The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[JCarter426]

(hint: it wasn't Urey-Miller )

 

Oh, it wasn't? Never mind then.

[Jae Onasi]

Belief in god and in free will are mutually exclusive. (Kudos to SD for this argument, btw.)

 

Premise:

1. God is omniscient

2. God created everything

 

I doubt these will be contested. Extrapolating from 1 and 2, it has to be assumed god can predict every eventual action, decision, or semblance of thought in an individual - he's omniscient, omnipotent and a dozen other adjectives to describe being all-knowing and all-powerful, right?

I can predict my kids' actions and reactions in a given situation, since I have a solid understanding of child growth and development and their personalities. I can anticipate the decisions they'll make in x situation. Yet I allow them the free will to make those decisions, unless it's going to cause harm to themselves or others. You can anticipate and even know what someone will do ahead of time without forcing them to go that route.

 

BTW--Calvin made these arguments a good 400 years ago.

[Rev7]

So, er, where's free will in all this? It's natural to reply 'we can think on our own, because of that we can arrive at our own decisions'. But as this argument has pointed out, your soul (the thing with which you formulate decisions) has already been predetermined for you by god. You may technically be making decisions, but you're doing so in a preordained and impossible to alter manner. Hells, god even knows the decisions you're going to arrive at far in advance. So where really is the 'free' part in our wills?

There is a catch though. I believe that He knows what course your life is going to take, but we don't. We just go about our lives making our decisions. So there is 'free' will. We make our choices; however, these choices are already known by God. In my own opinion, of course.

[Samuel Dravis]

The problem is not that God knows what people will do, per se. It's that he created them as they are, knowing what they would do. The kind of 'knowing' God has here is not a prediction. It isn't fallible. It isn't limited.

 

It can be argued that God doesn't interfere with people's decisions, such as they are. But that, while a worthwhile argument, is not addressing all of the problem. The rest of the problem lies in God being logically unable not to have interfered at at least one point. That point is Creation.

 

The reason this point is sticky is because, well, people don't just pop into existence out of nothing. God has to give their clay bodies the breath of life-- and he knows exactly what goes into that breath, that clay, and the world surrounding it. He's not guessing here.

 

Even so, you can define free will as the ability to make choices as we normally make them. Rev7's post exemplifies this, and it's not a particularly problematic view. In fact, it's perfectly in compliance with full-on theological determinism. You'll notice that even Rev7 put the "free" in quotes. The only thing that would cause a problem, in fact, is if God held us morally responsible for those 'choices'... in the form of, say, eternal damnation / separation from god. No, it's not like people don't have 'choices.' It's just they don't have the choices (not quoted) God has.

 

What kind of punishments are appropriate to show a child that it's doing the wrong thing? You might speak strongly to her, put her in time out, or other similar things. Bad children should know they're being bad so that they can avoid it in the future.

 

What kind of punishments are appropriate for a creator god to give to people? The kind that will let them avoid mistakes in the future? There's something different here.

[Corinthian]

Just as well as Loving. God put a Prohibition on Humanity - DON'T EAT OF THAT TREE. And what did we do? We ate it anyway. The fact that God knew we would eat of it really has no bearing on the facts, unless of course you think we should start arresting people for Futuristic Murder and hire a cabal of Government Precognitives.

[Ray Jones]

OK, so the whole wine and bread story isn't meant literal, but the apple thing is?

 

 

One of my arguments against athiesm is miracles.

 

I have gone to a few healing conferences at my local church, and I have seen crippled people get off of their wheel chairs after a prayer.

These liars give a punch into every person's face who is really dependent on a wheel chair, every time they perform these "miracles".

 

I can predict my kids' actions and reactions in a given situation, since I have a solid understanding of child growth and development and their personalities. I can anticipate the decisions they'll make in x situation. Yet I allow them the free will to make those decisions, unless it's going to cause harm to themselves or others.

But if you gonna stop them, that's not very god-like, you know.

[jonathan7]

Don't be presumptuous. One can still be an atheist without denying the existence of a god.

 

Uhh...Devon, the whole purpose of Atheism is that Atheists do not believe in the existence of a Deity or Deities. That's the definition of a word. If you believe in a Deity, you are not an Atheist.

 

ED is CORRECT; there is for example a 'protest athiest', and individual who believes in God, but believes God to be an abomination, so turns to atheism as a form of protest.

 

Belief in god and in free will are mutually exclusive. (Kudos to SD for this argument, btw.)

