Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Question for Atheists watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Well, history would also have to back up Christianity, which is doesn't. The 'spiritual' evidence as you put it is a load of tripe as well. You know they performed a controlled experiment for surgery patients where some were prayed for and some weren't, and the ones who were prayed for suffered more complications? This god hypothesis doesn't seem to stand up that well.

    Also, we can't choose what we believe - we either believe it, or we don't. We can't simply 'have faith' without a reason to believe.

    What do you mean?
    The point wasn't about physical results. It's about experiencing God. On top of that, just because someone prays doesn't mean the prayer has complete faith behind it. Even if someone says they do, the Jesus in the Gospel's appears to suggest doubt is the only thing which stops a prayer being answered - and it is more than possible people say "yes, I have faith" when in truth they still doubt without admitting it or doubt the particular prayer.

    Well, to be fair, we can. Some people just put their faith in physical evidence than anything spiritual even existing. If we're discussing "how do those who don't see God atm see God?" the answer is pray with sincerity that God enters your life, while being 100% open minded to it, without anything saying "this probally won't happen" or "if something happens it's just me" or maybe even thinking "even if somethin happens it won't change my life".
    Jesus in the Gospel's is depicted as making a big deal about the choice of the heart to open up or refuse to 100% take on board thew idea of the Christian God.
    For example, Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) "only those who accept me like a child does will inherit the kingdom of heaven" or something to such an effect. Basically, just ignore everything else, follow, try or even beg to believe and that He comes into your life. Without questions, doubts etc. That's the only way to find God. [as per my interpretation of the Gospels]

    I meant....
    Many (not all) who say they "truly believe without doubts" get what they see as a spiritual response from God. Now, rather than ignoring this, I would say "something" is reponding, although in my own personal belief it would be the Christian God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Is Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf evidence that Nazis existed?
    Is Samuel Pepys' diary evidence that the Fire of London took place?
    Is Julis Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War evidence that the Gallic War took place?

    I could just as easily say that Bible stories are like the literature above. In fact, the New Testament is made up mostly of diaries and letters, rather than works which were sold for entertainment!
    easily forged especially since most of the people who witnessed jesus Aka the masses couldn't read or write were uneducated and most likely easily lead and fooled.

    Why was the bible compilled so long after the death of jesus, why were many testemonies discarded and funnily enough all the documentaries i've watched on this state the testimonies discarded were the ones that didn't say he was divine.

    seems like someone wanted people to believe he was divine rather than the truth which is more likely that he wasn't.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think it's acceptable to the point where we understand that it leads to a view of the world which is so far consistent with itself, and is a useful premise to accept when going about our day to day lives. The existence of other minds intuitively seems to be the case. If we assume it to be the case, it doesn't cause any logical problems as such, so as far as we're concerned, it may as well be true.
    Do you think the existence of God falls into the same category or not?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    easily forged especially since most of the people who witnessed jesus Aka the masses couldn't read or write were uneducated and most likely easily lead and fooled.
    Of course they're easily forged - but then anything can be easily forged. Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic Wars could have been forged.

    But then, that's why we require different sources from different authors, times and places - and then the chances are that they aren't all going to be forgeries. We don't simply say "Caesar wrote about the Gallic Wasr, therefore they must have taken place" - rather, we note that plenty of other people wrote about them too, and their accounts had many elements in common with Caesar's.

    Why was the bible compilled so long after the death of jesus, why were many testemonies discarded and funnily enough all the documentaries i've watched on this state the testimonies discarded were the ones that didn't say he was divine.

    seems like someone wanted people to believe he was divine rather than the truth which is more likely that he wasn't.
    Well yes, I agree with you, but that seems to more be a case of pick n' mix - discarding evidence which presents a view contradictory to your own, rather than none of those sources not being valid evidence in the first place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    Do you think the existence of God falls into the same category or not?
    I think it does fall into the same category

    After all, this life might not actually be real. We could all be in the Matrix, and some computer programmer has left Bibles and Qur'ans lying around just to see what happens.
    Or this life might just be a big dream I'm having while in a coma or something. Who knows?

    But I'm not really interested in that. I simply define the "true" reality to be the one I'm experiencing at the moment. I only care about the things which I am personally percieving, and try to build a consistent view of the world from that. In my case, this view of the world includes the existence of God.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think it does fall into the same category

    After all, this life might not actually be real. We could all be in the Matrix, and some computer programmer has left Bibles and Qur'ans lying around just to see what happens.
    Or this life might just be a big dream I'm having while in a coma or something. Who knows?

