User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:16:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say it's utter nonsense yet there are multiple examples in this thread of people who would not accept the evidence of their eyes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would posit that the evidence of things not seen in sufficient quantities is more powerful than that which is seen. More compelling. That that is indeed why there is so little empirical evidence; because it is insufficient, and because faith serves multiple purposes that benefit man. I would respectfully posit that is total nonsense. ^^^ You say it's utter nonsense yet there are multiple examples in this thread of people who would not accept the evidence of their eyes. Example, please, of such evidence? I'm not suggesting that faith is the mechanism by which we discover the natural world around us. It is however the method by which we discover the super natural world. Your comments presume that a supernatural world exists. AFAIK, this has not been proven. As this is the realm where God would dwell the assertion that we apply empirical evidence to find him is 'utter nonsense'. The only means to do so would be of a spiritual nature.
2nd Corinthians 2:14 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' You state that as if it is proven fact, when the quoted scripture makes it clear that it is only your belief. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:28:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it's you who are insecure (your actions show it yet again) I laugh because the one posting is it clueless Uh huh. Keep saying it 
And the meme is a joke. Lighten up, Francis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 9:30:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Example, please, of such evidence?read the thread... Your comments presume that a supernatural world exists. AFAIK, this has not been proven. You state that as if it is proven fact, when the quoted scripture makes it clear that it is only your belief. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would respectfully posit that is total nonsense. ^^^ You say it's utter nonsense yet there are multiple examples in this thread of people who would not accept the evidence of their eyes. Example, please, of such evidence?read the thread... I'm not suggesting that faith is the mechanism by which we discover the natural world around us. It is however the method by which we discover the super natural world. Your comments presume that a supernatural world exists. AFAIK, this has not been proven. As this is the realm where God would dwell the assertion that we apply empirical evidence to find him is 'utter nonsense'. The only means to do so would be of a spiritual nature.
2nd Corinthians 2:14 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' You state that as if it is proven fact, when the quoted scripture makes it clear that it is only your belief. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me. A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:01:54 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is semantics. You cannot expect empirical evidence from the natural world to be the same as that for the super natural world. Spiritual evidence is of a spiritual nature that is different from physical. If you choose not to call it evidence what would you call for example a miraculous healing? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[Evidence is] Not an oxymoron. Evidence is that which convinces. Evidence can be independently examined. Religious experience cannot, therefore is not evidence. This is semantics. You cannot expect empirical evidence from the natural world to be the same as that for the super natural world. Spiritual evidence is of a spiritual nature that is different from physical. If you choose not to call it evidence what would you call for example a miraculous healing? 1. It is not semantics. Evidence and experience are not the same thing. Example: On three different occasions in my life, I saw a UFO. Do you consider those experiences to be evidence of extraterrestrial life? 2. AFAIK, there is no proof that a supernatural world even exists. 3. There are a number of plausible explanations for so called "miraculous healings," ranging from faulty diagnosis to random chance to outright fraud. As to those which are genuine, like I said, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, it does not mean that God is the explanation. There may well a natural cause that just isn't understood, yet. For most of history, man was unaware of the existence of bacteria and viruses, and as a result, blamed illness on supernatural forces. We now know different. 4. Notice that the "miraculous healings" always are of the disappearing tumor or disease going into remission type. They are never true miracles, like regenerating amputated limbs or destroyed organs. Why is that? Does God only care about cancer patients, but not amputees? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:06:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Belief is extremely logical. I get that it's not logical to you, I'm assuming that's because you don't understand it.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Belief is extremely logical. I get that it's not logical to you, I'm assuming that's because you don't understand it. That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:08:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah, but there is evidence. It is the evidence of things not seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Let's be honest, the entire concept of religion is odd. It is the belief in something without evidence. It will never make sense to the sensible. Ah, but there is evidence. It is the evidence of things not seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. Again, if it can't be independently examined, it's not evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:12:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it is evident to those that experience enough of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Let's be honest, the entire concept of religion is odd. It is the belief in something without evidence. It will never make sense to the sensible. Ah, but there is evidence. It is the evidence of things not seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. Ah, the evidence that's not evident.....  But it is evident to those that experience enough of it. But only to those who experience it. It is not evidence that can be presented to anyone else to examine and evaluate. You keep mistaking experience for evidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:13:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. It is not semantics. Evidence and experience are not the same thing. Example: On three different occasions in my life, I saw a UFO. Do you consider those experiences to be evidence of extraterrestrial life? 2. AFAIK, there is no proof that a supernatural world even exists. 3. There are a number of plausible explanations for so called "miraculous healings," ranging from faulty diagnosis to random chance to outright fraud. As to those which are genuine, like I said, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, it does not mean that God is the explanation. There may well a natural cause that just isn't understood, yet. For most of history, man was unaware of the existence of bacteria and viruses, and as a result, blamed illness on supernatural forces. We now know different. 4. Notice that the "miraculous healings" always are of the disappearing tumor or disease going into remission type. They are never true miracles, like regenerating amputated limbs or destroyed organs. Why is that? Does God only care about cancer patients, but not amputees? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[Evidence is] Not an oxymoron. Evidence is that which convinces. Evidence can be independently examined. Religious experience cannot, therefore is not evidence. This is semantics. You cannot expect empirical evidence from the natural world to be the same as that for the super natural world. Spiritual evidence is of a spiritual nature that is different from physical. If you choose not to call it evidence what would you call for example a miraculous healing? 1. It is not semantics. Evidence and experience are not the same thing. Example: On three different occasions in my life, I saw a UFO. Do you consider those experiences to be evidence of extraterrestrial life? 2. AFAIK, there is no proof that a supernatural world even exists. 3. There are a number of plausible explanations for so called "miraculous healings," ranging from faulty diagnosis to random chance to outright fraud. As to those which are genuine, like I said, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, it does not mean that God is the explanation. There may well a natural cause that just isn't understood, yet. For most of history, man was unaware of the existence of bacteria and viruses, and as a result, blamed illness on supernatural forces. We now know different. 4. Notice that the "miraculous healings" always are of the disappearing tumor or disease going into remission type. They are never true miracles, like regenerating amputated limbs or destroyed organs. Why is that? Does God only care about cancer patients, but not amputees? I heard a first hand account of just such a healing. The leader of a church group related how he witnessed a girls eye that had been badly injured by an acorn that was thrown. He saw the eye essentially self repair in front of him. A non believer who also witnessed the healing proclaimed himself ready to convert. You started the miraculous healing idea as that which would convince you. It's clearly not. What then would? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:13:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Biggerstick47: This is where faith comes in . If you believe Jesus was the son of God and the physical manifestation of Him then you are a Christian . Otherwise , you still believe in an ethereal being . From my perspective I could care less about "identifying" which specific belief or concept of God is "the" God . I believe the miracles Jesus performed were not of this world and could only have been performed by God . If you think that's bullsht then fine . I'm not trying to convert you . I could care less what you believe . The point I always come to in debating scientoloists or atheists or non believers is the fact that no matter what scientific reason you apply to how we came into being (Big Bang, multiverse , steady state , etc) you ultimately get to a point where you have to have a catalyst to set existence in motion . If people believe that existence can spawn itself from absolute nothing , that is no different than believing in God. You ultimately have to have faith either way. Excellent post OP |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:21:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, if it can't be independently examined, it's notempirical evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Let's be honest, the entire concept of religion is odd. It is the belief in something without evidence. It will never make sense to the sensible. Ah, but there is evidence. It is the evidence of things not seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. Again, if it can't be independently examined, it's notempirical evidence. Fixed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:26:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. If "there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical," then how can the supernatural interact with, and affect, anything in the natural world? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:27:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But only to those who experience it. It is not evidence that can be presented to anyone else to examine and evaluate. You keep mistaking experience for evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ah, but there is evidence. It is the evidence of things not seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. Ah, the evidence that's not evident..... But it is evident to those that experience enough of it. But only to those who experience it. It is not evidence that can be presented to anyone else to examine and evaluate. You keep mistaking experience for evidence. Stan, I will accept that you're using a limited definition of the term evidence. If you can't accept that I'm using a broader definition of that which convinces a person of something then we're at an impasse. Not surprising that we don't agree on this of course. To me it is incredibly logical that non-physical things are not provable by physical (empirical) evidence. If that is not logical to you than we're at an impasse. Super natural things must by their nature have super natural evidences. We don't need to keep batting this one back and forth though. We just disagree. Good luck with your health, I truly hope you get better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:33:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. If "there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical," then how can the supernatural interact with, and affect, anything in the natural world? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. If "there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical," then how can the supernatural interact with, and affect, anything in the natural world? That is an excellent question. The answer is that it does, and it does it all the time. I have interactions with the supernatural often. It affects me a great deal. It changes me as a man, it makes me better than I would be otherwise. I can look at my own life, and the lives of others who have these interactions and see the results of those interactions in how I interact with others, in the decisions I make, in how I choose to live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:34:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Your understanding of the unforgivable sin is flawed, it is the attributing of the works of God to the devil.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:38:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. As I said, I think it is very logical. I've thought through it very critically as well. Faith makes sense to me on levels that someone who's not possessed of it cannot logically comprehend. I can explain it; why it's needed; the difference between physical evidence and spiritual evidence; I know how to gain it just like a body builder knows how to build muscle. I can teach others to gain it, just like that body builder can teach others to build muscle but He can't give others his muscle. They must gain it for themselves. That is the nature of spiritual evidence. ANYONE can gain it. ANYONE can understand it you just have to know how, and commit to doing it. Most people though never get beyond where you are Stan, because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to experiment upon the word of God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 10:51:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heard a first hand account of just such a healing. The leader of a church group related how he witnessed a girls eye that had been badly injured by an acorn that was thrown. He saw the eye essentially self repair in front of him. A non believer who also witnessed the healing proclaimed himself ready to convert. You started the miraculous healing idea as that which would convince you. It's clearly not. What then would? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are a number of plausible explanations for so called "miraculous healings," ranging from faulty diagnosis to random chance to outright fraud. As to those which are genuine, like I said, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, it does not mean that God is the explanation. There may well a natural cause that just isn't understood, yet. For most of history, man was unaware of the existence of bacteria and viruses, and as a result, blamed illness on supernatural forces. We now know different. Notice that the "miraculous healings" always are of the disappearing tumor or disease going into remission type. They are never true miracles, like regenerating amputated limbs or destroyed organs. Why is that? Does God only care about cancer patients, but not amputees? I heard a first hand account of just such a healing. The leader of a church group related how he witnessed a girls eye that had been badly injured by an acorn that was thrown. He saw the eye essentially self repair in front of him. A non believer who also witnessed the healing proclaimed himself ready to convert. You started the miraculous healing idea as that which would convince you. It's clearly not. What then would? Not second-hand stories, that's for sure. And I already told you one thing that would convince me: Finding my incurable medical problems cured, my missing parts regenerated, and my body fully restored when I awaken in the morning. Another would be witnessing the regeneration of an amputee's missing limbs, for example. But, that is apparently beyond God's ability, since it's never happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:02:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is an excellent question. The answer is that it does, and it does it all the time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it is true. So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. If "there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical," then how can the supernatural interact with, and affect, anything in the natural world? That is an excellent question. The answer is that it does, and it does it all the time. That does not answer how the "not physical" can interact with, and affect, the physical. Or why, if it can, it cannot be proven. I have interactions with the supernatural often. It affects me a great deal. It changes me as a man, it makes me better than I would be otherwise. I can look at my own life, and the lives of others who have these interactions and see the results of those interactions in how I interact with others, in the decisions I make, in how I choose to live. What can I say? Some people need religion in order to behave decently. Others don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:08:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not second-hand stories, that's for sure. And I already told you one thing that would convince me: Finding my incurable medical problems cured, my missing parts regenerated, and my body fully restored when I awaken in the morning. Another would be witnessing the regeneration of an amputee's missing limbs, for example. But, that is apparently beyond God's ability, since it's never happened. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are a number of plausible explanations for so called "miraculous healings," ranging from faulty diagnosis to random chance to outright fraud. As to those which are genuine, like I said, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, it does not mean that God is the explanation. There may well a natural cause that just isn't understood, yet. For most of history, man was unaware of the existence of bacteria and viruses, and as a result, blamed illness on supernatural forces. We now know different. Notice that the "miraculous healings" always are of the disappearing tumor or disease going into remission type. They are never true miracles, like regenerating amputated limbs or destroyed organs. Why is that? Does God only care about cancer patients, but not amputees? I heard a first hand account of just such a healing. The leader of a church group related how he witnessed a girls eye that had been badly injured by an acorn that was thrown. He saw the eye essentially self repair in front of him. A non believer who also witnessed the healing proclaimed himself ready to convert. You started the miraculous healing idea as that which would convince you. It's clearly not. What then would? Not second-hand stories, that's for sure. And I already told you one thing that would convince me: Finding my incurable medical problems cured, my missing parts regenerated, and my body fully restored when I awaken in the morning. Another would be witnessing the regeneration of an amputee's missing limbs, for example. But, that is apparently beyond God's ability, since it's never happened. You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:13:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That does not answer how the "not physical" can interact with, and affect, the physical. Or why, if it can, it cannot be proven. yes it does Stan. It answers it precisely. What can I say? Some people need religion in order to behave decently. Others don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you don't think it's logical that there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical? Huh. Makes sense to me A supernatural world would not be provable by empirical means. If it was it would not remain 'super' natural. Honestly this is common sense, no? Of course it makes sense to you. That's because you're going on faith and belief, instead of logic and critical analysis. If "there is no physical evidence for things that are not physical," then how can the supernatural interact with, and affect, anything in the natural world? That is an excellent question. The answer is that it does, and it does it all the time. That does not answer how the "not physical" can interact with, and affect, the physical. Or why, if it can, it cannot be proven. yes it does Stan. It answers it precisely. I have interactions with the supernatural often. It affects me a great deal. It changes me as a man, it makes me better than I would be otherwise. I can look at my own life, and the lives of others who have these interactions and see the results of those interactions in how I interact with others, in the decisions I make, in how I choose to live. What can I say? Some people need religion in order to behave decently. Others don't. not religion Stan, spiritual experiences. Lots of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:28:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:31:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Belief is extremely logical. I get that it's not logical to you, I'm assuming that's because you don't understand it. That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? lol everone has genius level iq on arfcom |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:34:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:34:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your understanding of the unforgivable sin is flawed, it is the attributing of the works of God to the devil. You got my attention, please explain. Im interested to hear a different take on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:36:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are a number of plausible explanations for so called "miraculous healings," ranging from faulty diagnosis to random chance to outright fraud. As to those which are genuine, like I said, just because the cause cannot currently be explained by science, it does not mean that God is the explanation. There may well a natural cause that just isn't understood, yet. For most of history, man was unaware of the existence of bacteria and viruses, and as a result, blamed illness on supernatural forces. We now know different. Notice that the "miraculous healings" always are of the disappearing tumor or disease going into remission type. They are never true miracles, like regenerating amputated limbs or destroyed organs. Why is that? Does God only care about cancer patients, but not amputees? I heard a first hand account of just such a healing. The leader of a church group related how he witnessed a girls eye that had been badly injured by an acorn that was thrown. He saw the eye essentially self repair in front of him. A non believer who also witnessed the healing proclaimed himself ready to convert. You started the miraculous healing idea as that which would convince you. It's clearly not. What then would? Not second-hand stories, that's for sure. And I already told you one thing that would convince me: Finding my incurable medical problems cured, my missing parts regenerated, and my body fully restored when I awaken in the morning. Another would be witnessing the regeneration of an amputee's missing limbs, for example. But, that is apparently beyond God's ability, since it's never happened. You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. Where did I say that? Link to post, please. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Never said -- or even thought -- that you were lying. In the absence of information to the contrary, I accept that you related the story as it was told to you. However, it is undeniably a second-hand story, with no substantiation, so I am not willing to take it at face value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:36:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. But no way to be sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2016 11:43:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol everone has genius level iq on arfcom Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Belief is extremely logical. I get that it's not logical to you, I'm assuming that's because you don't understand it. That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? lol everone has genius level iq on arfcom Yeah, I've noticed that.
