OP i disagree with you. This picture should explain you everything.
yeah,with every bad thing there is a good side,but with every good thing there is a bad side 
Topic: Observations on prayers and miracles? - page 4. (Read 2686 times)
Ok then, rewording this, since you say you have answered such, and perhaps I misunderstood. To clarify:
If the following was to happen, all 5 points below, you agree that the most logical explanation would be that something supernatural happened. I have that correct?
If the following was to happen, all 5 points below, you agree that the most logical explanation would be that something supernatural happened. I have that correct?
Quote
1.You are walking in the woods, hiking, enjoying nature, and you come across someone you know, but dead.
2.You are able to determine that the body has been dead and decomposing for about 10 days.
3.Pieces of it are dismembered - for example, the right arm is 50 feet away.
4.And, no technology around. You are not in a lab. You may be carrying your cell phone, IPAD, but, personal stuff.
5.And while you are looking at this body, before your very eyes, this person rises immediately, whole and alive again. His arm from 50 feet away is not re-attached to his body. He is well, and he knows you, just as you knew him.
2.You are able to determine that the body has been dead and decomposing for about 10 days.
3.Pieces of it are dismembered - for example, the right arm is 50 feet away.
4.And, no technology around. You are not in a lab. You may be carrying your cell phone, IPAD, but, personal stuff.
5.And while you are looking at this body, before your very eyes, this person rises immediately, whole and alive again. His arm from 50 feet away is not re-attached to his body. He is well, and he knows you, just as you knew him.
OP i disagree with you. This picture should explain you everything.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QfthOp9g7Uo/UdJkll9dMDI/AAAAAAAAAnQ/5PtlT8eWbxA/s1600/YIN-YA~1.JPG
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QfthOp9g7Uo/UdJkll9dMDI/AAAAAAAAAnQ/5PtlT8eWbxA/s1600/YIN-YA~1.JPG
Talking about fantastical examples of magic that have never happened and will never happen when discussing evidence of god is about as pointless an exercise as you can imagine....and ....you can imagine a whole slew of pointless exercises. Rather than discussing imaginary made up crazy shit that might make us think god is real....I have a novel idea. Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?
See, that last post might have some credibility if you had answered the last question.
So again, give an example of below - apparently if there are lots of things, something comes to mind.
Lots of things could occur that would make me believe in God
1.You are walking in the woods, hiking, enjoying nature, and you come across someone you know, but dead.
2.You are able to determine that the body has been dead and decomposing for about 10 days.
3.Pieces of it are dismembered - for example, the right arm is 50 feet away.
4.And, no technology around. You are not in a lab. You may be carrying your cell phone, IPAD, but, personal stuff.
5.And while you are looking at this body, before your very eyes, this person rises immediately, whole and alive again. His arm from 50 feet away is not re-attached to his body. He is well, and he knows you, just as you knew him.
You feel the most logical explanation for this is tissue reanimation or cloning under these circumstances? I have that right?
Recall Evidence = body of facts proving something true. So even if we saw a dead rotting guy who was later alive, this is just as much evidence for a god-like doctor, some other miracle than God, or (insert your own fantastical explanation here).
Talking about fantastical examples of magic that have never happened and will never happen when discussing evidence of god is about as pointless an exercise as you can imagine....and ....you can imagine a whole slew of pointless exercises. Rather than discussing imaginary made up crazy shit that might make us think god is real....I have a novel idea. Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?
See, that last post might have some credibility if you had answered the last question.
So again, give an example of below - apparently if there are lots of things, something comes to mind.
Lots of things could occur that would make me believe in God
1.You are walking in the woods, hiking, enjoying nature, and you come across someone you know, but dead.
2.You are able to determine that the body has been dead and decomposing for about 10 days.
3.Pieces of it are dismembered - for example, the right arm is 50 feet away.
4.And, no technology around. You are not in a lab. You may be carrying your cell phone, IPAD, but, personal stuff.
5.And while you are looking at this body, before your very eyes, this person rises immediately, whole and alive again. His arm from 50 feet away is not re-attached to his body. He is well, and he knows you, just as you knew him.
You feel the most logical explanation for this is tissue reanimation or cloning under these circumstances? I have that right?
Talking about fantastical examples of magic that have never happened and will never happen when discussing evidence of god is about as pointless an exercise as you can imagine....and ....you can imagine a whole slew of pointless exercises. Rather than discussing imaginary made up crazy shit that might make us think god is real....I have a novel idea. Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?
See, that last post might have some credibility if you had answered the last question.
So again, give an example of below - apparently if there are lots of things, something comes to mind.
Lots of things could occur that would make me believe in God
Talking about fantastical examples of magic that have never happened and will never happen when discussing evidence of god is about as pointless an exercise as you can imagine....and ....you can imagine a whole slew of pointless exercises. Rather than discussing imaginary made up crazy shit that might make us think god is real....I have a novel idea. Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?
See, that last post might have some credibility if you had answered the last question.
So again, give an example of below - apparently if there are lots of things, something comes to mind.
Lots of things could occur that would make me believe in God
My stance on this is similar to the tarot cards! I don't think prayers can actually do anything and miracles are just coincidences at best, which haven't been observed well enough by some people who then claim that something supernatural (or even heavenly intervention) has occurred!
It's very hard to discuss about spiritual things, prayers and miracles and God because such things it's almost impossible to prove.
But, in other way, can anybody show love?
No, because love is also invisible thing.
...but we believe in love because we can feel and sometimes we can see expression of love around us.
It's the same thing with God.
You either feel God around you, his presence, feel that through prayers you can communicate with him and receive answer (miracle) but you can't prove this.
but, in fact, it doesn't matter really because faith is personal, individual thing, just between you and God, so why loose unnecessary energy and time on useless discussions and try to prove God?