    But I'm not really interested in that. I simply define the "true" reality to be the one I'm experiencing at the moment. I only care about the things which I am personally percieving, and try to build a consistent view of the world from that. In my case, this view of the world includes the existence of God.
    I don't quite follow. Do you think the existence of God has to be justified through "logical and rational" justification or not? You didn't really answer that question (although perhaps I didn't make the question clear enough).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    I don't quite follow. Do you think the existence of God has to be justified through "logical and rational" justification or not? You didn't really answer that question (although perhaps I didn't make the question clear enough).
    A certain amount of logic and rationality must be used - but there's going to come a point where some things just have to be taken for granted. I take it for granted that this is in fact, real life - and I'm not just playing some super-immersive computer game. So any evidence I find for God is in fact, evidence for God, and not just something that a programmer put there for fun.
    Other people might want to take other things for granted. For example a popular one might be "something cannot come into existence without being caused to come into existence". It isn't really a proven statement, it's just something that looks true to many of us.
    But logic and rationality need to be used to make sure that my belief in God doesn't cause me to contradict myself, for example.

    I'm not claiming that logic and rationality are utterly unnecessary when trying to decide whether or not God exists - just that certain "leaps of faith" are necessary if we want to determine anything useful - that not every true statement is going to have some logical proof associated with it, but will often be believed just because it looks true.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    A certain amount of logic and rationality must be used - but there's going to come a point where some things just have to be taken for granted. I take it for granted that this is in fact, real life - and I'm not just playing some super-immersive computer game. So any evidence I find for God is in fact, evidence for God, and not just something that a programmer put there for fun.
    Other people might want to take other things for granted. For example a popular one might be "something cannot come into existence without being caused to come into existence". It isn't really a proven statement, it's just something that looks true to many of us.
    But logic and rationality need to be used to make sure that my belief in God doesn't cause me to contradict myself, for example.

    I'm not claiming that logic and rationality are utterly unnecessary when trying to decide whether or not God exists - just that certain "leaps of faith" are necessary if we want to determine anything useful - that not every true statement is going to have some logical proof associated with it, but will often be believed just because it looks true.
    Well, I assume the other poster would agree with you. I suspect what they were having trouble with was people who say stuff like "I don't need to justify God's existence. I know it's true and that's that" or "I have faith in God and so don't need to read your arguments" or something similar. I'm sure you know at least one example of that kind of theist. I hope you will agree that there's a difference between someone who acknowledges the epistemological/practical limitations of their argument, and someone who throws the idea of reasoned argumentation out the window. I think the other poster was attacking the latter group, not the former. There's a middle ground between a 'perfect' argument and no argument at all!

    (NB. I am using 'argument' in the sense of a construction with premises, reasoning, and a conclusion. I'm not using in its other sense of being a heated dispute between two or more parties.)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    The point wasn't about physical results. It's about experiencing God. On top of that, just because someone prays doesn't mean the prayer has complete faith behind it. Even if someone says they do, the Jesus in the Gospel's appears to suggest doubt is the only thing which stops a prayer being answered - and it is more than possible people say "yes, I have faith" when in truth they still doubt without admitting it or doubt the particular prayer.
    Then you have a getout clause of any situation in which prayers weren't answered. They obviously didn't believe enough.

    Well, to be fair, we can. Some people just put their faith in physical evidence than anything spiritual even existing. If we're discussing "how do those who don't see God atm see God?" the answer is pray with sincerity that God enters your life, while being 100% open minded to it, without anything saying "this probally won't happen" or "if something happens it's just me" or maybe even thinking "even if somethin happens it won't change my life".
    Jesus in the Gospel's is depicted as making a big deal about the choice of the heart to open up or refuse to 100% take on board thew idea of the Christian God.
    For example, Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) "only those who accept me like a child does will inherit the kingdom of heaven" or something to such an effect. Basically, just ignore everything else, follow, try or even beg to believe and that He comes into your life. Without questions, doubts etc. That's the only way to find God. [as per my interpretation of the Gospels]
    I want you to believe now that there's a monster in your cupboard. You say we choose to believe, I want to see you make that choice. I get the impression that you would struggle to.