In my case, that's the figure I was given as the result of the IQ test I took in high school. I figure it must not have been too far off, because I was accepted into the Honors Math and Physics classes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:25:56 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. Logic would dictate that God was a possible cause, but not the only possible cause. The blessing may have had no effect on the healing. Below is a similar example. Heart attack patient "dies" in the ER. Cardiologist hears a voice, "Pray for this man." Cardiologist prays over the body. Another doctor then delivers an electric shock to the man, who then miraculously revives. Cardiologist credits God for the save. Since the patient did not revive until after the shock, logic dictates that use of the defibrillator is what "dun it," not God. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:19:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Logic would dictate that God was a possible cause, but not the only possible cause. The blessing may have had no effect on the healing. Below is a similar example. Heart attack patient "dies" in the ER. Cardiologist hears a voice, "Pray for this man." Cardiologist prays over the body. Another doctor then delivers an electric shock to the man, who then miraculously revives. Cardiologist credits God for the save. Since the patient did not revive until after the shock, logic dictates that use of the defibrillator is what "dun it," not God.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99p51X6lUTkQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. Logic would dictate that God was a possible cause, but not the only possible cause. The blessing may have had no effect on the healing. Below is a similar example. Heart attack patient "dies" in the ER. Cardiologist hears a voice, "Pray for this man." Cardiologist prays over the body. Another doctor then delivers an electric shock to the man, who then miraculously revives. Cardiologist credits God for the save. Since the patient did not revive until after the shock, logic dictates that use of the defibrillator is what "dun it," not God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99p51X6lUTkThat's nice but not the case with the eye. They were the in the mountains, no medical help available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 7:13:42 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Already asked and answered in this thread. Almost verbatim. The evidence of things not seen. The fascinating thing about many responses here is the reliance on empirical evidence for verification. Yet many admit that even seeing personally would not be sufficient. I would posit that the evidence of things not seen in sufficient quantities is more powerful than that which is seen. More compelling. That that is indeed why there is so little empirical evidence; because it is insufficient, and because faith serves multiple purposes that benefit man. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ah, but that was not the question. As a believer I read the story amused not panting that a scientist has 'finally vindicated my faith!' The question is what would it take for you to be convinced? What would it take for you to believe ANY OTHER GOD exists other than the Christian God? What sort of "proof" would you need to sware obedience to, say, Odin? Already asked and answered in this thread. Almost verbatim. The evidence of things not seen. The fascinating thing about many responses here is the reliance on empirical evidence for verification. Yet many admit that even seeing personally would not be sufficient. I would posit that the evidence of things not seen in sufficient quantities is more powerful than that which is seen. More compelling. That that is indeed why there is so little empirical evidence; because it is insufficient, and because faith serves multiple purposes that benefit man. Even if that being came and talked to you directly, there is no way to know if it is telling you the truth, or if it is lying. "Faith" doesn't solve this problem, because blindly trusting something isn't the same as knowing it is actually true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 7:15:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe because the more I learn about the world and universe it's the only answer that makes sense |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 7:21:10 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Something other than God ? Such as what? The answer is simple . You believe that the Big Bang was a spontaneous force that spawned literally from nothing . There was no existence and then bang , the nothingness spawned everything.Or an ethereal being (God) created the universe . Do you have an alternate theory ? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Something came from nothing . God created everything . You decide . Or something came from something other than god. And your argument, like many others have argued, still doesn't mean the Christian god is any more likely than any other god or goddess. Something other than God ? Such as what? The answer is simple . You believe that the Big Bang was a spontaneous force that spawned literally from nothing . There was no existence and then bang , the nothingness spawned everything.Or an ethereal being (God) created the universe . Do you have an alternate theory ? Which spawned literally from nothing. There was nothing and then god. The nothingness spawned god. Sorry, pretending that the first cause must be a supernatural intelligence is about the silliest concept I can imagine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:21:28 PM EDT
[#32]
There is something fundamentally wrong with the statement " .... logical to me, but not logical to you." but I'm not bright enough to say what it is.
