in Judaism (and, more precisely Rabbi Hillel, who first espoused the “Golden Rule — love thy neighbor as thyself” about a century before Christianity came about. (Indeed, the entire Sermon on the Mount is highly derivative of Rabbi Hillel’s teachings.)

Christianity changed the world, generally for the better.

However imperfectly, Judeo-Christian ethics are the ethics of the modern world, or at least the goal.

It staggers me that a completely insignificant semi-migratory tribe from the backwaters of Judea — has played such a vital part in civilization.

There is no rhyme or reason for us to have played the role we have played in the world, but that G-d picked up and decided that he would use this least-of-the-peoples in the world as evidence of Him.

Our existence is a miracle.

And it is also why truly evil people – Hitler, Stalin — seek to destroy Jewish people first, as they are rebelling against G-d Himself.

[/quote]

Not really a miracle though because you can explain it perfectly without recourse to the mystical.

A group of people that has a common belief and suffers a lot of hardship, they use that hardship to draw strength and also draw themselves together, supporting each other in whatever community they arrive in, lending money to start up businesses, giving emotional and physical support. Due to the wandering nature there are Jewish communities pretty much everywhere therefore there is a good chance that there will be Jewish people involved in many of modern history’s important moments.[/quote]

Yeah, but, pretty much admittedly, you are not going to see a miracle in any event, no matter how grand. [/quote]

Can we start with some examples of modern miracles then and at least try to have something that doesn-t have an easily explained mechanism behind it?[/quote]

Well you could look at all the people that have had tumors, &c. that after being prayed over disappear from x-rays, MRI’s, &c.

You could look at the Nun who was cured of Parkinson’s disease after asking John Paul II to pray for her illness.[/quote]

OK now we are talking. Please post links to where I can see the evidence of these miracles. If it’s happening a lot, that should be easy right?[/quote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547146/Miracle-nun-talks-of-her-Parkinsons-cure.html[/quote]

I assume you haven’t read the articles that state there was a relapse?

Pope's sainthood setback after 'miracle cure' nun reported to be ill again

[/quote]

I guess people saw her get better, then stopped praying, when she started getting sick again they were worn out from their initial set of praying so couldn’t pray as hard, or maybe the prayer inbox was full so the prayers got backed up or they accidentally went into the Spam folder.

[anonym]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others. >>>[/quote]
God is not tearfully wringing His hands praying to Himself that more people will believe. Also, regeneration from very dead to eternal life is not a religion and has nothing whatever to do with acquiescence to sufficient proof regardless of standard.[/quote]

But ISN’T He (minus the dramatics, of course)? Why else would He reveal himself to people and inspire conversion if it isn’t something He wants for one reason or another? Why else would Matthew 28:19 state “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?

I recognize the Bible also has quotes that essentially say to not waste your time one some people, but there is a clear difference between people who express skepticism and people who express derision.

That He might simply not care (how omni-benevolent of Him) to save more people from eternal damnation would make sense if no one admitted to ever converting as a result of God revealing Himself to them by some means… but, as it stands, all we can really go on are these ambiguous situations that suggest God only chooses to convert people when it is a figurative cherry picking expedition for Him. The rest will burn for eternity for want of a single moment of clarity that is as of much effort for God to bring them as it was for Him to give everyone else.[/quote]Oh boy my friend, you are steering us right into one the oldest and most fundamental theological controversies there is. God does indeed desire that people believe the gospel and be saved. That’s the whole point from our perspective. However, He doesn’t “hope” anything. Indeed He CANNOT hope anything. Hope implies a desire, the accomplishment of which may not occur due to circumstances beyond your control.

No such circumstances are so much as possible with the God of all creation who upholds all things by the Word of His power.[/quote]

The idea that everything is ultimately under His control is what I find interesting. He charges His followers with doing what the can to convert nonbelievers and even pitches in Himself from time to time… but there appears to be this threshold at which He simply shakes His head and decides to push no further - when at one time in history this wasn’t the case.