    I meant....
    Many (not all) who say they "truly believe without doubts" get what they see as a spiritual response from God. Now, rather than ignoring this, I would say "something" is reponding, although in my own personal belief it would be the Christian God.
    Is there any evidence for this occuring? Something verifiable and scientific?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Omnipotence in definition extens to "being able to do all thing's that are possible to do". So if God could not lift it,it would be outside his ability to effect, therefore the creation of such an object would not be within his power.

    This is the generally accepted Christian standpoint.
    Well, obviously God can only do things it is possible for God to do, but I thought the whole point of God is that it is possible for him to do anything, that's why he's God and not just some bloke/Morgan Freeman. Though Morgan Freeman can do far more than the average bloke, but that's a different discussion.


    (Original post by Syrokal)
    If one veiws God's Omniscience not as liner but as multiple this problem is veiwed aside. Rather God Veiws every single possible outcome of any and every given situation so for all intents and purpose the outcome has allready happend, since he has veiwed each and every one of the Trillions(to the power of trillion) possbilities and fully understands them.

    Thus the choice remains regardless of the outcome, as God has Veiwed what "will" happen and has also veiwed what "could" happen.
    I before E except after C.

    I'm assuming you're arguing that God exists outside time? The fact that God knows every single possibility doesn't follow that 'the outcome has already happened'. Your argument confuses me.

    From a human standpoint, unable to see the future what 'could' happen and what 'will' happen are equally unknown - we do not know the future. My point is that God does know the future, because he knows everything, and he made everything, the future is fixed and we have no free will to choose right/wrong/weird options and bad things happen so God can't be all good blahblah etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeing)
    Well, obviously God can only do things it is possible for God to do, but I thought the whole point of God is that it is possible for him to do anything, that's why he's God and not just some bloke/Morgan Freeman. Though Morgan Freeman can do far more than the average bloke, but that's a different discussion.




    I before E except after C.

    I'm assuming you're arguing that God exists outside time? The fact that God knows every single possibility doesn't follow that 'the outcome has already happened'. Your argument confuses me.

    From a human standpoint, unable to see the future what 'could' happen and what 'will' happen are equally unknown - we do not know the future. My point is that God does know the future, because he knows everything, and he made everything, the future is fixed and we have no free will to choose right/wrong/weird options and bad things happen so God can't be all good blahblah etc.
    Ill adress your last point as you seem to have missed the point entirely

    God does not know what choice you will make, however he knows every single choice you "can" make and there outcomes, which includes whatever choice you "will" make.

    Therefore no matter what you do, he forsaw it, and every possible chain of events that could then happen from every single choice you could make. Which in terms of Omnipotence detracts nothing from him .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I belive in god knowing that if one thing was missing from this earth... (let it be the smallest insect in a rain forest no one has heard of...) the world as we know it would die... slowly.

    I just can't come to grips that this world happen from a random Bang in space... Sorry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    Then you have a getout clause of any situation in which prayers weren't answered. They obviously didn't believe enough.



    I want you to believe now that there's a monster in your cupboard. You say we choose to believe, I want to see you make that choice. I get the impression that you would struggle to.



    Is there any evidence for this occuring? Something verifiable and scientific?
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You have not addressed my arguments put forward but instead restated what you put originally.
    Please could you address my issue with relying on faith in the way you've proposed.
    That is if we can rely on faith without facts we can believe in anything. Literally.
    The celestial teapot is there according to my faith.
    You can't disprove it.
    So you're saying it's logical, correct, about my believe in a teapot that we can't see orbiting the earth?
    beliefs don't rely on facts, hence why they are called beliefs. The Bible could be used for facts. People are entitled to their own beliefs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    beliefs don't rely on facts, hence why they are called beliefs. The Bible could be used for facts. People are entitled to their own beliefs.
    Straw man argument-at no time have I said that people should have their beliefs controlled. Aka they are entitled to their beliefs.

    However what I am attempting to do is open up the doors of health debate. There is a difference between facts and logic, however you fail to adress a single point I make. This is where any arguments you put up fall down at the moment.

    The logic you've used to show your believes as true can be applied to for instance the flying spaghetti monster.
    What you need to do is assess the situation more logically and see how your arguments can be applied, if it still works out that they can be applied in what seems to be a similar way to simple subjectivism then there is a problem.

    Beliefs in the sense you're talking about contain truth conditions, however you are talking about them as if they do not.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    Just to say the no evidence thing; its not hard to suggest that something spiritual is lacking in physical evidence, simply because the two are seperate.