Can somebody smarter help out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:31:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is something fundamentally wrong with the statement " .... logical to me, but not logical to you." but I'm not bright enough to say what it is. Can somebody smarter help out? God just hasn't chosen you yet to receive the gift of His Logic. Even though it's not up to you, it's still your fault he hasn't given it to you yet because you haven't tried hard enough to see the unseeable, feel the unfeelable, and know the unknowable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:36:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
God would have to come talk to me direct to erase my doubts. There are many who would simply use whatever mental gymnastics were necessary to dismiss the encounter. For those who argue why God wouldn't make Himself know if He existed, did you always obey your parents, even if they were in the same house? For many, the open proof and presence of God on earth would matter not one whit. People rebel, no matter who or what they rebel against. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:37:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How could you be sure that you were not dreaming, or hallucinating? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
God would have to come talk to me direct to erase my doubts. How could you be sure that you were not dreaming, or hallucinating? Most would write it off as purely that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:39:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are many who would simply use whatever mental gymnastics were necessary to dismiss the encounter. For those who argue why God wouldn't make Himself know if He existed, did you always obey your parents, even if they were in the same house? For many, the open proof and presence of God on earth would matter not one whit. People rebel, no matter who or what they rebel against. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: God would have to come talk to me direct to erase my doubts. There are many who would simply use whatever mental gymnastics were necessary to dismiss the encounter. For those who argue why God wouldn't make Himself know if He existed, did you always obey your parents, even if they were in the same house? For many, the open proof and presence of God on earth would matter not one whit. People rebel, no matter who or what they rebel against. talked to them telling them that Islam is correct and Christianity is wrong. Even if you could prove a supernatural being is talking to you and telling you these things, there is no reason, at all, to assume that this being is actually telling you the truth. Even a believer would have to ask, in that situation, is this actually god, or some sort of demon trying to trick you? Other than throwing your hands up and saying: "This is true because I believe it because of my feels", there really is no way to determine if that supernatural being is being truthful or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:42:32 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the display of immense power would still not convince you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:47:51 PM EDT
[#38]
As an agnostic I've always been open to the idea of a superior entity that could be "God" by our understanding of the word. It's the religions of man that I've always dismissed as hokum. Mythology devised by people looking for explanations to things they don't understand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:49:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The atomic bomb to a very primitive people's would be a display of immense power, but not indicative of God. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So the display of immense power would still not convince you? Any technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic. The cargo cults of WWII give weight to the idea of primitive people being enchanted by technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:52:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the display of immense power would still not convince you? If that was sufficient, there are still tribes of people in this world that I could convince to worship me as a god. "Immense power" is relative and simply indicates a disparity between the two parties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 12:53:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As an agnostic I've always been open to the idea of a superior entity/power that could be "God" by our understanding of the word. It's the religions of man that I've always dismissed as hokum (I think many organized religious teachings have value, so I wouldn't say they are all "hokum"). Mythology devised by people looking for explanations to things they don't understand or things they wanted to control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:01:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's nice but not the case with the eye. They were the in the mountains, no medical help available. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said that even with such a miracle you could not attribute it to God. So I'm not understanding why you now say you can. I heard it from the person who witnessed it. So which of us is lying? Question...if there was some miraculous healing, how do you know God did it? In this particular case His name was evoked and a blessing pronounced in His name, and by His authority. Logic for me would then dictate that he dun it. Logic would dictate that God was a possible cause, but not the only possible cause. The blessing may have had no effect on the healing. Below is a similar example. Heart attack patient "dies" in the ER. Cardiologist hears a voice, "Pray for this man." Cardiologist prays over the body. Another doctor then delivers an electric shock to the man, who then miraculously revives. Cardiologist credits God for the save. Since the patient did not revive until after the shock, logic dictates that use of the defibrillator is what "dun it," not God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99p51X6lUTkThat's nice but not the case with the eye. They were the in the mountains, no medical help available. So there's no way to verify that what he reported seeing, actually happened as described. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:03:32 PM EDT
