1730 replies to this topic

[Warriors]

If that's what you think, ok. Sorry


I guess. What's your chart look like?

EDIT:
I forgot hinduism, hinduism is #9 if we're talking about India only, part of #13 everywhere else.

There's nearly a billion hindus..A Billion Muslims and a Billion Buddhists...50% of the world belongs to these 3..so I would say Hinduism is a pretty big one....

[Dayzee]

So now you can sit back and presume that your invocation of "magic" as a catch-all explanation for things unexplained has stumped me?

Well, you're partially right. I can't argue the nature of reality with someone who honestly believes that magic is an acceptable explanation for anything. You're clearly too far gone for that approach to make a dent in your cognitive dissonance.

However.
I am going to ask you another question. One which, if you have any integrity to your belief at all, you should be unable to answer without incurring a circular argument with regards to miracles being evidence for God's existence.

How do you know that these miracles were the work of the god that you believe in?

Ok, I'm not offering magic as an explanation of anything. I'm saying God can do anything, therefore he does things that defy the laws of physics and nature. So in layman's terms it is like magic or magical, if you will. I am not saying God uses magic. That is absurd. I'm saying God does things that defy explanation.

Throughout history God proved his existence through miracles. And even then not everyone believed, though most who saw them did. I believe in the existence of miracles today and do not think they only happened 2000 years ago. That said, it is logical that I would believe this boy was healed by the hand of God. Many people had been praying for healing and the morning of his appt with his oncologist his mother called me to say that God told her that her son would be healed. Two hours later the doctor could find no evidence of his brain tumor. His entire team of specialists called it miraculous and many even professed it to be an act of God. Could it be coincidence? I'm not arguing that it could not. But I think it more logical to believe that God told her what he would do and then did it. I also have a cousin who was born deaf due to severe structural abnormalities of the middle and inner ear and at age 16, WHILE people were praying over her, she began hearing and speaking. Coincidence? Again, I suppose it COULD be. But seems very unlikely that in 16 years of life being completely deaf that she would suddenly begin to hear with complete perfection during prayer. And the presence of previously deformed and "missing" parts of her ears are definitely an interesting topic, to say the least.

So, to answer your question, I know these miracles to be the work of God because I choose to believe that they are, and I have felt the power of God's presence when he "shows up".

[Information]

Preach it brother...

[Sweeney]

Ok, I'm not offering magic as an explanation of anything. I'm saying God can do anything, therefore he does things that defy the laws of physics and nature. So in layman's terms it is like magic or magical, if you will. I am not saying God uses magic. That is absurd. I'm saying God does things that defy explanation.

Throughout history God proved his existence through miracles. And even then not everyone believed, though most who saw them did. I believe in the existence of miracles today and do not think they only happened 2000 years ago. That said, it is logical that I would believe this boy was healed by the hand of God. Many people had been praying for healing and the morning of his appt with his oncologist his mother called me to say that God told her that her son would be healed. Two hours later the doctor could find no evidence of his brain tumor. His entire team of specialists called it miraculous and many even professed it to be an act of God. Could it be coincidence? I'm not arguing that it could not. But I think it more logical to believe that God told her what he would do and then did it. I also have a cousin who was born deaf due to severe structural abnormalities of the middle and inner ear and at age 16, WHILE people were praying over her, she began hearing and speaking. Coincidence? Again, I suppose it COULD be. But seems very unlikely that in 16 years of life being completely deaf that she would suddenly begin to hear with complete perfection during prayer. And the presence of previously deformed and "missing" parts of her ears are definitely an interesting topic, to say the least.

So, to answer your question, I know these miracles to be the work of God because I choose to believe that they are, and I have felt the power of God's presence when he "shows up".

Saying "God did it", is exactly the same as invoking magic.
It doesn't exaplain anything.

I'm not sure how that point continues to escape you.

Now. Lets say that there's a conservative billion believers in our world, and that maybe half of them pray for someone they know is ill. The chances that none of them will recover are microscopic.

The incindence of spontaneous remission in cancer is estimated to be at around one in a hundred thousand across all cancers. In breast cancer, the figure is almost one in five. I don't know what specific type of cancer you are referring to, so I can't find a more useful figure. However, if prayer or belief in god was a significant contributing factor in spontaneous healing, then the figures should be higher across the board.

I would consider your deaf cousin a much more interesting case than the cancer, but still not convincing evidence for anything other than an unusual medical file.

And your insistence that you "know" something because you "believe" it is truly disgraceful. It simply doesn't make sense.

[Dayzee]

Saying "God did it", is exactly the same as invoking magic.
It doesn't exaplain anything.

I'm not sure how that point continues to escape you.

Now. Lets say that there's a conservative billion believers in our world, and that maybe half of them pray for someone they know is ill. The chances that none of them will recover are microscopic.

The incindence of spontaneous remission in cancer is estimated to be at around one in a hundred thousand across all cancers. In breast cancer, the figure is almost one in five. I don't know what specific type of cancer you are referring to, so I can't find a more useful figure. However, if prayer or belief in god was a significant contributing factor in spontaneous healing, then the figures should be higher across the board.

I would consider your deaf cousin a much more interesting case than the cancer, but still not convincing evidence for anything other than an unusual medical file.

And your insistence that you "know" something because you "believe" it is truly disgraceful. It simply doesn't make sense.

According to a 2010 USA Today/Gallup poll, 92% of Americans believe in God so saying GOD DID IT "exaplains" something to a lot of people. And I thought you said you read the Bible? It uses magicians and magic interchangeably with sorcerers and sorcery, something we are warned to be wary of. Therefore clearly not God's "mechanism". I'm not sure how that point escaped you since it's not referred to in the boring genealogy parts of the Bible...

The cancer I am referring to, as I already stated, was a brain tumor - the size of an acorn. It was still present on the MRI the day before, completely gone the next. And BTW remission simply means that cancer has become stable or that cancer cells have ceased multiplying so if you're going to spout off statistics, then at least confirm if yours are for complete remission or partial remission or both combined. Of the 1 in 100,000 cases of spontaneous remission that you mentioned, in what percentage of them did the tumor disappear entirely? In a 24 hour period? Those numbers might actually be relevant here.

I find your failure to see my cousins healing as nothing more than an interesting medical file the most ignorant of all. Since you love statistics so much maybe you can offer a reasonable explanation as to why she was healed during the time that 150+ people gathered together to pray on her behalf instead of during any of the other 841,518+ other ten-minute intervals which made up her lifespan? I KNOW it was God because a coincidence is improbable: I'm not a mathematician but I wonder what the odds are that a human body would actually correct deformed organ parts AND grow missing organ parts AND that they would function properly AND that they would suddenly begin functioning in 1 out of 841,500+ equal periods of time. Could Occam's Razor implicate God?

The only thing disgraceful here is your inability to conclude that it IS POSSIBLE that God exists. Many of history's greatest scientists and mathematicians believed in the existence of God: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Mendel Kelvin and Einstein. Einstein said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Additionally, he said that human stupidity is infinite.

I find this topic interesting and value what others think and have to say, but I am through discussing it with you. I don't mind that you disagree with me and offer an opposing view, but you seem to relish being rude and condescending every chance you get. Why ask me why I believe in God? You're not interested in my actual answer, you're only interested in invalidating it.

I know now why YOU don't believe in God - you're holier than thou!

[Sweeney]

Of course it's possible that God exists. To some extent, eveything is "possible".
That doesn't make it true, or even remotely likely.

The fact that 92% of Americans (and outdated figure, by the way) believe in God, doesn't mean they are right. Nor does it imply that God has any explanatory power.
You're not understanding the point that I am getting at, so I'll try to rephrase is another way: Even if you are right, and God created the universe, and humans, and miracles, that information is useless. It doesn't help us understand anything. You can tell me that God created the universe, and that's enough for you. It isn't enough for me. I still want to know how he did it, and that's something you can't ever hope to explain.

You're right that I can't explain your two instances of healing. But neither can you.

Occam's Razor can never imply the existence of God. An unexplained, additional, supernatural entity is always going to be less likely than an unexplained naturalistic cause. Stop attempting to use arguments you do not understand.

Let's try another tack, from now, shall we?
You've implied in this thread both that God has his own plan that we are powerless to influence, and that prayer has the power to heal. How do you reconcile these two conflicting beliefs?
Maybe you believe there are three sets of sick people in the world; those God will not ever heal, those God will heal if they are prayed for, and those God will heal anyway?
In that case, it's odd, don't you think, that the numbers of those people don't deviate from what you'd expect from random chance?
So, to return to the point that you missed earlier due to a peculiar fixation on the definition of magic: If the people who are healed by prayer are entirely random, how can you know you're praying to the right person?
(And please, stop relying on religious revelation as your fallback; every religion on the planet has people who have "experienced God". It's a meaningless experience that your brain interprets to suit its own preconcieved ideas).

PS. You'll want to make note that (this aside aside) I'm ignoring your personal insults, irony-laden as they are.

[Chobo]

Yes. I believe in at least one god, doesn't mean he's christian or of any of the establish religions.

[shadow7452]

I entirely do.

[Sweeney]

I'm not sure you grasp the concept of a debate topic, people.

[systray]

I'm not sure you grasp the concept of a debate topic, people.

To be fair, there's 55 pages of material here to read. Why read it all when God does the reading for you?

Ok, that might have been below the belt.

Can you please link me to the supposed poll that said 92% of Americans believe in God? I find that to be an outrageously large number, and question the validity of that poll. Something fishy is going on there; I sure as hell don't think 92% of the people I know believe in God.

[Sweeney]

To be fair, there's 55 pages of material here to read. Why read it all when God does the reading for you?

Ok, that might have been below the belt.

Can you please link me to the supposed poll that said 92% of Americans believe in God? I find that to be an outrageously large number, and question the validity of that poll. Something fishy is going on there; I sure as hell don't think 92% of the people I know believe in God.

Not my figure, I'm afraid.
The most recent Gallup polls place it as much lower.

The aggregate results are here:
http://www.gallup.co...0/religion.aspx

[systray]

Not my figure, I'm afraid.
The most recent Gallup polls place it as much lower.

The aggregate results are here:
http://www.gallup.co...0/religion.aspx

Sorry I knew it wasn't yours I just lumped that in with my reply to your comment. Thanks for the link, though. Those stats reinforce the notion that as time goes on, people change their views (% of Catholics/Protestants trending downwards, % of "None" trending upwards)

I knew 92% was high. Obviously it depends on the area the poll is conducted (if it was done in Salt Lake City, 92% of people would be Mormon). I'm assuming our resident preacher got his stats from a Monastery?

[Chobo]

I'm not sure you grasp the concept of a debate topic, people.

First mover and because I'm optimistic that there is justice in this world. Whether that justice is obtained through heaven and hell, I'm not sure, but I'd like to think the people who wrong will get punished in some fashion.

[Sweeney]

First mover and because I'm optimistic that there is justice in this world. Whether that justice is obtained through heaven and hell, I'm not sure, but I'd like to think the people who wrong will get punished in some fashion.

What about people who don't [do] wrong, but simply don't believe? Do they deserve an eternity of hellish torment?
Remember, of course, that according to (Christian, at least) scripture, all sins are equal in the eyes of God.
You have a peculiar definition of justice.

Also, the concept of a first mover is a flawed argument. It relies on defining the first mover as uncaused, without evidence, and is, in fact, wholly circular.

[Chobo]

What about people who don't [do] wrong, but simply don't believe? Do they deserve an eternity of hellish torment?
Remember, of course, that according to (Christian, at least) scripture, all sins are equal in the eyes of God.
You have a peculiar definition of justice.

Also, the concept of a first mover is a flawed argument. It relies on defining the first mover as uncaused, without evidence, and is, in fact, wholly circular.

That's why I said the god I believe in isn't Christian nor of any establish religion. People don't have to believe in this god to receive justice. All sins don't have to be equal in the eyes of this god.

Yes, I am aware that you can consider it to be a cycle. But you can imagine god as a entity that exists out of time, like a movie director looking on a roll of many frames.
I think you know that there is a possibility of god existing, for you can make up some fantastic story as long as nothing is contradictory. I'm not saying I believe in this, but how would you refute St. Anselm's Ontological Argument which states for the absolute certainty of the existence of god?
A. Something is greater if it exists than if it doesn’t exist

i. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived

God’s existence is greater than his nonexistence
ii. God must exist
I know my own thoughts on this as I don't believe this is a foolproof way of saying God exists, however I'd like to know others' opinions as well.

[Mr. Hobo]

I know my own thoughts on this as I don't believe this is a foolproof way of saying God exists, however I'd like to know others' opinions as well.

I'm not saying I believe in this, but how would you refute St. Anselm's Ontological Argument which states for the absolute certainty of the existence of god?

Problem, logic?

[Chobo]

Problem, logic?

YES! that picture fits so nicely. and yeah thats what i thought too.

[Sweeney]

Sir Anselm's ontological argument is flawed, because it just defines God into existence axiomatically, using a self-confirming definition of greatness.
You can use the same argument to state the absolute certainty of the non-existence of god, if you define greatness as achieving everything without even having to exist.
To be clear, a human lifting a tennis ball is not impressive. An ant lifting a tennis ball is more impressive. Nothing lifting a tennis ball is most impressive.

And imagining God as an entity that exists out of time is meaningless unless you can both define exactly what that means, and provide evidence for it.
And even then, saying that "God created the universe" isn't an explanation. How did he do it?

[Mr. Hobo]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

Joes post reminds me of what Dawkins said in the God Delusion

[Sweeney]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

Joes post reminds me of what Dawkins said in the God Delusion

I couldn't be bothered to type it out long hand, so I sacrificed Dawkins' clarity

[spk]

i do

[Sweeney]

i do

Fucken' A.

[Wil]

Do I believe in God? As in the one that allowed his son to die for no good reason since all men are originally evil despite his son dying for their salvation? The one that supposedly wiped away the world when he deemed it flawed? That one? Sure I believe in him. but I don't believe in him. You dig?

[Vivendio]

In this world, there is something called faith.

N.B (in my opinion, no offence taken I hope):

It is foolish to apply empirical ways of knowledge acquisition to religion because, in summary, beliefs in religion and evidence in science belong to completely different worlds.

The processes we use to acquire knowledge in each field are different.

Why must the scientific method lord over all?

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), science does not prevail - there are in fact several other ways of knowing.

Edited by Vivendio, 12 January 2011 - 09:22 PM.

[Ziz]

Let's leave it's existance in a 50% due to the lack of any evidence of it's existance or inexistance.
I would take that it exists, because if I thought it existed and it really didn't, I would be a little disappointed.
But if I lived denying it's existance when it existed, I would feel really bad.