It suggests that there is a certain “type” of person God will ultimately bother Himself with pursuing, after which He simply decides to continue no further. And, it just so happens that these people who are such a bother to reach are also the ones who wonder what makes people 2,000+ years ago special enough to deserve irrefutable proof of His existence but who, themselves, are expected to suspend their disbelief over the various reasons that would explain dodging traffic tickets and vanishing tumors in ways just as possible - and to them, even more believable - as a divine creator would.

And, once we are singled out as being particularly tough skeptics, we are dismissed and lumped in with the derisive, foaming-at-the-mouth atheists as people who simply find joy in taking shots at religion… and everyone else is told that there is simply nothing that can convince us when, in reality, anything BUT everything has been done to give that declaration any credibility.[/quote]

Hmmm, Much anger in him there is…Sounds like your just pissed off at Christians…If that’s the case, why don’t you just go to God directly? You don’t need anybody to talk to God.[/quote]

There’s that dismissive tone I wrote about earlier…

Maybe some posters on this forum have given you the impression that everyone who asks questions about your religion is simply looking to point out how moronic they find organized religion, but I assure you I am not sitting in my chair twiddling an imaginary moustache and hatching nefarious schemes to bring Biblical shortcomings to the light of T-Nation.

I merely recognize that there are people here more versed in these things than I am and that they can be a valuable resource as far as my questions are concerned… and I would be doing myself a disservice if I ignored the blinking red light that goes off in my head when I read something that doesn’t sit well with me simply to fit in with the rest of you.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Large numbers of books have been written refuting it, the problem is that to a true believer, they are a true believer so they either deny the refutation or move on to a different argument. Exactly the point I was making.

Oh really? I want the name of the book(s) and the refutation that is presented, that actually was successful. I want the refutation. If you got it, I will personally send a letter to the Nobel folks on your behalfÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã?.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

As far as speaking for faith with no evidence, you assert that all things came from absolute nothingness. What evidence is there for that? Not even in quantum mechanics does such a scenario exist. You cannot test it either because you cannot replicate a state of nothingness. Again, something from very little is still not something from nothing. Bizarre action is not uncaused events. I demand proof of nothingness and that which comes from it. My guess is your going to bring up Null Theory, which if you look at it is not, something from nothing. In the absence of atomic matter, having something else present is not really something out if the stretch of comprehension. It’s what Leibniz has been saying all along.

Where do I state that all things came from absolute nothingness? And incidentally, all the time, nothing is splitting into matter and antimatter, or particles and antiparticles. As long as they are in balance the amount of matter and energy in the universe is conserved so no rules are broken.

Amazing yes, miraculous no.[/quote]

As an atheist, you necessarily must believe in something from nothing.
Otherwise, provide proof of something that exists, that sits outside the causal chain. If you can find one thing, you have a successful argument.

Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.

Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.[/quote]

Time is not a necessary component of causal relationships. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything that sits outside the causal chain. Things not understood are not things uncaused.

I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.[/quote]

Ok back to Aristotle’s cosmology. Now, Aristotle knew several things when making his argument. He knew that causes necessitate their effects. He knew as you follow the causal chain you all things have commonality with each other, that all things share properties with one anther, and that this process could not go on forever with out being a logical fallacy of begging the question. This was not an ad hoc band aid, it was carefully considered, linear logic. It literally solves an equation. As Einstein was able to postulate the existence of black holes by pure math and reason, so Aristotle was able to ‘see’ an uncaused-causer.

Quintin Smith, don’t know much about him. But what little I read, he isn’t breaking any new ground and arguing cosmology from a singularity doesn’t remove the Unmoved-mover, Uncaused- cause. I don’t see where he proves said singularity is an uncaused-causer.
In any event, I am present the arguments and not merely dropping names which I could do easily as well. So if you are going to mention a person who refuted an argument, please at least present the argument. I don’t feel like digging up obscure people’s works to try and find what they said about a certain topic.

If you do not believe that all that exists came from something that exists, the only other option is to believe that it came from that which does not exist.[/quote]

Now you have changed the request. First you ask for any book that has refuted it, I provide an author who has written several and you change to asking for the arguments. There is no way I will put things as well as the author.

At a basic level though to talk about things happening before time and space existed is already a logical fallacy therefore the argument breaks down. Also the uncaused cause is just a logical cop out. What caused the uncaused cause?