    If one for example was looking for evidence of Jesus, one would need to examine thematter spiritually... basically one needs to do some digging in their own heart and soul.


    If one takes the Bible, for example, as the authority on Christianity (either as factual or as one takes the Harry Potter books as the authority on Harry Potter), then clearly the argument put is that to get a response from God, you have to believe in Him.


    "Everything you ask for in prayer will be yours, if you only have faith." Mark 11

    There are various other quotes that I don't have time to find, but basically, the message the Gospel's give out (if it's the leading authority on Christianity whether the religion is true or not) is basically Put your faith me, and I will be there. Demand I make the first move, and you'll get nowhere.

    So, if Christianity is the truth: if you demand for physical evidence without putting any faith in, you'll find nothing.
    If you put faith in and pray with all your heart that God comes into your life, he will.

    If Christianity is not the truth: then nothing will happen to anything.

    But clearly, most of those who think they have faith without doubts receive a "reply" of some discription... so, I'll bet on "something" being true.

    The underlined:

    The issue here is that your argument starts with the presumption that God exists.
    By presuming God exists and then searching for him of course you will find something to label as 'God'.

    Italics:

    This again has the presumption that God is real before showing that God is real. Furthermore it presumes that you should try to get a response from god if God exists. Why not God showing he exists, and trying to get a response out of you?
    If you reply make sure the same application of evidence can't be used to show that the FSM exists otherwise the argument has a major flaw in it.


    Everything post the Italics:
    This doesn't mean they should bet on something being true. Why pick on one thing and not another. There are all sorts of a priori concepts I could pretend are real for whatever reasons. Like the devil. Or that I am in the position of a vampire and a being is like buffy, and I shall be slayed in a spiritual manner. It is nonsensical to just presume that 'something' exists. That something could be anything.
    To further presume something a group of people believe because it is a large group of people, and large groups couldn't possibly be wrong is of course another fallacious point.


    Now you have continued to use the term 'God' without defining what God is.
    I would like to know.
    I'm not looking for actions that this entity has allegedly done. But instead a definition, for instance like a plate, or a human, or an individual.
    You can of course include actions in this but please list them separately to characteristics.

    For instance:
    X is Kind-characteristic.
    X gives to charity-action.

    Of course I'm missing out things like motive, and you can also add that, but again keep that separate from the other two.

    Without a definition then nothing can come of discussion about God.
    For I could label the big bang as God, or the rocks that hit each other and started to orbit that star we called the sun God. For they were surely the creation of the earth that so many claim God made.

    Or withuot definition I could claim that I am God, that towlie is God (a character from south park in the earlier series) or even that Bush and Palin were the male and female embodiments of God whilst in the presidential position and the candidate position of perhaps making vice (and possibly by default the actual) president.

    If you claim that a mystic entity is God then surely anything that is called a mystic entity, perhaps some type of random alien, could be labelled as God.

    I hope you see how important this definition will be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    The point wasn't about physical results. It's about experiencing God. On top of that, just because someone prays doesn't mean the prayer has complete faith behind it. Even if someone says they do, the Jesus in the Gospel's appears to suggest doubt is the only thing which stops a prayer being answered - and it is more than possible people say "yes, I have faith" when in truth they still doubt without admitting it or doubt the particular prayer.

    Well, to be fair, we can. Some people just put their faith in physical evidence than anything spiritual even existing. If we're discussing "how do those who don't see God atm see God?" the answer is pray with sincerity that God enters your life, while being 100% open minded to it, without anything saying "this probally won't happen" or "if something happens it's just me" or maybe even thinking "even if somethin happens it won't change my life".
    Jesus in the Gospel's is depicted as making a big deal about the choice of the heart to open up or refuse to 100% take on board thew idea of the Christian God.
    For example, Jesus said (I'm paraphrasing) "only those who accept me like a child does will inherit the kingdom of heaven" or something to such an effect. Basically, just ignore everything else, follow, try or even beg to believe and that He comes into your life. Without questions, doubts etc. That's the only way to find God. [as per my interpretation of the Gospels]

    I meant....
    Many (not all) who say they "truly believe without doubts" get what they see as a spiritual response from God. Now, rather than ignoring this, I would say "something" is reponding, although in my own personal belief it would be the Christian God.

