Twin-go wrote: » But people claim they prayed and had their diease cured = God cured them. There are plenty documented claims of this sort. I have yest to come accross documented claims of somebody missing a limb praying and having the limb grow back. Why would God pick one afliction over the other to cure? God may not have directly said he'll cure disease or grow limbs back. But he sure did a lot of "curing" in the Bible. And continues to "cure" aflictions of believers, weather it be acceptable claims from Lourdes or less acceptable in terms of the RCC, faith healers.
PDN wrote: » And he healed an amputated ear in the Bible too.
PDN wrote: » As for what you have or have not come across, I'm not sure what your point is here? Miracles are extremely rare events - so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?
PDN wrote: » so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?
Robert ninja wrote: » [ Actually it's not the skeptics who have a problem that miracles and so on can't happen under a controlled enviornment for repeatable tests,
it's the believers' problem because they can't seem to provide or demonstrate miracles outside of places where there is no real way to tell what's going on or who is inflicted
with what and if it is cured afterwards or if there was even anything to be cured. There's millions of claims of people being possessed too so it's no secret people believe they're sick when they're not. Girls think they have cancer everytime lumps of hair show up on their combs.
ISAW wrote: » You are joking surely? If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?
ISAW wrote: » the fact is qualified doctors examined the patiests and can't explain how the cure happened. Science cant explain it! If you don't have a problem with that then why njot admit admit science can't explain it?
ISAW wrote: » But they can! What part of "qualified doctors examined and doccumented the incurable cases in advance" are you having problems with? And why are you adding "only true scotsman"? I fhtere was a case of a limb growing back you still would not believe it. Not because of the science but because of your belief that it cant be god because you believe there is no God. That isn't skepticism it is atheism!
ISAW wrote: » But we are not talking about everyday cases of peoples beliefs. We are talking about well documented medical cases of what science says is incurable or progressive and terminal and the thing reversing or disappearing.
ISAW wrote: » You are joking surely? If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?.
Twin-go wrote: » So that was the last one then?
Yes that is my problem, all things being equal, the rareness of miracles not withstanding, Why is a cancer sufferer 100% more likely than an amputee to be graced by a miracle cure?
PDN wrote: Doubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer. But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.
PDN wrote: » I doubt if it was, but I don't possess a database of all miracles that have occurred in the last 2000 years. I referred to the incident in the Bible because you yourself referred to other healings in the Bible.
PDN wrote: » I doubt if it is 100%, but I agree that healings of cancer appear to be more frequent. I already gave you a suggestion as to why this might be earlier in the thread. I don't mind that you never responded, but I don't see why you then ask the same question again.
Originally Posted by PDNDoubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer. But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.
Robert ninja wrote: » It is YOU who must be joking if you think the only way to repeat tests of curing/healing something is to re-infect or re-injure the person in order to carry it out again.
There are many cases where something turned out different than scientist or doctors expected, of whom you so belittle.
None of these mysteries lend any credit to god claims unless you can repeatedly prove that the only way a specific cure (death and amputees would be most convincing) can be carried out is because god exists and someone has tapped into that power.
This would require a controlled enviornment and repeated testing from different people, all over the world and the experiment could be replicated by anyone as long as they have the proper resources. That's science, not doctors not being able to explain things.
What 'science says' will be different in the future than it is today.
. Not being able to explain in and of its self means nothing for your god arguement but you, Bill O'Reily and many others have some trouble wrapping your heads around that.
Twin-go wrote: » Do you think a case of spontanious limb growth would not be documented?
ISAW wrote: » Yes. Especially if it happened in isolation. Or it might be documented in another language.Or it might be documented and the document lost or destroyed. Do you think if a tree falls in the wood and nobody is around to witness it that it might be documented? In fact it was I just documented it!
Twin-go wrote: » Let me ask you this. In cases like have been discoused in previously, If God is the miracle cure isn't he also the cause?
ISAW wrote: » How do you do a "controlled enviornment for repeatable tests, " on someone whose limb grows back?
ISAW wrote: » Wher did I belittle scientists or doctors. Saying they can't perform miracles is belittling them is it?
ISAW wrote: » I didn't advance anything as scientific proof of God. What I pointed out is that the claims of "all fluff" are not true! Scientists accept that they can not explain how these cures happened. If someone had a limb added back or came back for m the dead you would only ask another only true scotsman be produced that several limbs be shown to grow or another person come back from the dead. Or you would ask for something else like stars being extinguished and turned back on again "if there really were a God" . nad if that was done you would say it was a trick or ask for something else. If you don't believe something you will never accept it is true.
ISAW wrote: » You can't repeat limbs being cut off on people or people being continually killed and resurrected!
ISAW wrote: » I have dealt with that argument as well - scientism! The idea that just over the next hill or round the next bend science will explain what iot can't explain now. what is the difference between that and faith n a supernatural force you don't understand?
ISAW wrote: » I pointed out your "justaround the nest bend" science argument is not scientifically sufficient or even distinguishable from faith in supernatural forces.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » No problem. But unless you are talking about something like mathematics and logic I have no idea why you are talking about proofs whether it be in relation to God's existence, your mother's love or your bank manager's honesty. Perhaps you should also familiarise yourself with what a scientific theory is.
Robert ninja wrote: » For just a single person? Well then yeah, you'd need to test it on the same person.
But if we're talking about... I don't really need to explain more of what a controlled environment is and how to repeat tests, do I?
It's not what you're saying but how you're saying it and the context in which you keep referring them... it has a tone that undermines the hard work these people actually do to discover things and save people.
Scientists accept they can't explain some things, I accept I can't explain some things... but you don't.. you think you can explain it. The mystery... you're pushing it as proof of miracles and don't say you're not to back peddle once again.
But if you really do agree that none of these mysteries lend any credit to miracle claims or supernatural, then we're in agreement.
Scientism? Oh please ISAW ,your ignorance and constant need to end everything with '!' is tacky and damn annoying as are you as a poster overall.
I don't think we can explain EVERYTHING, but we can explain a lot and it takes hard work...
all the information we have about the earth and its formation, biology and so on and just about everything that we call 'common knowledge' was done from hard work using science.
Modern science is relatively new invention though, given how old our species is... and it has done a lot in such short time.
Don't you dare say that my trust in science to perhaps solve some things in the future is even close to your asinine faith.
I TRUST the sun to rise in the morning because I have REASON to believe this.
There is evidence which I can verify with my own senses, with tools and from other people that the sun will shine on this side of the planet tomorrow morning too and that it has done so many times. I have reason to believe that science, a tool used so far to find and create many things, may someday explain biological phenomena within humans as it has done so in all our history.
Just look at how far we've come from germs and disease being demons to now understanding their form and complexity and making antidotes and cures for them.
It is completely distinguishable from faith in supernatural forces. Why?
PS. Any modern miracle claim looks laughably pathetic in comparison to the extraordinary scientific advances we're currently making.
smokingman wrote: » So without having to go through the entire thread, can someone point me at the post that proves a god exists? Nice one, cheers!
ISAW wrote: » Scientific Skepticism is rooted in the falsification principle and not verification. As sucyh what I am doing is subjecting the pro atheism "proof god does not exist/such beliefs are unreasonable" lobby to their own standards of scrutiny.
Zombrex wrote: » So you have come up with a way to test, in a falisibable manner, the god theory? Didn't think so
Newsite wrote: » Emmm yes, I do accept that The difference, though, is that God is Sovereign. Man is not.
Newsite wrote: » Not quite as neatly packaged as you would like it to be to fit in with your agenda (no offense). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who knows well that 'thou shalt not kill' applies to all scenarios, and that war in the name of religion is still war, and is no exception.
Newsite wrote: » I've already explained about the slavery aspect, and the other thread will give more info too.
Newsite wrote: » But if you're saying that someone who says that the Bible says that homosexual marriage is fine would be way off track, and that would be obvious to anyone looking at the Scripture objectively.
Newsite wrote: » I don't know how you've arrived at that assertion. You seem to be missing the entire reason for the coming of Christ.
Newsite wrote: » The position on fornication and homosexuality is crystal clear through both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The rules on slavery were for a particular point in time, instruction on how slaves should be treated in light of how they fitted in to the circumstances at the time.
