CALLING ALL ATHEISTS TO A CHALLENGE!!!

[Ramon]

]

What if there not Christian what if there Muslim ? Im sure it's happened. Or atheist or Budhist what then huh ? they coincidentally survived. But if its christian it was devine intervention right ?

I know this might not be well accepted, but who cares! Anyhow. There was a time when the Muslims did serve the one true God, but bitterness caused them to stray away from him and when a person does this, they create other gods to fill the void. This is how their Allah, which is not the true God has a form of the true. And even now, the Jews don't worship the one True God yet. They call him by a Hebrew name, but they don't worship him. Don't get me wrong, some do. And even now, there are many Christians who had worshiped the one true God, and they call him by a gentile name, and yet they no longer worship him as such, and have become vain in their imaginations. But these things must happen, and you know why? Because the righteous will be separated from the Just. God is waiting till his will is played out. Some will believe others will not, many will perish few are being saved. Some grow more cold and cold, and others more faithful.

It is obstruction in the same way the Jews thought they knew God and killed the prophets. They thought they knew God and killed Jesus. And they will think they know God and they will kill his servants. Ever since the beginning the devil has been using people full of self-righteousness to kill his true servants. And it will be this way until he comes to show everyone just how wrong and evil they truly are.

 

[Red_Tory]

When have any of the laws you just mentioned ever been amended.

You mean Zoomer's "11 Points"? Some of them should be amended indeed, as they're horribly illogical.

 

[Zoomer239]

There are more than ten commandments in your list of commandments. (Humans seem to have tieded up the list bit to shoe horn it in to ten)
To Red Tory - Humans made up the ten commandments and they make up the laws of our legal system, so what is your point?
Ramon - You did not argue any of my points, so you concede that the hold some merit.
I follow no doctrine, I am beholden to no author. I read, I learn, I read some more, I learn some more. What I have learned here is that you can not argue your point in a clear and intelligent manner.
Ramon - How do you follow god if you don't follow the bible or preachers or other holy books? Where does the nonsense that you spew come from? Does god talk directly to you? And if he does how do you know it is not just that inner voice that everyone hase. How could you possibly prove that you are sane and not delusional? People that hear voices tend to need psychiatric assistance. Do you need assistance? If this voice in your head that you equate with god told you to kill someone would you do it? If so you need to check yourself in.
You say that you know that god's standards are good, how do you know they are good? Does "goodness" exist outside of god comanding it to be good?
Most of the people on the earth don't actualy believe in god and yet thay are not all out killing each other.(most are just going through the motions so far as god is concerned, just out of social custom, they don't actual believe they just go with the flow, most have no clue whether or not deities exist) So I am sure that god is not needed for goodness to exist.

 

[Zoomer239]

Red Tory which one is illogical, I will restate it clearer if necessary.

 

[Ramon]

There are more than ten commandments in your list of commandments. (Humans seem to have tieded up the list bit to shoe horn it in to ten)
To Red Tory - Humans made up the ten commandments and they make up the laws of our legal system, so what is your point?
Ramon - You did not argue any of my points, so you concede that the hold some merit.
I follow no doctrine, I am beholden to no author. I read, I learn, I read some more, I learn some more. What I have learned here is that you can not argue your point in a clear and intelligent manner.
Ramon - How do you follow god if you don't follow the bible or preachers or other holy books? Where does the nonsense that you spew come from? Does god talk directly to you? And if he does how do you know it is not just that inner voice that everyone hase. How could you possibly prove that you are sane and not delusional? People that hear voices tend to need psychiatric assistance. Do you need assistance? If this voice in your head that you equate with god told you to kill someone would you do it? If so you need to check yourself in.
You say that you know that god's standards are good, how do you know they are good? Does "goodness" exist outside of god comanding it to be good?
Most of the people on the earth don't actualy believe in god and yet thay are not all out killing each other.(most are just going through the motions so far as god is concerned, just out of social custom, they don't actual believe they just go with the flow, most have no clue whether or not deities exist) So I am sure that god is not needed for goodness to exist.

Do you say everything out of assumption? How are you credible then.