It's just wasting of time.
What is important is your personal relationship with God, and this is just between each of us and God.
Back to the question yes i believe that prayers can help in special ways based on own experience.
But, in other way, can anybody show love?
No, because love is also invisible thing.
...but we believe in love because we can feel and sometimes we can see expression of love around us.
It's the same thing with God.
You either feel God around you, his presence, feel that through prayers you can communicate with him and receive answer (miracle) but you can't prove this.
but, in fact, it doesn't matter really because faith is personal, individual thing, just between you and God, so why loose unnecessary energy and time on useless discussions and try to prove God?
It's just wasting of time.
What is important is your personal relationship with God, and this is just between each of us and God.
Back to the question yes i believe that prayers can help in special ways based on own experience.
... Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?
Because there isn't any?
Talking about fantastical examples of magic that have never happened and will never happen when discussing evidence of god is about as pointless an exercise as you can imagine....and ....you can imagine a whole slew of pointless exercises. Rather than discussing imaginary made up crazy shit that might make us think god is real....I have a novel idea. Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?
let me try to explain this one last time to a man who is clearly among the world's dumbest.
Just because I disagree with you does not mean:
1) I just didn't understand you
2) I wasn't paying attention
3) I just need to read it again,
4) etc etc.
I disagree with you because I have a valid reason for me to do so. It is FAR more logical that a dead person would be alive through some cloning or reanimation process rather than from a magic wand. However, since there is zero evidence and zero reason to believe that a dead rotten person has ever come back to life, talking about it is absurd.
Just because I disagree with you does not mean:
1) I just didn't understand you
2) I wasn't paying attention
3) I just need to read it again,
4) etc etc.
I disagree with you because I have a valid reason for me to do so. It is FAR more logical that a dead person would be alive through some cloning or reanimation process rather than from a magic wand. However, since there is zero evidence and zero reason to believe that a dead rotten person has ever come back to life, talking about it is absurd.
As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man. Is there something you don't understand about that answer? It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for. It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically. We now grow organs and tissues all the time. Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible. Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining. The most plausible answer is usually correct. However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?
Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.
And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes. They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body. Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.
In case that was not understood. What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this. Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.
Basically - and it was pretty much a given that this has been your position - no matter what occurs, no matter what evidence is presented, you are committed to a naturalistic explanation, regardless of how far out or irrational it is.
Your choice - but, given that, you should own that up front, rather than ask for evidence, as given your commitment to naturalism (a faith position), any such evidence would be conformed to that belief system anyway (regardless of what contortions are needed to do that).
Not unlike, really, the group of folk in Revelation chapter 6 (15-17)
As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man. Is there something you don't understand about that answer? It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for. It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically. We now grow organs and tissues all the time. Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible. Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining. The most plausible answer is usually correct. However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?
Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.
And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes. They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body. Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.
In case that was not understood. What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this. Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.
Basically - and it was pretty much a given that this has been your position - no matter what occurs, no matter what evidence is presented, you are committed to a naturalistic explanation, regardless of how far out or irrational it is.
Your choice - but, given that, you should own that up front, rather than ask for evidence, as given your commitment to naturalism (a faith position), any such evidence would be conformed to that belief system anyway (regardless of what contortions are needed to do that).
Not unlike, really, the group of folk in Revelation chapter 6 (15-17)
As I gave this some more thought, I started wondering how you could miss some of the details of the example I gave - may not be intentional. But, is it habitual?
Anyway, here a similar question to what I asked earlier was asked of an atheist, and his answer:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/proving-god/would-you-believe
In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.”
NO, that is NOT what I said. Please try to pay attention. Anyway, here a similar question to what I asked earlier was asked of an atheist, and his answer:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/proving-god/would-you-believe
In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.”
Lots of things could occur that would make me believe in God. I clearly stated that factual evidence of God's existence is what I require. I clearly defined factual evidence. Just because none has ever been presented does not mean it cannot yet someday exist.
As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man. Is there something you don't understand about that answer? It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for. It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically. We now grow organs and tissues all the time. Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible. Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining. The most plausible answer is usually correct. However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?
Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.
And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes. They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body. Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.
In case that was not understood. What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this. Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.
Basically - and it was pretty much a given that this has been your position - no matter what occurs, no matter what evidence is presented, you are committed to a naturalistic explanation, regardless of how far out or irrational it is.
Your choice - but, given that, you should own that up front, rather than ask for evidence, as given your commitment to naturalism (a faith position), any such evidence would be conformed to that belief system anyway (regardless of what contortions are needed to do that).
Not unlike, really, the group of folk in Revelation chapter 6 (15-17)
As I gave this some more thought, I started wondering how you could miss some of the details of the example I gave - may not be intentional. But, is it habitual?
Anyway, here a similar question to what I asked earlier was asked of an atheist, and his answer:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/proving-god/would-you-believe
In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.”
Anyway, here a similar question to what I asked earlier was asked of an atheist, and his answer:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/proving-god/would-you-believe
In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.”
As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man. Is there something you don't understand about that answer? It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for. It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically. We now grow organs and tissues all the time. Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible. Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining. The most plausible answer is usually correct. However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?
Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.
And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes. They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body. Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.
In case that was not understood. What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this. Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.
As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man. Is there something you don't understand about that answer? It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for. It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically. We now grow organs and tissues all the time. Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible. Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining. The most plausible answer is usually correct. However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?
Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.
And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes. They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body. Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.
In case that was not understood. What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this. Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.
As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man. Is there something you don't understand about that answer? It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for. It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically. We now grow organs and tissues all the time. Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible. Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining. The most plausible answer is usually correct. However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?
Jump to: