Attendance question

[super_pig]

I'm not sure where you get this idea from.

bwah ha ha.. it's in his book ​

WW1 did for the christians.. biggest con trick in history​

 

[Gavlar]

I think it would be pretty amazing if this guy suddenly woke up with a brand new set of arms and legs. And the question of God's existence would be undeniable then.

This Guy is a one in a million person that's using his extreme disability as a force for good. He's lucky he was born into the developed world. What about all the other millions of people who have severe disabilities, many of whom are living in abject poverty and misery?

Funnily enough Jesus went around in the Bible performing miracle after miracle, he raised people from the dead, open blind eyes and healed the lame amongst other things, did everyone who witnessed this believe in him? No!
I find it interesting when people say if they saw a miracle they would believe as its not as simple as that.

There are many many examples of healings on this earth not being enough to convince people, one off the top of my head is a couple I know who were infertile, however after prayer they were able to conceive, even the atheist brother of the Women in the couple acknowledges its a miracle but still doersnt believe in God.

As for people in poverty misery etc, youre right, of course this happens, I cant explaine it all, but I do believe that one reason for this is us humans dont do enough to help them live life to the full. The only reason there is stuff like poverty/famine is due to our selfishness in the western world. There really is enough to go around if we would only share it. Disability shouldnt be a reason people cant live fulfilled life, just look at the paraolympics.

 

[Selly]

Funnily enough Jesus went around in the Bible performing miracle after miracle, he raised people from the dead, open blind eyes and healed the lame amongst other things, did everyone who witnessed this believe in him? No!
I find it interesting when people say if they saw a miracle they would believe as its not as simple as that.

Yeah the Bible also says Adam and Eve and all their decendants lived to 1000 years old, and misses out the whole dinosaur thing, so lets forego that as an accurate reference source.

There are many many examples of healings on this earth not being enough to convince people, one off the top of my head is a couple I know who were infertile, however after prayer they were able to conceive, even the atheist brother of the Women in the couple acknowledges its a miracle but still doersnt believe in God.

We don`t know everything as a race. Its far more likely that the docs were wrong (and people are very very rarely told that they can't have kids, just that its extremely unlikely), that anything else.

As for people in poverty misery etc, youre right, of course this happens, I cant explaine it all, but I do believe that one reason for this is us humans dont do enough to help them live life to the full. The only reason there is stuff like poverty/famine is due to our selfishness in the western world. There really is enough to go around if we would only share it. Disability shouldnt be a reason people cant live fulfilled life, just look at the paraolympics.

So nothing to do with African dictators spending Aid money on weapons then???

 

[Gavlar]

But with all due respect, you just beg the question. You say that "God never promises justice on this earth", which assumes that God exists, which is the whole point at issue.

Thanks for your reply darren, some further thoughts below in bold.

I can understand why people believe in God and I understand it must give great solace and hope to those who so believe. But in the deepest sense (and I don't mean this perjoratively) belief in God is not rational. It takes a leap of faith. (totally agree that it takes faith, thats the point! If we could see and know everything we wouldnt need faith) I point out all the way the world operates which seem inconsistent with the existence of God and you explain them away with what is essentially "the God moves in myserious ways argument". (why does it seem inconsisent with the existence of God? It may appear inconsistent with your understanding of God, not mine. The bible says 'Gods ways are higher than our ways'. The bible also talks about suffering producing perseverance and hope, of course that seems hard to accept and understand and I certainly dont understand it fully. You have faith in God and anything that conflicts with that faith is explained away, however unconvincing that explanation seems to non-believers. (I actually think you have huge faith in the non-existence of God, we're both looking at the world and the same facts but interpreting them with different faith positions.)

The free will explanation is unconvincing as it cannot explaing natural diasters (why does God allow thousands to be killed in earthquakes and floods for which humans have no responsibility) and it also doesn't explain cruelty and suffering in the natural world (see my example above).