Exod 34:28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. *

Notice, ''TEN COMMANDMENTS.''

And here we go again, you keep considering yourself a good person. Haha, that is laughable. Have you ever lied, cheated, stolen, lusted, or been angry without cause at someone? Have you ever? Go ahead justify yourself, show us all how really conceited you can be.

And yes he does speak directly to me, but how would you know that? God is not our minds, he is greater than our minds. Anyone that worships a god with their minds is worshiping, not the true god, but a false god. That is why I say atheism is another religion.

And yes, the bible didn't teach me about God, but the Holy Spirit did, am I going too far?

 

[Red_Tory]

There are more than ten commandments in your list of commandments. (Humans seem to have tieded up the list bit to shoe horn it in to ten)
To Red Tory - Humans made up the ten commandments and they make up the laws of our legal system, so what is your point?

Point: we create specific laws, but what basis do they have and from whence do they derive their moral legitimacy? This relates back to jurisprudence...



Articles nine and eleven of your list, in the way they are currently phrased, commit fallacies of irrelevance.

"9) Each religion's explanation of god is contradictory with the other religion's descriptions. (more likely that they are all wrong)"

The fact that religions disagree with each other over the nature of theological/moral/philosophical issues in no way demonstrates that they are all false. Similarly, I could claim that disagreements within the scientific community over certain issues shows that all scientific theories are wrong.

Secondly, this argument could easily be turned against atheism; since atheism's explanation of God (non-existent) contradicts other systems of belief, it too is false.

Contradiction instead logically entails the existence of one true religion or set of beliefs (atheism included) through simple reasoning. Since religions typically make mutually exclusive claims, you can typically apply tertium non datur to ascertain that there is only one true belief, arriving at the sole question of A v¬A - either an assertion made by a belief structure is true or it is not.

Contradiction demonstrates that certain beliefs are right and others are wrong, it in no way shows that they are all wrong.



"11) people tend to be the religion of their parents and their communities. (Americans don't tend to have religious revelations that Ra or Thor or Shiva are the real god, and people in India don't have revelations that include scientology as the correct way) religion is a cultural phenomenon i.e. it is made up"


Again, a fallacy of irrelevance. The fact that people tend to hold the same beliefs of the culture they live in does not logically imply that those beliefs are false (instead I would argue that it relates back to contradiction, see the previous note).

Similar to the previous point, we can easily turn this on its head. A child that is raised in a militantly atheistic home will probably grow up to become an atheist, similar to the way in which you say a person raised in a religious community will adopt that religion.

Does this mean that atheism is a cultural phenomenon and "made up"? No.



I wouldn't use these as arguments for atheism if they can so easily be turned around and used against it...

 

[Zoomer239]

Ramon I bet you think that you are one of the folks that get to go to heaven? (they all think they are going to heaven) What have you done to get a golden ticket on the heaven express? What make you so special? Have you dedicated your life to helping the poor or have you adopted a child that would have otherwise been aborted? Have you given all of your possessions to the poor? Have you helped the homeless, or the unemployed? Have you helped in the aftermath of a flood or tornado or huracain? Have you welcomed strangers in to your home in their time of need? Now there are people that do these things and I am abong them but I don't do them because of a future reward, I do them to help my fellow man because I know no god is going come out of the sky and fix all of these injustices. It is up to people like me and you to help each other.
Oh and the jews didn't kill Josua (Jesus, his name got miss translated so now we are stuck with the wrong name) The Romans did the killing. Stop hating on the jews. You talk bad about the muslims but don't worry they think it is you who have strayed from the path.
That is the weird thing about religions, they all think that their god or way is the right one and everyone else is in tthe wrong.
They can't all be right. More likely thay are all wrong.

Ramon why do you think your tribal god is the right one and everyone elses is wrong? Out of 6 to 7 billion people what do you think the likelihood of you being the one that has it all figured out?

your arrogance will keep you out of your heaven.

 

[xXxSharonxXx]

I would rather believe there was no God and everything was an accident. Than believe in a God who allows such horrible things to happen.