    "There is no point in saying that one should not doubt or one should believe. Just to say 'I believe' does not mean that you understand and see. When a student works on a mathematical problem he comes to a state beyond which he does not know how to proceed, and where he is in doubt and perplexity. As long as he has this doubt, he cannot proceed. If he wants to proceed, he must resolve this doubt. Just to say 'I believe', or 'I do not doubt' will certainty not solve the problem. To force oneself to believe and to accept a thing without understanding is political, and not spiritual or intellectual."
    (Page 3, What The Buddha Taught-Walpola Sri Rahula Oneworld Publications: Oxford: 1959)
    So what is left? That is said in the last part, understanding. That is what should come first. Otherwise you can believe literally anything. But surely such beliefs have truth conditions. They're either true or false.


    The book is £10, but it's a good short read. Very understandable.
    I'd suggest reading the first 6 chapters.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    There is no reason to.

    Besides, God people are in the minority now in the UK.
    Your last part has no relevance in a debate. It presupposes that because religious people or as you put it 'God people' are in a minority that makes them wrong?
    However that doesn't mean that 300 years ago they were right and atheists were wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)

    The underlined:

    The issue here is that your argument starts with the presumption that God exists.
    By presuming God exists and then searching for him of course you will find something to label as 'God'.

    Italics:

    This again has the presumption that God is real before showing that God is real. Furthermore it presumes that you should try to get a response from god if God exists. Why not God showing he exists, and trying to get a response out of you?
    If you reply make sure the same application of evidence can't be used to show that the FSM exists otherwise the argument has a major flaw in it.


    Everything post the Italics:
    This doesn't mean they should bet on something being true. Why pick on one thing and not another. There are all sorts of a priori concepts I could pretend are real for whatever reasons. Like the devil. Or that I am in the position of a vampire and a being is like buffy, and I shall be slayed in a spiritual manner. It is nonsensical to just presume that 'something' exists. That something could be anything.
    To further presume something a group of people believe because it is a large group of people, and large groups couldn't possibly be wrong is of course another fallacious point.


    Now you have continued to use the term 'God' without defining what God is.
    I would like to know.
    I'm not looking for actions that this entity has allegedly done. But instead a definition, for instance like a plate, or a human, or an individual.
    You can of course include actions in this but please list them separately to characteristics.

    For instance:
    X is Kind-characteristic.
    X gives to charity-action.

    Of course I'm missing out things like motive, and you can also add that, but again keep that separate from the other two.

    Without a definition then nothing can come of discussion about God.
    For I could label the big bang as God, or the rocks that hit each other and started to orbit that star we called the sun God. For they were surely the creation of the earth that so many claim God made.

    Or withuot definition I could claim that I am God, that towlie is God (a character from south park in the earlier series) or even that Bush and Palin were the male and female embodiments of God whilst in the presidential position and the candidate position of perhaps making vice (and possibly by default the actual) president.

    If you claim that a mystic entity is God then surely anything that is called a mystic entity, perhaps some type of random alien, could be labelled as God.

    I hope you see how important this definition will be.
    This is true, I do bet on something being true. But nonetheless, if the Christian God is real, then He will exist in a form laid down by Christianity. And if that is the case then if this God is real the only way you will see Him is believing in Him in the first place.

    This is why this is such a tricky thing, because I would love to say I agree with you and show you empirical evidence which we can all see. But it's hard to do that with something which by it's very nature cannot be seen or a relationship developed with unless you already believe it to be the case or without doubt in it or without questioning of it.

    Which is why by Christianity's own definition of God (my interpreation of the Bible at least) - if tried to somehow search for evidence for whether God exists or not in a sense you will wind up with the same result whether he exists or not - there will be none.

    My definition of God is broadly whatever is in the Bible (Gospel's primarily), because the nature of God would appear to change between the Old and New Testaments - and the inerests of God being change from being soley on the Jewish people to being all the human race.
    But then Christianity often describes God as indescribable almost, or impossible to satifactorilly describe.

    I believe He is broadly a spiritual entity that existed outside and before time and space; yet came to create both for reasons unexplained. He has unending love and mercy, but also a commitment to his own moral code which can be termed as an "absolute good" because God is in Himself meant be totally good. Although bad things happen and one does not necessarily benefit from that (i.e. bad things may happen to a person because of actions or creations of God, but nevertheless does not make God bad, or indeed any of his creations intrinsically bad).
    That's very rambly, and if you want something that makes more sense, you are more than welcome
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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).

    2)
    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...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.