And even when suffering is caused by humans, the people who suffer are often innocent For me, one of the most convincing arguments against the existence of the Christian God is the Aberfan diaster in 1966. Through the negligence of the coal board a slag heap was allowed to become dangerously unstable. The heap was above a primary school. One morning, around ten minutes after school started, the heap collapsed on the school killing virtually all the children and teachers, none, of whom were, of course, responsible for the negligence. Had the heap collapsed a hour ealier (something which one would have expected an omnipotent, omniscient God who cared for human beings to easily contrive) no-one would have been killed and the realisation of what might have happened would no doubt have led to apprpopriate improvements in safety. I don't think many of the bereaved Aberfan parents would find it convincing that their child's death was all for the greater good. (That is a horrific story, and there are many others like this sadly. The fact that God allows huge suffering doesnt mean he doesnt exist, but it does mean he is different to us and if the next life after this is permanent and is paradise/Heaven and we can all chose to go there by believing in Jesus it will more than make up for the awful stuff on this earth. Of course this doesnt mean life isnt tough and we dont feel pain, I've seen some horrific things happen in my own and my friends/familys life as well. Natural disasters are of course on the one hand a huge mystery, and I would be arrogant to put myself in the place of God to explain everything especially this. However, the selfishness we show has resulted in our world being completely broken beyond all recognition, its like a virus on our computer, it affects everything. We see how some natural disasters are a direct result of how we abuse the world we live in. One example is the hole in the ozone layer caused by pollution, humans have started a sequence of events with this that will cause huge problems in the future due to polar ice caps melting etc.)

The example of your kids is a poor one becauase you are not omniscient or omnipotent. You therefore have to make choices of the lesser evil. As God is both he does not have to make people suffer for their own long term good. (I think you miss my point here, im not saying im like God! but im saying God is far more intelligent than us and knows the beginning from the end in everything, and more importantly he knows whats best for us even if we cant see it at the time, like good parents do. I think we as humans expect to understand God and his ways, but why would we? If God was really like he says in the bible should we expect to understand him?)

As I say, if your religious faith helps you in your life, I wouldn't seek to deny it to you, but I am afraid I have never heard a convincing rational argument for a belief in the Christian God. I hear convincing rational arguments for other philosophies and ideologies I disagree with - conservatism, libertarianism, communism and so on - which leads me to beleive that religious belief exists beyond reason and is really akin to poetry and music - it creates a resonance with people that is fundamentally non-rational. It's none the worse for that, but I think that religious believers sell themselves shrot when they seek to argue that their faith is rational - they are fighting on their opponents' ground, rather like the Saracens rugby team playing Manchester United at football and expecting to win. They never will. (I'm not sure logic belongs solely to non-believers, some of the most intelligent and logical people alive with multiple phds believe in the God of the Bible, check out this: http://www.rzim.org/)

Thanks for the debate I really have appreciated it and for what its worth, I have regular doubts and struggles in my Faith and will always try to learn from people of other views. I'm really glad that this has been a good natrued conversation as often its not sadly

All the best.

Gavlar

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Funnily enough Jesus went around in the Bible performing miracle after miracle, he raised people from the dead, open blind eyes and healed the lame amongst other things, did everyone who witnessed this believe in him? No!
I find it interesting when people say if they saw a miracle they would believe as its not as simple as that.

Yeah the Bible also says Adam and Eve and all their decendants lived to 1000 years old, and misses out the whole dinosaur thing, so lets forego that as an accurate reference source.

But the bible isn't meant to be taken literally SellyOakBlade. Except of course when you're trying to prove a point.

There are many many examples of healings on this earth not being enough to convince people, one off the top of my head is a couple I know who were infertile, however after prayer they were able to conceive, even the atheist brother of the Women in the couple acknowledges its a miracle but still doersnt believe in God.

Show me an example of God magicking up a pair of fresh arms and legs and i'll start believing in him/her/it.

Some things are beyond our current scientific ability. Curing cancer for instance, but we will evenutally get there. Eventually Science will disprove everything in the bible.

The only miracle i know of is Ernest Saunders recovery from Alzheimers disease, but i'm not going to put that one down to God...

As for people in poverty misery etc, youre right, of course this happens, I cant explaine it all, but I do believe that one reason for this is us humans dont do enough to help them live life to the full. The only reason there is stuff like poverty/famine is due to our selfishness in the western world. There really is enough to go around if we would only share it. Disability shouldnt be a reason people cant live fulfilled life, just look at the paraolympics.

We do share lots of it. As Selly has pointed out, it's not the western worlds fault if leaders of African countries piss it up the wall.