This seems to be a common arguement among many athiests, and even Christians today. The simplest answer would be that God will only answer the prayers if our intentions are good. Example?
Lets say you are in deep debt, and need money desperately. God is not going to give it to you if He knows that in the future, when you are out of your debt, you will spend it on unnesessary things that will bring you back to the same hopeless situation. Or worse, bring to into the world even more.
If He knows your intentions are good, and if it is nesessary for us to have, then of course He will answer our prayer when we have faith and ask earnestly for what we want.
If you had a teenager who wanted money, you're not going to give them the money if you knew what they're going to do with it. I mean, come on, they're teenagers. In the same way, if you had a child who wanted a bag of candy, are you going to give it to them? Of course not. A child is not going to eat a peice of candy and leave the rest for later. They're going to gulp the whole bag down.
But back to the point. Even we ourselves might not know what we're going to do in the future if God answers our prayers. God might know we have bad intentions, but we wont nessesarily know that.
Then there's another case, why does God let someone we love pass away or leave us, even when we pray for them back? We have to understand that God has a plan for EVERYTHING. We might not know the cause, but with these things we just have to trust that God knows what He is doing, because He does. This is just my perception on it, however.

 

[Zoomer239]

Red Tory your points ar well taken. So if I remove those two and condense my list down to 9 items does it stand a chance of passing the smell test?

Also I realize that I made a similar logical error in the post i just sent along the same lines.

 

[Forlorn-Hope]

This seems to be a common arguement among many athiests, and even Christians today. The simplest answer would be that God will only answer the prayers if our intentions are good. Example?
Lets say you are in deep debt, and need money desperately. God is not going to give it to you if He knows that in the future, when you are out of your debt, you will spend it on unnesessary things that will bring you back to the same hopeless situation. Or worse, bring to into the world even more.
If He knows your intentions are good, and if it is nesessary for us to have, then of course He will answer our prayer when we have faith and ask earnestly for what we want.
If you had a teenager who wanted money, you're not going to give them the money if you knew what they're going to do with it. I mean, come on, they're teenagers. In the same way, if you had a child who wanted a bag of candy, are you going to give it to them? Of course not. A child is not going to eat a peice of candy and leave the rest for later. They're going to gulp the whole bag down.
But back to the point. Even we ourselves might not know what we're going to do in the future if God answers our prayers. God might know we have bad intentions, but we wont nessesarily know that.
Then there's another case, why does God let someone we love pass away or leave us, even when we pray for them back? We have to understand that God has a plan for EVERYTHING. We might not know the cause, but with these things we just have to trust that God knows what He is doing, because He does. This is just my perception on it, however.

Thats you're way of rationalising it, of making things better than they seem. I do not need to rationalise it I feel no need to sugar coat things.

 

[Zoomer239]

Sharon X - What do you say for the person that lost a limb in an auto accident. They pray and pray for their lib to return and nothing happens.
GodHatesAmputees.com

No one, not even the most rightous person has ever had a severed limb reappear. Doctors might reattach the limb but none has ever miraculously reappeared.

in your example about money - How would you ever know if the money was from god or if it was just from a normal process?

 

[Red_Tory]

Red Tory your points ar well taken. So if I remove those two and condense my list down to 9 items does it stand a chance of passing the smell test?

Also I realize that I made a similar logical error in the post i just sent along the same lines.

I think articles one, three, seven, eight and ten are based on evidence rather than logical validity, meaning people could bicker about them endlessly, which is why I wanted to stick to discussion of argument patterns rather than points based on subjective scales.

I only commented on nine and eleven because I thought they were the most obvious, but if we're looking to expand the discourse...

"4) religious documents have proved to be inaccurate and contradictory, illogical and blatantly fraudulent (Not good evidence) I was trying to insert a link to an article about how the bible has been changed over the years but i don't know how to get the link to work for you all. (you can find it at Beliefnet."

Ramon will jump all over me for saying this, but religious beliefs are capable of change. I think this notion of many religious being contradictory and inaccurate (giving a nod to instances where they are correct, however) is an important one. I know that my own Bible (or more accurately the one I used to have) had huge notes in margins and big blocks of study sections aside from the main text, discussing which parts come from rather dubious sources or were/weren't included in certain early manuscripts.

Remember that this purported to be a search for the universal truths of all existence. The truth does not change, only our own human ideas and perceptions surrounding it do. Therefore it's important to be able to say "we are wrong; let us now turn to the right".

It's a valid criticism of many religious texts, but hardly disproves the existence of a deity. In essence, this is a case against certain beliefs, but not a case in favour of atheism.



"5) humans have made up thousands of gods throughout their history."

Perhaps you could provide some form of elucidation, as I'm not sure how this differs from article eleven (religion as a cultural phenomenon).




"6) arguments for god are illogical, (circular arguments etc.)"

Aye, many arguments used in favour of God in colloquial discourse are illogical. We could say the same of arguments used in favour of atheism, which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my previous post. What's the point here?

 

[Red_Tory]

God heals amputees, just look at newts!

 

[xXxSharonxXx]

Thats you're way of rationalising it, of making things better than they seem. I do not need to rationalise it I feel no need to sugar coat things.

Yeah, like I said, thats MY perception on it. I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I'm just saying what I believe about this.

Sharon X - What do you say for the person that lost a limb in an auto accident. They pray and pray for their lib to return and nothing happens.
GodHatesAmputees.com

No one, not even the most rightous person has ever had a severed limb reappear. Doctors might reattach the limb but none has ever miraculously reappeared.

in your example about money - How would you ever know if the money was from god or if it was just from a normal process?

Well, In that case, you're not going to die if you lose a limb. Sure life will be a bit more uncomfortable, but its not a crucial thing; however, if God saw it as totally nesessary, He would return the limb to a person who has lost it.

If you are a Christian, you KNOW that this life will pass away, but you also know that when it does, you will pass on to another life. A life of joy, and peace. Where there will be no more pain.
The most rightous person who has lost a limb would not care about it. They know that this life's temporary anyways. We have a hope that there is something better than this place. A faithless person might say that it is unfair, and that our God is not a loving God because he did not give us what we asked for. Our God is a loving God, but a just God. God would rather we walk by FAITH, not by sight.
Also, in this world we have knowledable doctors who can sew a limb back together if possible. If not, there's prosthetics. All hope is not lost.

Are you talking about coincidence? In true Christianity, there is no coincidence. If you were dirt poor, a newly saved Christian, you prayed to God for food, and someone came to give you enough money to buy a whole meal one day, to a Christian that is answer to prayer, not a normal process. Whatever the incident, or situation, I believe there is no coincidence.
Like I said above, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just saying what I believe.

 

[Ramon]

Ramon I bet you think that you are one of the folks that get to go to heaven? (they all think they are going to heaven) What have you done to get a golden ticket on the heaven express? What make you so special? Have you dedicated your life to helping the poor or have you adopted a child that would have otherwise been aborted? Have you given all of your possessions to the poor? Have you helped the homeless, or the unemployed? Have you helped in the aftermath of a flood or tornado or huracain? Have you welcomed strangers in to your home in their time of need? Now there are people that do these things and I am abong them but I don't do them because of a future reward, I do them to help my fellow man because I know no god is going come out of the sky and fix all of these injustices. It is up to people like me and you to help each other.
Oh and the jews didn't kill Josua (Jesus, his name got miss translated so now we are stuck with the wrong name) The Romans did the killing. Stop hating on the jews. You talk bad about the muslims but don't worry they think it is you who have strayed from the path.
That is the weird thing about religions, they all think that their god or way is the right one and everyone else is in tthe wrong.
They can't all be right. More likely thay are all wrong.

Ramon why do you think your tribal god is the right one and everyone elses is wrong? Out of 6 to 7 billion people what do you think the likelihood of you being the one that has it all figured out?

your arrogance will keep you out of your heaven.

There is only one God that said, ''You shall have no other god before me.'' No other God can speak. They are just idols, though some people speak to themselves using their own minds. Silliness. And by the way, no one can get to heaven by helping the poor, or adopting a child. And, my friend, you think you are excluded, you have your own religion in which your mind is your god, and your peers who also follow themselves and science are the ones who worship with you. You are no different.