Also as I have stated above, please explain how you get form a remote uninterested prime mover to the Christian God.[/quote]

You said many books ‘refuted’ the cosmological argument I asked for the books and what the theory was that refuted it. So I never changed the request. Second, I can just say here, read Kant, Hume, Sartre, etc. Without telling what the theories are and such, but that isn’t going to do you much good. Quinton Smith did not refute the argument, he merely argued that said prime mover would be singularities rather than “God”. But he doesn’t explain where these singularities came from, if they actually exist and what gives them a creative element. Nor does he explained the laws by which the behavior would be guided and where those laws came from. I know he is stealing from String Theory to make his argument, but String Theory is incomplete. Neither does it prove something from nothing. That’s what I could gather from a skim, I haven’t had time to pour over itâ?¦He certainly makes it hard as possible to read.

Why is it fallacy to discuss what happened prior to space-time this is what most theoretical physicists do, is it not? You have to do more than just say an uncaused-cause is a cop out. Why is it a cop out? What about it, makes it fallacy? It is a strong an argument you can make, it violates no rules of logic and it’s premises cannot be disproven. That’s a pretty strong logical case. Therefore you have 2 choices if you want to prove the argument wrong. You have to prove the premises are incorrect, or the conclusion is incorrect. Not just say it, but prove it.

Where is you get the idea the Prime-Mover has the property of disinterest? You are arguing random creationism, yet there is no evidence of randomness in the universe. That does not mean randomness does not exist, it can at least in theory, but a random even its uncaused by anything and yet must cause for no reason. Random events cannot be governed by any rules or they are not random. Therefore, the argument would stated that something without cause or nature, caused everything and the rules that govern everything, for no reason what so ever?
Something that causes, with out itself being part of the causal chain, must posses something like a will to initiate with out being possessed to do so. Now getting all the way to the Christian God is a long road. Besides God is just God, Christians don’t own him. I am satisfied with showing that an intelligent existence with a will is not only possible, but likely.

If you cannot understand why it is a fallacy then any book I point you to will fall short of your requirement.

I have never stated that an intelligent God is impossible but to claim that it is likely because there is a step in the creation of the universe that we don’t understand is again no different from inferring a sun Chariot drawing the Sun across the sky each day just by looking up.

Also theoretical physicists spend most of their time discussing what happened after the big bang, not before.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Large numbers of books have been written refuting it, the problem is that to a true believer, they are a true believer so they either deny the refutation or move on to a different argument. Exactly the point I was making.

Oh really? I want the name of the book(s) and the refutation that is presented, that actually was successful. I want the refutation. If you got it, I will personally send a letter to the Nobel folks on your behalfÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

[quote]

As far as speaking for faith with no evidence, you assert that all things came from absolute nothingness. What evidence is there for that? Not even in quantum mechanics does such a scenario exist. You cannot test it either because you cannot replicate a state of nothingness. Again, something from very little is still not something from nothing. Bizarre action is not uncaused events. I demand proof of nothingness and that which comes from it. My guess is your going to bring up Null Theory, which if you look at it is not, something from nothing. In the absence of atomic matter, having something else present is not really something out if the stretch of comprehension. It’s what Leibniz has been saying all along.

Where do I state that all things came from absolute nothingness? And incidentally, all the time, nothing is splitting into matter and antimatter, or particles and antiparticles. As long as they are in balance the amount of matter and energy in the universe is conserved so no rules are broken.

Amazing yes, miraculous no.[/quote]

As an atheist, you necessarily must believe in something from nothing.
Otherwise, provide proof of something that exists, that sits outside the causal chain. If you can find one thing, you have a successful argument.

Firstly, why must I necessarily believe that and secondly, why is that in any way a proof of God. It is just a proof of something we don’t currently understand, in the same way as a few hundred years ago we didn’t understand why the Sun rose and set or the stars sparkled in the night sky.

Finally quantum fluctuations are outside of cause and effect chains because they are independent of time. The formulae work perfectly in reverse.[/quote]

Time is not a necessary component of causal relationships. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything that sits outside the causal chain. Things not understood are not things uncaused.