Personally i believe that Jesus was a time-travelling dude from the distant future/another planet, who was sent here to alter the course of history.

Prove me wrong please.

 

[Darren]

I am afraid you beg the question all the way through your response to my points. I put forward arguments against the existence of God and you put foward response that assume the precise point we are discussing- that God exists. Your response to the Aberfan story is particularly weak unfortunately. Say I am a coal board official on duty at Aberfan on the fatal morning at 8am who sees that the heap is about to slide. I have two choices, I can act urgently to ensure the school is closed that day and that no-one is hurt. Or, I can do nothing because I think that the death of the children and teachers is ultimately for the best. If I did the latter, you would think me the most arrogant evil bastard imaginable. I have the power to prevent immense suffering yet I do nothing because I think those people should suffer or their own long term good. Yet that is precisely God's position - except he is vastly more powerful than an official - and he chooses the latter option!

Unless you argue that God adheres to completly different moral standards to human belings so that we consider to be good isn't in God's eyes (in which case why did he give us such different moral standards), then the existence of all-powerful all-knowing benevolent God is simply inconsistent with events like Aberfan.

As for my non-belief being as much faith based as your belief, I am afraid that this is simply not the case. I am open to the posibility of God existing if the evidence were there. Say, for example, tomorrow morning a big booming voice came from the clouds saying "I am God and at 1pm I will cause the English Channel to freeze over" and at 1pm that did happen and everyone else I spoke to heard the voice and it was reported all over the media (so I could discount madness on my part) I would believe in God. Is there any evidence that would cause you to cease to believe in God? If not, your belief is faith based whilst mine is not.

 

[Darren]

.

Some things are beyond our current scientific ability. Curing cancer for instance, but we will evenutally get there. Eventually Science will disprove everything in the bible.

quote]
.

I have some sympathy with the likes of Gavlar when I see naively positivist statements like this. As I have been trying to point out to him, religion doesn't inhabit the same rational universe as science and he, and other religious believers, do themsleves an immense disservice when they try to argue on that ground. They will always lose.

But science will not destroy or "disprove" religion. Science has pretty much already disproved much of what is described in the Bible if it is taken literally, but that doesn't stop millions and millions of people still being Christians. That's because, as I said above, religion appeals to the emotional non-rational side of humanity - like poetry and music (or indeed exotic sex and supporting a football team). It has existed throughout human history so obviously fulfils some very basic need in very many people.

To me rather than trying to argue that Jesus' alleged miracles "prove" the truth of Christianity, he would be better off arguing that "Chrsitianity is "true in the same way that Hamlet is "true". The events described in the Bible or by Shakespeare may well not have occured in the physical world but their truth lies beyond that, in the sense that both speak deeply to very many people and can give meaning and understanding to human existence - their "truth" is in the reactions they evoke in human beings.

Some Christians do argue on those lines (Karen Armstrong is worth reading on this), but I suspect Gavlar is not of their specices and he will always end up trying to justify his belief on rationally untenable grounds.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I think the tone of losts of posts on here don't blame God at all. They're more using the fact that evil goes unpunished as proof to the non-existence of God.

No, it just means Charles Bronson is dead.

 

[Northyorksblade]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. One of the few things I remember from RE

 

[Gavlar]

Yeah the Bible also says Adam and Eve and all their decendants lived to 1000 years old, and misses out the whole dinosaur thing, so lets forego that as an accurate reference source.

Lots of other sources also mention people living for a long time as well, not just Christianity, including the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, and Chinese. check out the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/adam-and-noah-live

as for not mentioning dinosaurs, check another link out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ka/v6/n4/bible-mention-dinos

We don`t know everything as a race. Its far more likely that the docs were wrong (and people are very very rarely told that they can't have kids, just that its extremely unlikely), that anything else.

I dont have enough faith to believe that the docs were wrong. There were several trained medical professionals that made the diagnosis, then after prayer things changed and the doctors couldnt explain it.

So nothing to do with African dictators spending Aid money on weapons then???

Yes fair point, it has a lot to do with that as well.

 

[louthblade]

I went there too and decided to become a Christian that day and still am today. Not all of us are Bible bashers or religious freaks/maniacs, just like not all atheists are Dawkins rotweilers or non-religious freaks. Many of us support Blades in fact (ok I must be a freak to support blades ).