You have two options though, seek him while you are alive, or find him when you die, but by then it will be too late. This is how ANYONE can be saved, if the believe on Jesus Christ that God sent, because he took on the penalty of death on himself. And yes, HE WAS PERFECT. And you are not. Until you become perfect maybe you can convince me that you have a case. Again men are unjust, as you prove over and over again, yet you defend the integrity of men. Which God doesn't esteem so highly, and neither do I.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Here is the core of the atheist argument.
1) there is evidence that things work by natural causes.

What amount of things, all things, or some things? I don't see how this contradicts anything Christianity has to offer though.

2) there are ways to learn how those things work (scientific method)

So you adhere to the theory of knowledge known as Empiricism?

3) there does not seem to be any evidence of anything that is supernatural.

What would constitute evidence? If evidence must adhere to the criteria set by the scientific method, then any possible supernatural explanation would be non-scientific by the very defition of science...(given that science pre-supposes naturalism) So I'm not sure what the complaint/arguement is here.

One final note about your friend’s argument for naturalism: of course, no supernaturalistic explanation has ever superseded a naturalistic one! That’s guaranteed by science’s assumption of methodological naturalism. It prohibits supernatural explanations from even being included in the pool of live explanatory options. Thus it’s impossible for a supernaturalistic explanation to supersede a naturalistic one! Only for theorists who are willing to challenge the assumption of methodological naturalism, like creation scientists or advocates of Intelligent Design, is there the possibility that a naturalistic explanation might give way to a supernaturalistic explanation. They argue that it should in the case of biological complexity. But because they are working with a conception of science outside the mainstream (namely, they reject methodological naturalism), it’s highly unlikely that their view will ever become the paradigmatic view of science, no matter what the evidence.
Reasonable Faith: Q & A with William Lane Craig #205 - Is Scientism Self-Refuting? <--- click

I have this to offer as a starter..

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4K_WZpIkM4[/video]

I would like for you to respond to these four, under a naturalistic presupposition of course.

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON THAT BEGAN READING THIS THREAD?
3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
4. DID YOU FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS THREAD?
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt <--- adapted from here

4) religious documents have proved to be inaccurate and contradictory, illogical and blatantly fraudulent (Not good evidence) I was trying to insert a link to an article about how the bible has been changed over the years but i don't know how to get the link to work for you all. (you can find it at Beliefnet.

Red_Tory already made a great response to this, but I would like to add atleast one thing to this.
Each truth claim should be examined individually as a truth claim.
(Tory, if you've already stated this I apologize, I've not read everything in the thread.)

5) humans have made up thousands of gods throughout their history.

Tory has addressed this.

I would like to know how making up a god or gods would effect the veracity of there being a god or gods. Other than of course the made up one. Are you saying then, that the Judeo-Christian God is conjured up?

6) arguments for god are illogical, (circular arguments etc.)

All or just some? I would agree if you said some.... I couldn't agree if you said all...
For example... I'm not sure how this is an argument against God, just an argument against some arguments.

We can summarize our argument thus far as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

I already know you'll take contention with the Kalam Cosmological that I presented, I was not introducing it as a topic of debate. Just showing that there are logical arguments for God.

7) the credibility of the evidence for god is suspect (what was good evidence 2000 years ago is laughable today)

This seems to be rather close to be an Ad Hominem Fallacy, "bad arguments in past, therefor no reason to believe new ones."
I think this again raises the question, "What constitutes evidence?"

What relevance does this have to current offered explanations?

8) science seems to explain nature better and with more accuracy than religion.

See my reponse to #3.

9) Each religion's explanation of god is contradictory with the other religion's descriptions. (more likely that they are all wrong)

Tory responded to this, and I don't feel I need to add more other than what I stated under #4.

10) the gods that are described by each religion fail to match reality in any meaningful way.

How so? Also, how is, what is reality determined? Do we pre-suppose naturalism?

11) people tend to be the religion of their parents and their communities. (Americans don't tend to have religious revelations that Ra or Thor or Shiva are the real god, and people in India don't have revelations that include scientology as the correct way) religion is a cultural phenomenon i.e. it is made up.

This is potentially a Genetic Fallacy.

Genetic Fallacy

A Genetic Fallacy occurs when the origin a belief or idea is presented as grounds to accept or reject the idea. Of course, this doesn't apply when the the origin itself is the issue, or that it is relevant to a truth claim (e.g., a strong argument can be made that the truth of Christianity is contingent on the truth of the Resurrection. If this is the case, then appealing to the supposed truth [or falsity] of the Resurrection does not commit the Genetic Fallacy). This is a common example of a genetic fallacy:

Most Christians are believers because their parents were.
​

Typically, though not always, the suppressed conclusion is "therefore Christianity is not true." It is clear, even without counter-example, why this reasoning is fallacious. It is possible that Christianity be demonstrated true, even if all modern believers were Christians because they were born and raised in the Church.
Fallacies in Argumentation <--- click for more

I could go on and on but that is a basic list. I'm sure that others could make a better list but this is good enough for now.

We can work with what we have.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Sharon X - What do you say for the person that lost a limb in an auto accident.

I know this is aimed at Sharon, and I apologize Sharon for hijacking this part of the discussion. The first question I must ask to be able to know what I would say is; "What caused the accident?" If they were drinking and driving, welp, consequences of sin.

I will however use a real-world example. Childhood neighbor of my mothers lost both arms in a round-bailer. First got caught, second was lost trying to retrieve the first. This is a different situation.... I would say it's quite possible that forces of evil could be behind a situation more like this, but that doesn't resolve the actual question being raised. It certainly isn't what I would consider the most-common cause.

They pray and pray for their lib to return and nothing happens.
GodHatesAmputees.com

Have you ever seen a limb regenerated?

No one, not even the most rightous person has ever had a severed limb reappear.

How do you know this?

Doctors might reattach the limb but none has ever miraculously reappeared.

How do you know none have ever reappeared or regenerated?

in your example about money - How would you ever know if the money was from god or if it was just from a normal process?

1) What would constitute a miracle to you?


2) I would argue that God works within his own creation.

• indistinct from nature. From this perspective, some events occur according to physical laws, and others occur according to a separate set of principles external to known physics. For example, those who believe in angels and spirits generally think that they are naturally present in the cosmos. Some religious people also believe that all things that humans see as natural act in a systematic fashion only because God wills it so, and that natural laws are an extension of divine will.

Supernatural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <--- click

Furthermore...

Answering your question completely requires a few tangential comments:Miracles aren&#8217;t a grab-bag of goodies for us to enjoy; rather, God uses miracles in particular points of time for very specific purposes. God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we&#8217;re on trial, not Him), nor does He &#8220;need&#8221; to bless us. When He does bless us, it is entirely out of mercy.

God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.

If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn&#8217;t be &#8220;good&#8221; or &#8220;bad&#8221;; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.

You qualify your own question with &#8220;[e]xcept the ear that Jesus put it back.&#8221; You may as well ask, &#8220;If God is all-powerful, why did He never part the Red Sea&#8212;except for that one time in Exodus?&#8221;1 And not only is your argument qualified; it is also, essentially, an argument from silence. Even if the Bible doesn&#8217;t record the healing of an amputee, that doesn&#8217;t mean God never has.

So far we have conceded your point that, other than the scene in Luke 22, &#8220;never, ever in all Bible was a case of an amputation healed.&#8221; But is this so? First, it may be that there was no biblical Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word for &#8220;amputee&#8221;2; it is possible that some passages referring to individuals as &#8220;lame&#8221; or &#8220;crippled&#8221; (Matthew 15:30, 21:14; John 5:2&#8211;9a) are actually referring to those who had lost limbs. Besides, how is healing a totally useless limb any less miraculous than restoring an amputated limb? Second, because of the nature of leprosy, the healings of lepers in the Bible actually does imply the restoration of some body parts, such as fingers.
Feedback: Why Won?t God Heal Amputees? - Answers in Genesis <--- click

EDIT: I lean toward a more cessationist route when it comes to miracles, but do not discount any possiblities.

 

[Thomas60]

After I learnt how to name colours, I said the sky was blue. In order to refer to color spectrums of light wavelengths I would have needed evidence of how light works. So I could not determine the cause of why sky is blue. My question still holds, do you?

...

P.S. What part of your analogy represents the subject and what part the cause? (I don't understand how you have appealed to my logic)
Subject: The words of the persons coming back from foreign lands.
Cause?: There are any number of reasons; honest description of their experience, dishonest (for storytelling benefit, cause scares, hyping himself up as an adventurer), mis-understanding between parties (went to different lands, calling differently skinned humans as animals etc).

In the analogy I still have my own accumulated knowledge as evidence, but in order use the logic, we should assume this is not the case.
Here is the logic of such a case
1) A persons X,Y and Z give me different descriptions of another land.
2) Therefore, you can not draw a conclusion from the subject alone (you have to appeal to other evidence)

Do you agree with that logic?

Can you explain why existance is evidence of God?, given my refutations of your analogies by demonstrating why evidence linking the source (how light works) to the object (blue sky) was needed... and how your 3 liars situation relates to this logical dilemma.

Ahh, but you say absolute Truth cannot be known. And I am saying YES it can be known, as surely ad God can be known. You can only presume because you haven't seen nor heard him. But we see and hear him. What good is logic then after you have been met with him?

Don't you say seeing is believing? We are not making empty promises based on strong evidence alone, which evidence you yourself are. As I said there are the living and the dead.

Here is the case. You can't see your life as with your eyes. Yet, when a person dies they leave this world. And yet, their body remains? THIS is the soul. So tell me then, which is the life? Is it the body or what was inside the body. Explain this with our strong evidence. Come again.

a) when a person experiences a near death experience -outer body or experience of afterlife- they cannot derive information that their body has not been subjected to (auditory, touch, sight and memory) that can cross reference with reality (e.g. a sign only visible from birds-eye view in hospital). I have been scouring the internet today for related evidence on this as its a hot-topic but when I went to the controlled experiements,...
Paranormal claims: a critical analysis By Bryan Farha, Michael Shermer
Near-death experiences: A neurophysiologic explanatory model
Melvin L. Morse, David Venecia and Jerrold Milstein
(you can find via google scholar) there is lack of evidence for a seperation of body and conscience.
...and the afterlife experience have a strong correlation with their personal beliefs i.e. a Christian will see Jesus/God and their family/acquaintences etc, a hindu will see an afterlife coloured by their religious beliefs and experiences, a child will meet 'living friends' as opposed to relatives (Farha & Shermer).
b) Some electrical impulses -brain activity- and the cells within the body die off and others parts will increase temporarily due to reduced electrical inhibitor. The body physically is changed during the process of death; physical changes within the brain are demonstrated to be causes of death, amenesia, personality changes, spatial awareness and hallucinations. Conscienceness is the active neuro-network of a brain, fed by nutrients and oxygen and scripted for through its relationship with the sensory network.bad and good ports of protein-kinase c (and potentially other learning molecules [protein kinase a]).
Protein kinase C, learning and memory: a circular ... [Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1997] - PubMed result -circular determinism for physiology on behaviour
c)What evidence do you have that a soul exists?

Also please expand on the method you use to ascertain absolute truth.

 

[Zoomer239]

Jimmy Diggs using your information here about miracles, there could be no way of knowing when a miracle happens. Me sending you this message could be a miracle!
As you can tell I'm not good at logic but that doesn't mean that I am on the wrong side of the argument, just because my arguing skills are lacking!

Here is one for you!

Just for arguments sake let's say that there really is no god. And everyone on the planet becomes aware of this. What would happen? Mass chaos? Business as usual? World peace? Or a mix of all of the above?

My bet is on the mix!

Ok how about this situation - God shows him/herself but informs us all that there is no heaven or hell. I still bet on a mixed reaction.

Or how about no heaven but hell still exist?

Or the funnest one, heaven exist but only atheist get to go there!

 

[Red_Tory]

I'm not sure how that's relevant...?