 

Premise:

1. God is omniscient

2. God created everything

 

I doubt these will be contested. Extrapolating from 1 and 2, it has to be assumed god can predict every eventual action, decision, or semblance of thought in an individual - he's omniscient, omnipotent and a dozen other adjectives to describe being all-knowing and all-powerful, right?

 

No, the argument isn't 'fate is inevitable, god already knows what you're planning to do'. But that's part of it - the response I'd suspect most christians would have is 'that's irrelevant, god may know the end results of our decisions but that's unrelated to our own ability to freely arrive at them.'

 

So what exactly does free will mean at this given phase? The definition has been muddled up a bit, but let's see what Wikipedia says:

 

This is incompatible with the first two established premises. First, it's impossible for someone to be responsible for the make-up of their own soul (and whatever is associated thereof with it). This being because a person's self isn't subjective to their personal whims, (we can't assume other personalities at will) and also because it negates any creative effort on god's part.

 

So, we're left at a fairly muddy yet entirely logical conclusion: we are not responsible for the way we think about things. (God made our souls for us, and our souls determine how we act.) Subsequently, it's impossible for us to be truly responsible for causing situations that we react towards; there's a measure of internal decision-making before every action, and as noted above that's out of the picture.

 

So, er, where's free will in all this? It's natural to reply 'we can think on our own, because of that we can arrive at our own decisions'. But as this argument has pointed out, your soul (the thing with which you formulate decisions) has already been predetermined for you by god. You may technically be making decisions, but you're doing so in a preordained and impossible to alter manner. Hells, god even knows the decisions you're going to arrive at far in advance. So where really is the 'free' part in our wills?

 

(Wish I could take credit for this argument, but I've got to hand it to a discussion with Samuel Dravis the other night.)

 

ED, there is a classical mistake in all this; God as I believe him is outside of time; are we even able to perceive this? No, I think you are making a classical mistake in that if God exsists you are brining him done to a human level. IF there is a God I think he will be along way from our frame of referance, on a Christian level, while Jesus did come to the world in human forum; God the father, if he exsists will in some instances be well beyond our cognitive abilities; just as getting into our head is impossible for an ant, so it is impossible for us to get into the head of God.

 

I do not think, they way a Christians understand 'free will' is the same as the wiki definition. At least the most ardent calvanist, doesn't believe in free will, but in an individuals responsibility for action.

 

(That said I don't like modern calvanists, its amusing how proponents of theories always seem to me, to be much more hardline, that the original theorist).

 

Perhaps somewhat pertinant to the point is this;

 

Evil, it surrounds us, you only have to look at a Newspaper to see its effects everywhere; from genocides to rape, from mass starvation to child abuse. Perhaps one of the most common questions I am asked is why would a loving God allow evil? This is a question I will go onto attempt to answer; however I would first like to pose a question back; if there is no God is there evil?

 

I think the answer to my question is no, as with no ultimate authority on evil, who is to decide what is evil? You? Is the paedophile evil? Does the paedophile think he is evil? If moral relativism reigns; then there can be no such thing as evil. It is where post modernism falls down. It is also a place where I think many atheists become logically incoherent when attempting to argue that evil exists if atheism is true. If Atheism is true why abide rules that make your life more difficult? If I were an atheist I think Nietzsche is one of the few atheists who are logical, although there are criticisms of him that are beyond the scope of this note.

 

This is not to say I don't know many very nice and intelligent atheists, who behave morally, but my question, is while they may have decided to behave 'nicely' what arguments can they present to say you shouldn't behave like a Stalin or Hitler?

 

Returning to the original question why would a loving God allow evil? I will go a bit Matrixey on you and say that the problem is choice! See if we presume there is a God, but that he has given us the freedom to choose how we act; God can’t interfere every time we make a bad choice as this would negate our freedom of choice as well as our autonomy. So for example, let’s presume I’m going to drink and drive tonight and run over a little girl. If God were to say intervene at any point he stops me of having the freedom to choose. I am forced to act correctly, now it would seem to me that the overriding problem is still there (the will to drink and drive despite knowing it is dangerous). I think the problem would remain our choices, but that the effects of our actions would be taken away so we would spiral more and more out of control.

 

As Saint Augustine pointed out; “Passion is the evil in adultery. If a man has no opportunity of living with another man's wife, but if it is obvious for some reason that he would like to do so, and would do so if he could, he is no less guilty than if he was caught in the act.”