I’ll answer more later, I just spent all night in a fucking hospital.[/quote]

If time is not involved you cannot talk about what causes what. Sorry to hear you have been in the hospital, hope everything is OK with you and your family.[/quote]

Time is not a necessary component of causation. Simultaneous causation exists.[/quote]

Would that not actually be an argument against what you have been saying?

[anonym]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

I just noticed this (I only caught your second reply). I’m glad to hear that it (whatever “it” may have been) worked for your friend.

I can’t really comment on it any more than that since I would need more details than I think you were given.

Your last paragraph is more what I was looking for in this discussion, though - a reason why God was such a prolific miracle worker in Biblical times yet has been (as far as I can tell) inexplicably absent now that we have better tools to observe the universe, a more involved understanding of natural phenomena, and a greater importance placed upon rational, “scientific” explanations for what we experience.

It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence.

*edit[/quote]

2000 years ago God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was dead then came back to life and was witnessed walking around by dozens of people. I guess we should take the words of scientists that tell us God does not exist, and not the words of average Jews that witnessed a dead person alive walking around? You want the proof of a miracle there is the greatest miracle of all. Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago, so there is no current miracle that anyone here would beleive if they do not believe in the greatest miracle of all.[/quote]

Ancient Sumerians believed that they could study the stars and animal intestines as a means of investigating disease.

In an era where knowledge of the natural world was primitive and the supernatural was routinely looked to as a means of explaining various observations, you will have to forgive me if I take the word of “average” (comparatively undereducated and highly superstitious) folk regarding dead men walking with a pinch of salt.

Nothing will compare to that miracle 2000 years ago? Arguable. But, even so, what makes those individuals so special that they were privileged with the opportunity to witness a resurrection firsthand whereas we - 2,000 years later - need to rely on a book subjected to numerous translations and dozens of interpretations over the years?
[/quote]

Well, if you are Catholic then you get your stuff directly from the authority.

If that miracle won’t suffice, then none will? Again, arguable. But, wouldn’t even be necessary to “one-up” that miracle. Just do it again for us. It would be infinitely more useful this time due to not only medical technology and knowledge but ALSO because we have significantly better means of documenting/recording the important details for future millenia.

Besides, so what if it doesn’t convince every. single. person on the planet? For a being of unlimited power, performing such a task would take absolutely nothing. It would just be as He commands it. And yet, for zero effort, this being can’t be bothered to perform a task that would undoubtedly bring tens of thousands AT THE VERY LEAST to his side.

What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?

That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Jesus said the same thing I just posted. Jesus had raised a man from the dead, Lazurus, and people said, “Jesus if you will only preform another miracle then I will beleive.” He just raised a man from the dead, what more proof do you need? Blessed are those that have not seen and yet beleive. [/quote]

Well, one man’s blessed is another man’s gullible, I suppose.

Why punish those who, through perhaps no fault of their own, take a stronger push to believe than others? Again, to say that there is absolutely no way to convince the nonbelievers is wrong - people convert to religion after years of atheism fairly frequently. And if comparatively smaller things can get thousands to convert, why are we to believe that HUGE things won’t/can’t?[/quote]

If you were Catholic you would already be a believer and as such needn’t be bothered to wait for God to show Himself to you.[/quote]

Wait, what? Where did I say I was waiting or looking for a miracle.

You assume I do wait for a miracle. (hint: I am Catholic) I however do not, but I have seen and heard of miracles.[/quote]

You have seen and heard miracles you cannot provide for the rest of us.

My comment was regarding those of us who DO NOT ascribe to a particular set of beliefs and who are instead looking at all the various perspectives and sects and wondering which is the right one. Your response would most likely be to learn about all of them and reach an informed conclusion (while thinking I was wrong if I didn’t conclude Catholicism), but why is it that I must do all this and “go with my gut” when people 2,000 years ago had it shoved down their throats?

My point was that if you were Catholic then you already believe in the existence of God and therefore do not require any miracles to affirm your faith. If people 2,000 years ago already believed in God then he wouldn’t have had to waste time with much of the showmanship.