I cant stand religion but am rebelious enough to believe in Jesus (even in 2013), and for what its worth, proud of it.

I would loved to see Springsteen play there aswell.

So would I but the eldest daughter had to go ( First time Mum had let her attend a concert) so I had to take her and her mate and bring them back home - and teenage girls don't want the old man around to spoil their cool.

Biggest miss of my life could still hear the sound at Crookes though

 

[Selly]

I am afraid you beg the question all the way through your response to my points. I put forward arguments against the existence of God and you put foward response that assume the precise point we are discussing- that God exists. Your response to the Aberfan story is particularly weak unfortunately. Say I am a coal board official on duty at Aberfan on the fatal morning at 8am who sees that the heap is about to slide. I have two choices, I can act urgently to ensure the school is closed that day and that no-one is hurt. Or, I can do nothing because I think that the death of the children and teachers is ultimately for the best. If I did the latter, you would think me the most arrogant evil bastard imaginable. I have the power to prevent immense suffering yet I do nothing because I think those people should suffer or their own long term good. Yet that is precisely God's position - except he is vastly more powerful than an official - and he chooses the latter option!

Unless you argue that God adheres to completly different moral standards to human belings so that we consider to be good isn't in God's eyes (in which case why did he give us such different moral standards), then the existence of all-powerful all-knowing benevolent God is simply inconsistent with events like Aberfan.

As for my non-belief being as much faith based as your belief, I am afraid that this is simply not the case. I am open to the posibility of God existing if the evidence were there. Say, for example, tomorrow morning a big booming voice came from the clouds saying "I am God and at 1pm I will cause the English Channel to freeze over" and at 1pm that did happen and everyone else I spoke to heard the voice and it was reported all over the media (so I could discount madness on my part) I would believe in God. Is there any evidence that would cause you to cease to believe in God? If not, your belief is faith based whilst mine is not.

You also have the apparent double standard of arguing that God is a non interventionalist higher authority, whilst also arguing that the West should intervene more in Africa.

So it's OK for God o be non interventionalist, but not for the west to ignore an apparently easy fix to the issues of starvation in Africa.

(incidentally, thee were 3m Ethiopians at risk of death from starvation in 1984, there are now 6m living in an area that is prone to famine and drought. Seems to me hat far from solving he problem in the 80's, our intervention actualy prevented a perfectly natural cycle of population control and may have caused an even bigger problem he next time the climate decides to play naughty buggers in the area)*


* I should make it clear here that I am not arguing we should have just let the famine run its course, just pointing out a potential
Impact of the Wests intervention

 

[Selly]

Lots of other sources also mention people living for a long time as well, not just Christianity, including the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, and Chinese. check out the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/adam-and-noah-live

And yet not a shred of verfiable evidence exists.

as for not mentioning dinosaurs, check another link out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ka/v6/n4/bible-mention-dinos

Ah, so it might mention them, but also mentions them walking around at the same time as humans, again for which not a shred of verifiable evidence exists.

I dont have enough faith to believe that the docs were wrong. There were several trained medical professionals that made the diagnosis, then after prayer things changed and the doctors couldnt explain it.

That's not evidence of causality, that could, and probably is, coincidence.

I find it interesting that you claim not to have enough faith to beleive the docs were wrong, but do have enough faith to beleive prayer made a difference. As Darren says, that's the non-rational side coming out. What worries me is we have a legislature which doesn't prevent people who think like that becoming politicians. Future humans will look back on this time and wonder what the hell we were doing.

Gavlar - do me a favour and work out how to use the quote function properly and not reply in line. Makes it very hard to work out what you are trying to say...

 

[Gavlar]

I am afraid you beg the question all the way through your response to my points. I put forward arguments against the existence of God and you put foward response that assume the precise point we are discussing- that God exists. Your response to the Aberfan story is particularly weak unfortunately. Say I am a coal board official on duty at Aberfan on the fatal morning at 8am who sees that the heap is about to slide. I have two choices, I can act urgently to ensure the school is closed that day and that no-one is hurt. Or, I can do nothing because I think that the death of the children and teachers is ultimately for the best. If I did the latter, you would think me the most arrogant evil bastard imaginable. I have the power to prevent immense suffering yet I do nothing because I think those people should suffer or their own long term good. Yet that is precisely God's position - except he is vastly more powerful than an official - and he chooses the latter option!

Unless you argue that God adheres to completly different moral standards to human belings so that we consider to be good isn't in God's eyes (in which case why did he give us such different moral standards), then the existence of all-powerful all-knowing benevolent God is simply inconsistent with events like Aberfan.

As for my non-belief being as much faith based as your belief, I am afraid that this is simply not the case. I am open to the posibility of God existing if the evidence were there. Say, for example, tomorrow morning a big booming voice came from the clouds saying "I am God and at 1pm I will cause the English Channel to freeze over" and at 1pm that did happen and everyone else I spoke to heard the voice and it was reported all over the media (so I could discount madness on my part) I would believe in God. Is there any evidence that would cause you to cease to believe in God? If not, your belief is faith based whilst mine is not.

Ok lets take things back at step. Firstly, is there any evidence that would cause me to cease belief in God? Yes.

Secondly, we're trying to wrestle with the biggest issues known to humanity here in evil and suffering and after re reading my posts I fear I may have come across as trying to appear all knowing and giving trite answers to big questions that involved horrific situations and huge pain. I'm sorry if that came across.

You talk about moral standards and make very fair points. I've heard lots of people use the 'if this happened then I would believe in God' statement like you have with the Channel example. This begs the question, if God was real why wouldnt he make things more obvious that he exists? I can understand people asking this question and I have asked it myself!

I was on a Richard Dawkins site once when some athiests were discussing whther they would believe in God if the scientific evidence was undenable. Interestingly half of them said they wouldnt. They plainly didnt like God. For me that showed that their dislike of God was more important to them than whether he existed or not.

Ultimately I cant and really shouldnt give answers to why awful things happen, it not my place to explain why God (if he exists) would allow that. As I try and answer that question in my own life, I ask questions like why did my wifes parents lose a child at 3 months old? Why did my granddad die of cancer? Why did an 18 year old friend of mine get ran over? Its heartbreaking even typing this, however I do hold on to the promises in the Bible that one day God wil right every wrong. He will wipe every tear away and justice will be done. It doesnt take away pain on this earth but I really believe the best is yet to come.

 

[Gavlar]

You also have the apparent double standard of arguing that God is a non interventionalist higher authority, whilst also arguing that the West should intervene more in Africa.

So it's OK for God to be non interventionalist, but not for the west to ignore an apparently easy fix to the issues of starvation in Africa.

I never said God was a non-interventionalist. I think the scarey thing is Gods main way of helping this problem is through us, it's a massive responsibility we have.

 

[louthblade]

But the bible isn't meant to be taken literally SellyOakBlade. Except of course when you're trying to prove a point.



Show me an example of God magicking up a pair of fresh arms and legs and i'll start believing in him/her/it.

Some things are beyond our current scientific ability. Curing cancer for instance, but we will evenutally get there. Eventually Science will disprove everything in the bible.

The only miracle i know of is Ernest Saunders recovery from Alzheimers disease, but i'm not going to put that one down to God...



We do share lots of it. As Selly has pointed out, it's not the western worlds fault if leaders of African countries piss it up the wall.


Personally i believe that Jesus was a time-travelling dude from the distant future/another planet, who was sent here to alter the course of history.

Prove me wrong please.

I've just read a theory from some mathematician, that ponders on the fact that we could be in a universe at the bottom of a black hole, This black hole is of course in another universe - so if worm holes truly do exist then your time travelling dude may not be far away from the truth.

Worryingly this then prompts the question would this dude be God and the bible thingy about creating the world in 6 days could be right.

A number of scientists also say the more they know about our creation the more they believe in some form of god.

Me, just give me Stephen Hawkin in the go compare ad that should sort everything

 

[Selly]

I never said God was a non-interventionalist. I think the scarey thing is Gods main way of helping this problem is through us, it's a massive responsibility we have.

Right, so we have an omnipotent, omnicient being, who chooses Human beings as his tool?

Really? Thats like me choosing the petrol as a way of putting out the fire on my boat in the middle of the Atlantic.

 

[Mad Mick]

On a similar subject, I saw the latter end of a very interesting programme o BBC1 was around 10.45 am when I switched on. They were debating does Hell exist?
Many major religions had people there. The guy who impressed me the most was the Sikh, his ideas were closest to my thoughts.

 

[Darren]

Ok lets take things back at step. Firstly, is there any evidence that would cause me to cease belief in God? Yes.

Secondly, we're trying to wrestle with the biggest issues known to humanity here in evil and suffering and after re reading my posts I fear I may have come across as trying to appear all knowing and giving trite answers to big questions that involved horrific situations and huge pain. I'm sorry if that came across.

You talk about moral standards and make very fair points. I've heard lots of people use the 'if this happened then I would believe in God' statement like you have with the Channel example. This begs the question, if God was real why wouldnt he make things more obvious that he exists? I can understand people asking this question and I have asked it myself!

I was on a Richard Dawkins site once when some athiests were discussing whther they would believe in God if the scientific evidence was undenable. Interestingly half of them said they wouldnt. They plainly didnt like God. For me that showed that their dislike of God was more important to them than whether he existed or not.

Ultimately I cant and really shouldnt give answers to why awful things happen, it not my place to explain why God (if he exists) would allow that. As I try and answer that question in my own life, I ask questions like why did my wifes parents lose a child at 3 months old? Why did my granddad die of cancer? Why did an 18 year old friend of mine get ran over? Its heartbreaking even typing this, however I do hold on to the promises in the Bible that one day God wil right every wrong. He will wipe every tear away and justice will be done. It doesnt take away pain on this earth but I really believe the best is yet to come.

Out of interest what evidence would convince you God didn't exist? To my way of thinking the evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist of pretty overwhelming as it is.

I agree some atheists don't do themselves any favours when arguing their point (HB on here for example with his "science will disprove the Bible" point), but the idea that athiests "dislike" God is a nonsense I am afraid. How can they dislike something they don't believe exists? What they probably do dislike intensely is the whole religious mindset.

With all due respect, all of the points should mention above that cause you concern would, in my humble opinion, cause a rational person to conclude that God does not exist. The fact that you still think he does rather proves my point that your faith cannot be rationally argued for. As I say, it is none the worse for that, but (to use that metaphor again) you are turning up for a game of football carrying a tennis racket when you try to argue rationally for God.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I agree some atheists don't do themselves any favours when arguing their point (HB on here for example with his "science will disprove the Bible" point)

What's so daft about that argument? I've had plenty of religious folk use the bible as proof that somethings happened. (Gavlar's even done it himself in this very thread).

 

[Darren]

What's so daft about that argument? I've had plenty of religious folk use the bible as proof that somethings happened. (Gavlar's even done it himself in this very thread).

Because you're assuming that religion is all about rational proof. It isn't (though, as I have said, religious believers don't do themselves any favours by arguing on that ground). As I said above, science has pretty much "disproved" already much of what the Bible says - it has proved that people don't rise from the dead, that water doesn't turn into wine, that you can't feed 5000 people with 3 loaves and 5 fishes (or however many it was), that the sun does not stand still in the sky, that women cannot give birth without the addition of semen to their eggs etc etc, yet that has not made a blind bit of difference to the fact that millions and millions of people continue to believe that the Bible is the holy word of God.

You seem to be suggesting that the only things that can exist are things that are capable of being proved to exist in the actual emprical world. Thas a bit naive. You could argue that as long as people believe in a concept of God, then God can be said to exist in the same way that "love" exists, even if you can't point to something and say that that is "love". Obviously thats different from saying that God exists in an empirical sense, like the Queen or David Cameron exist and I think religious believers get on very dodgy ground when they do start arguing in that sense (which, to be fair to you, Gavlar is doing).

I am in the happy medium in this argument. It's a strange place to be....

 

[CG Blade]

Because you're assuming that religion is all about rational proof. It isn't (though, as I have said, religious believers don't do themselves any favours by arguing on that ground). As I said above, science has pretty much "disproved" already much of what the Bible says - it has proved that people don't rise from the dead, that water doesn't turn into wine, that you can't feed 5000 people with 3 loaves and 5 fishes (or however many it was), that the sun does not stand still in the sky, that women cannot give birth without the addition of semen to their eggs etc etc, yet that has not made a blind bit of difference to the fact that millions and millions of people continue to believe that the Bible is the holy word of God.

You seem to be suggesting that the only things that can exist are things that are capable of being proved to exist in the actual emprical world. Thas a bit naive. You could argue that as long as people believe in a concept of God, then God can be said to exist in the same way that "love" exists, even if you can't point to something and say that that is "love". Obviously thats different from saying that God exists in an empirical sense, like the Queen or David Cameron exist and I think religious believers get on very dodgy ground when they do start arguing in that sense (which, to be fair to you, Gavlar is doing).

I am in the happy medium in this argument. It's a strange place to be....

But that is were you have faith that God did this, he is a God of Miracles, My argument with science is that they try to prove that all these things didn't happen, but cannot prove what they frequently say. It is an argument that has gone for many years, and will go on for many more years to come.

 

[Darren]

But that is were you have faith that God did this, he is a God of Miracles, My argument with science is that they try to prove that all these things didn't happen, but cannot prove what they frequently say. It is an argument that has gone for many years, and will go on for many more years to come.

As is often said, you can't prove a negative. Can you prove that I don't have a pink elephant living in my back garden that has the miraculous power to make itself (and any traces of it) invisible when any human being appears? Of course you can't, but you would think I was a lunatic if I said that that was the case.

Science works by experiment and induction. As there are no recorded objectively verified instances of spiders being able to talk, we can conclude that spiders are incapable of talking, and as there are no recorded objectively verified instances of people dying and rising again we can conclude that that is also impossible.

And if you take the Gospels as evidence that people can rise from the dead, it seems to me that you also have to take other ancient texts as evidenxce, for example, that a God can turn into a swan and impregnate a human being (see the Greek myth of Zeus and Leda).

 

[Gavlar]

That's not evidence of causality, that could, and probably is, coincidence.

I find it fascinating that you use phrases like "not a shred of verifiable evidence" and then use the word coincidence which also requires no shred of verifiable evidence and a huge amount of faith.

I find it interesting that you claim not to have enough faith to believe the docs were wrong, but do have enough faith to believe prayer made a difference. As Darren says, that's the non-rational side coming out. How do you define non-rational?

Gavlar - do me a favour and work out how to use the quote function properly and not reply in line. Makes it very hard to work out what you are trying to say... Apologies on my poor use of the quoting tool sellyoak I should have paid more attention in I.T. class, hopefully I havent ballsed it up again this time

 

[Selly]

I'm afraid you have, but you also bolded your answers so I can pick em out!

The use of coincidence is probably a poor choice. My point is that I do not beleive, and there is nothing to suggest a causal link, that prayer made any difference. I might as well, with just as much justification, state that it was the Crunchy Nut Cornflakes they both ate 9 months before the baby was born that caused the pregnancy.

What it comes down to is whether it is more likely that Prayer made a difference, or that the fallible doctors got it wrong. (and as I have said before, docs don't generally tell you that you are infertile, just that it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY).

And for me non-rational is making statement without any empirical, scientific, or realistic evidence to back up your claims.

"I am a better footballer than Nick Montgomery because God told me" is a non-rational argument.

"I am a better footballer than Nick Montgomery, because I have spent most of my career in the PL, playing regularly 30+ games a season" is a rational argument.

 

[Gavlar]

Out of interest what evidence would convince you God didn't exist? To my way of thinking the evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist of pretty overwhelming as it is.

In your way of thinking yes . Here's some things that would have to happen for me to not believe in God, in no particular order.

1. The whole of Ravi zacharias trust would come out and admit that there isnt anything true about Christianity and they have been mistaken all along. Thats all these people: http://www.rzim.org/about/team/ and others like Alister McGrath who are ridiculously intelligent with phds, degrees and you name it and all believe in the God of the Bible. Why would they believe in God if it was so obviously not true?

2. The body of Jesus of nazareth would be discovered thereby disproving the ressurection. You say in other posts that this has been disproved, however i'm reading a book at the moment called 'who rolled away the stone' by frank morrison who was an atheist who set out to disprove the ressurection and came away become a Christian due to the evidence. Worth a read if you have the time.

3. No more healings or answers to prayer would ever occur. Stories like this (and many others I could quote) would never happen: http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/Stories/Personal?storyaction=view&storyid=43

With all due respect, all of the points should mention above that cause you concern would, in my humble opinion, cause a rational person to conclude that God does not exist. The fact that you still think he does rather proves my point that your faith cannot be rationally argued for. As I say, it is none the worse for that, but (to use that metaphor again) you are turning up for a game of football carrying a tennis racket when you try to argue rationally for God.

It depends on how you define rationality. If I had said to you at the start of the eason, Bradford City will play Swansea in the league cup final would you think I was being irrational?

Incidently I've played football with a tennis racket, its quite handy for holding off defenders

 

[Gavlar]

I'm afraid you have, but you also bolded your answers so I can pick em out!

The use of coincidence is probably a poor choice. My point is that I do not beleive, and there is nothing to suggest a causal link, that prayer made any difference. I might as well, with just as much justification, state that it was the Crunchy Nut Cornflakes they both ate 9 months before the baby was born that caused the pregnancy.

What it comes down to is whether it is more likely that Prayer made a difference, or that the fallible doctors got it wrong. (and as I have said before, docs don't generally tell you that you are infertile, just that it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY).

And for me non-rational is making statement without any empirical, scientific, or realistic evidence to back up your claims.

"I am a better footballer than Nick Montgomery because God told me" is a non-rational argument.

"I am a better footballer than Nick Montgomery, because I have spent most of my career in the PL, playing regularly 30+ games a season" is a rational argument.

Sheesh I suck at this quote thing

I'm gonna keep the bold and try a different approach this time!

As for being extremely unlikely, I couldnt agree more mate. The thing is unlikely things happen even EXTREMELY UNLIKELY things like the fact that humans exist in a world with such order in it supposedly created by chance from a big bang!

 

[CG Blade]

Sheesh I suck at this quote thing

I'm gonna keep the bold and try a different approach this time!

As for being extremely unlikely, I couldnt agree more mate. The thing is unlikely things happen even EXTREMELY UNLIKELY things like the fact that humans exist in a world with such order in it supposedly created by chance from a big bang!

The Big Bang is an interesting on for me, I do stand to be corrected, but I understand that scientists theory is that a big bang started the universe as we know it today, but isn't just a theory, they have no conclusive proof that a big bang actually happened.. There is documented evidence that Jesus walk the earth , but not accepted.
Before I became a Christian, I could not understand, why people/animals can from evolution. The body is to complex, animals are to different, plants are a fantastic design, to have happened by chance.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

The Big Bang is an interesting on for me, I do stand to be corrected, but I understand that scientists theory is that a big bang started the universe as we know it today, but isn't just a theory, they have no conclusive proof that a big bang actually happened.. There is documented evidence that Jesus walk the earth , but not accepted.
Before I became a Christian, I could not understand, why people/animals can from evolution. The body is to complex, animals are to different, plants are a fantastic design, to have happened by chance.

Where's the documented evidence of Jesus walking on water?

 

[Selly]

Sheesh I suck at this quote thing

I'm gonna keep the bold and try a different approach this time!

As for being extremely unlikely, I couldnt agree more mate. The thing is unlikely things happen even EXTREMELY UNLIKELY things like the fact that humans exist in a world with such order in it supposedly created by chance from a big bang!

Given the size of the Universe even Extremely Unlikely things become almost certain to happen.

The Big Bang is an interesting on for me, I do stand to be corrected, but I understand that scientists theory is that a big bang started the universe as we know it today, but isn't just a theory, they have no conclusive proof that a big bang actually happened.. There is documented evidence that Jesus walk the earth , but not accepted.

I'm certainly not claiming that a bloke call Jesus did not exist, I do doubt the Bibles account of his life and acts he performed, and most notably his claim to be the son of God.

Before I became a Christian, I could not understand, why people/animals can from evolution. The body is to complex, animals are to different, plants are a fantastic design, to have happened by chance.

You are looking at it too much like evolution has an end goal. It doesn`t. it has taken 4.5bn years to get us to where we are from the formation of the Solar System. In that time there are a lot of evolutionary dead ends.

And I would say if you are placing God at the centre of complex life, you still dont understand why people/animals arose as they did.