(Original post by jammythedodger)
1. Well, 'getout clause' you may call it, but nonetheless, that what message I get from the Bible.
2. Well, I can make the choice to desperately try ignore anything that tells me otherwise, and truly open myself up to the possibility. In fact, for example, many young children do anyway. Doesn't change the fact that I have yet to find a child who has mmet a monster in the cupboard but I go to Church every week with hundreds of Christians who believe they have been touched by God.
Plus, no-one said it was easy (response to the 'struggle'). Christianity, and faith, is not easy. Most Christians (myself included) have struggled with it; people in the Bible struggle with it. This still doesn't change anythign I've said.
3. Evidence for a "spiritual response". You have to ask them? Surely. I personally believe I have received many spiritual gifts from God. I've been given strengths in several dreadful situations where prayer has brought spirutal strength. And I believe prayer has saved a relative of mine (when pretty much everyone - medical professionals included - thought she would die), and gave her a speedy recovery as well - which baffled many as well.
Quite simply, science doesn't have all the answers. Spirituality and spiritual gifts are a world which out of bounds of science and human mastery. As I have said earlier, by its nature (spiritual), it is outside of material scientific investiation.
Your arguments look fairly weak.
1) You argument is based like this then:
If people pray and didn't get helped, they didn't put 100% faith in.
It has no backing what so ever.
We don't have direct experiences of other people. It instead presumes they didn't have 100% faith.
Furthermore I've already listed my issues with 100% faith. With 100% faith you can believe anything. To claim that because of your faith what you believe is true is ludicrous, it doesn't allow for two separate beliefs to be true.
You beliefs now and later may contradict one another, but using faith you can believe either one of them.
You then using faith presume that the one you happened to have adopted at that point is true.
When you assume things, well, you know what they said (usually in a slightly different context but the basic message can easily be applied, you make an ass out of u and me. Basically it's stupid, I could assume the moon is made of cheese, and with 100% faith believe it to be).
what are you actually trying to say here?
Is it that 100% faith is hard?
If so that doesn't make it a good thing.
Is it that your beliefs are on par with a childs of monsters in a cupboard? If so I won't dispute that.
None of what is said here changes anything either of us have said, although my posts do come after it.
3) How do you know that it's not just your own strength that you didn't know you had, or that you drew strength from a belief in God (essentially it's your strength still) and it's not a God existing as such, but your belief in one, that is giving you strength. Note from a post before this: we do need a definition of what is meant by 'God'.
Whilst your example is an abnormality, science and medicine do not claim to have all the answers. And humans are liable to be wrong.
That doesn't mean we're always wrong of course. However it may just have been probability that lead to the survival of that individual. In which case it may have been an abnormality.
Nothing has been shown to exist outside of matter and energy as far as I'm aware.
If you are making a bold claim that there is something more than that you need to show evidence of such a thing, otherwise using the logic you're using I could make the same claim and call it whatever.
Boggy man rays exist outside of energy and matter and spook out children at night time...