[#43]
You don't beleive the man, you believe the data. Thats the part that escapes the religion side of the arguement
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:05:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Belief is extremely logical. I get that it's not logical to you, I'm assuming that's because you don't understand it. That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? Did you just brag about your IQ on the Internet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:17:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you just brag about your IQ on the Internet? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. I think it's odd that a being which created a universe that operates on logical principles, would want us to abandon logic and operate on belief. Belief is extremely logical. I get that it's not logical to you, I'm assuming that's because you don't understand it. That's possible. My IQ is only 135, so it may be that I'm not smart enough to understand it. Perhaps you would explain it to me? Did you just brag about your IQ on the Internet? Bonjour |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:21:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Hey Dr. Kaku, this guy claims to have discovered one equation that explains every phenomenon in the universe. lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:25:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Saw this today. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ I'm already a believer via the evidence of things not seen, but I'm curious to know what level of empirical evidence would be sufficient for those who don't have faith to say: 'Yeah, ok. God Exists.' What would tip you from non-believer to agnostic to 'Yeah, ok. Supreme being is there.' ETA: Poll added. Proving God isn't hard. Under Einstein's theory of relativity, it basically suggests that something always comes from something else and never from nothing. If you were to take all the matter and material in the universe and roll it into a single ball, you'd have to question where did that single ball of something in the middle of a big nothing come from. Not hard. Everything has a source, doesn't matter how you argue it. ....and I used to be an atheist LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:41:00 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Proving God isn't hard. Under Einstein's theory of relativity, it basically suggests that something always comes from something else and never from nothing. If you were to take all the matter and material in the universe and roll it into a single ball, you'd have to question where did that single ball of something in the middle of a big nothing come from. Not hard. Everything has a source, doesn't matter how you argue it. ....and I used to be an atheist LOL Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Saw this today. http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/ I'm already a believer via the evidence of things not seen, but I'm curious to know what level of empirical evidence would be sufficient for those who don't have faith to say: 'Yeah, ok. God Exists.' What would tip you from non-believer to agnostic to 'Yeah, ok. Supreme being is there.' ETA: Poll added. Proving God isn't hard. Under Einstein's theory of relativity, it basically suggests that something always comes from something else and never from nothing. If you were to take all the matter and material in the universe and roll it into a single ball, you'd have to question where did that single ball of something in the middle of a big nothing come from. Not hard. Everything has a source, doesn't matter how you argue it. ....and I used to be an atheist LOL So explain the source of God. By your own logic it came from something. By that measure then "God" has its own God and so on and so forth into infinity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:42:16 PM EDT
[#49]
Law of biogenesis. Look it up.
With the best technology and knowledge, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-life in perfect laboratory conditions. Yet somehow, life just "kinda happened" and then was able to survive in an extremely hostile environment? Next time you decide to build an AR-15, a simple machine, just toss in some blocks of unmachined metal and plastic into a box and start shaking. Eventually, I'm sure you'll have yourself a fully assembled AR. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:49:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Law of biogenesis. Look it up. With the best technology and knowledge, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-life in perfect laboratory conditions. Yet somehow, life just "kinda happened" and then was able to survive in an extremely hostile environment? Next time you decide to build an AR-15, a simple machine, just toss in some blocks of unmachined metal and plastic into a box and start shaking. Eventually, I'm sure you'll have yourself a fully assembled AR. A complex process that happened one small step at at a time over billions of years it not equal to the simplistic analogy of putting parts in a box and shaking it to assemble X no matter how many times that argument gets trotted out. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