Newsite wrote: » 'You may take her as your wife', 'you may take these as plunder for yourselves' = 'rape'? Ah come on now, even you agenda-driven atheists should know better
Zombrex wrote: » That isn't the issue though. The issue is do we in modern terms understand correctly the nature of God and his views of these matters (or from my point of view do we understand how the men who wrote the Bible considered God to view these things). The modern idea is that violence and aggression etc are against the nature of God. This is based on applying modern pre-Enlightenment notions of morality back onto the Bible, rather than the other way around.
You didn't come up with the it was just a labour arrangement between Jews explanation yourself, it is found throughout the Christian blog-o-sphere and is designed as far as I can tell to reassure Christians who face this question from non-Christians that they have an explanation for all this stuff.
It takes a proper reading of the Old Testament to see that the explanation is nonsense,
then I think what is being counted upon is that most modern Christians won't give the Old Testament a proper reading, or if they do they have already decide that all of it is the world of a loving God already by the time they go near the Old Testament.
It should be obvious to anyone who looks at Scripture objectively that God has no issue with slavery and considers death a fitting punishment for a whole host of trivial crimes.
There is nothing in the Bible that says the rules of slavery were for a particular point in time, any more than there is anything that says the rules for homosexuality are for a particular point in time.
No, the bit that means rape is then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. that sentence means you may have sex with her.
You should be aware that words like "sex" and "intercourse" are never found in the Old Testament. For example the commandment against homosexuality is a man should not "lie" with another man as he would a woman.
That is incorrect. The New Testament states that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. From the earliest days of Christianity this has been understood by many Christian thinkers as meaning that slavery is an unChristian institution. The history of Christianity and slavery is a fascinating one - and well worth reading if anyone is genuinely interested in the subject rather than just seeking an axe to grind. There have always been Christians who have fought against the prevailing view of society that deemed slavery to be acceptable. The story of how they finally won out is inspiring, but also frustrating in that it took so long.
tommy2bad wrote: » Admit the truth, that Christians not only couldn't see anything wrong with slavery from reading the bible but saw justification for it.
tommy2bad wrote: » And now were in 'no true scotsman' teritory. Admit the truth, that Christians not only couldn't see anything wrong with slavery from reading the bible but saw justification for it.
Why is it such a big deal to admit the bible is a story of Gods relationship with people, the good bits and the bad bits? What is the need to pretend it's something that it isn't.
PDN wrote: » Some Christians did - just as some Christians saw the Bible as justifying holy wars, the union between Church and State, and the execution of heretics.But sufficient numbers of Christians saw it differently. They saw the Bible as teaching a Gospel of love, creating a new equality that gave dignity to previously oppressed groups such as women and slaves. And, thankfully, those are the ones whose views won out in the end. And those are the views held (with one or two shocking exceptions) by the majority of Christians today and by the majority of posters in this Forum.I've no idea. You would need to ask that of somebody who is pretending the Bible is something it isn't.
PDN wrote: » Some Christians did - just as some Christians saw the Bible as justifying holy wars, the union between Church and State, and the execution of heretics. But sufficient numbers of Christians saw it differently. They saw the Bible as teaching a Gospel of love, creating a new equality that gave dignity to previously oppressed groups such as women and slaves. And, thankfully, those are the ones whose views won out in the end. And those are the views held (with one or two shocking exceptions) by the majority of Christians today and by the majority of posters in this Forum. I've no idea. You would need to ask that of somebody who is pretending the Bible is something it isn't.
PDN wrote: » I realise that you think there is some kind of virtue in spouting off your opinions about how the Bible should be interpreted without bothering to learn something about the subject first, and then expecting others to accord the same validity as to those who spend a lifetime learning the biblical languages and immersing themselves in the historical and cultural context of the day.
philologos wrote: » I guess invoking a deity is less problematic than invoking multiple universes (and even in doing that it doesn't solve your problem)?On the basis of Ockham's Razor it seems more reasonable to think that there was a designer than there is to think that there are an infinite amount of universes or that the universe created itself.