 

Even if we are to presume that Atheism is true, why is the world such a horrible place? I would suggest at its most charitable the conclusion is most people are inherently selfish. Why is the world a horrible place? May I suggest that it is because we continually make the wrong choices and walk around in our own small bubbles not realising how we are affecting the world around us. After all if you asked every person in the world the following question; is it your fault the world is a horrible place? Do you think they would answer yes?

 

There is a very funny thing about Prison, it would appear that an awful lot of innocent people are locked up in their; as if you ask most prisoners if they are guilty they will answer no. That’s a lot of miscarriages of justice!

 

"Arendt’s phrase 'the banality of evil' continues to resonate because genocide has been unleashed around the world and torture and terrorism continue to be common features of our global landscape. We prefer to distance ourselves from such a fundamental truth, seeing the madness of evildoers and senseless violence of tyrants as dispositional characters within their personal makeup. Arendt’s analysis was the first to deny this orientation by observing the fluidity with which social forces can prompt normal people to perform horrific acts." (From Chapter 12, pages 288-289) Philip Zimbardo – The Lucifer Effect

 

Anyway, what does it matter if the Earth is 6000 or 60000 or 6,000,000,000 years old when it comes to the existence of a God or Gods? I really don't care either way, it doesn't make any real differerence. I seriously doubt God REALLY cares whether or not we believe he did it all in seven literal days or seven metaphorical days.

 

I will retort with this Quote;

 

"While spiritual insight or faith is one valid measure in spiritual matters' date=' true spiritual insight never directly contradicts valid intellectual insight or facts in the physical world. Faith may go beyond reason, but does not go against it. It never blatantly contradicts the facts which we perceive with our God-given common sense. Faith and fact point in a single direction. Whey they do not, something is seriously wrong…A willingness to accept facts as they exist, and to learn to use them to test the views one holds rather than falling back on subjective experience or rationalizations, is the first step towards discovering genuine truth." (Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pp. 177-178)[/quote']

 

If you ignore the physical evidence, thats fine, but I do not think the world is 6,000 years old; could God have created it like that? Yes. What does the physical evidence show? Its much older, ergo if there is a God, it wasn't created like that.

 

Ultimatly to address the fundemental point SD was making is a following observation made by Saint Augustine;

 

God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.

 

I suppose your fundemental point, was why didn't God just stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple? It is a question I have asked, and have not as yet come across an entirely satisfactory answer; however if God interveened he would have stopped their freedom. What is also interesting to note is Satan must have already rebelled, as he is in the Garden to tempt eve. (If you take the story 'literally').

 

These liars give a punch into every person's face who is really dependent on a wheel chair, every time they perform these "miracles".

 

I've been healed, now while I think many of these healers are frauds; I have seen healings and been healed; the problem is to explain how, by your logic...

 

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

[Ray Jones]

I've been healed, now while I think many of these healers are frauds; I have seen healings and been healed; the problem is to explain how, by your logic...

So, how long have you been tied to a wheelchair before you were healed?

[jonathan7]

So, how long have you been tied to a wheelchair before you were healed?

 

Why do I get the impression that is an emotional and specific responce?

 

I've been healed from appendicitus and seen a broken leg healed - on the same camp where I've seen that healed, another lad broke his arm and had to go to hospital to have it sorted out.

 

Ultimatly two problems arise; 1. If atheism is true, how did they above happen? 2. Presuming there is a God, why does he heal some and not others? I'm affraid the second is not a question I can answer, sorry.

[Samuel Dravis]

ED, there is a classical mistake in all this; God as I believe him is outside of time; are we even able to perceive this? No, I think you are making a classical mistake in that if God exsists you are brining him done to a human level. IF there is a God I think he will be along way from our frame of referance, on a Christian level, while Jesus did come to the world in human forum; God the father, if he exsists will in some instances be well beyond our cognitive abilities; just as getting into our head is impossible for an ant, so it is impossible for us to get into the head of God.

God being outside of time does not significantly change the argument. Even supposing God sees all times at once, he still must have created people with full knowledge and control. He could hardly do otherwise.

 

Also, saying that we simply can't understand it means one thing. Either we believe God is a rational being, or he isn't. If he isn't, then there's little point in talking about him. If he is, then why isn't this argument appropriate? I would probably not buy a redefinition of rational.

 

I do not think, they way a Christians understand 'free will' is the same as the wiki definition. At least the most ardent calvanist, doesn't believe in free will, but in an individuals responsibility for action.

Yes, I can see how people are responsible to others. God obviously has a different perspective, though. It's strange to hold someone responsible when they didn't have control over the relevant factors.

 

I suppose your fundemental point, was why didn't God just stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple? It is a question I have asked, and have not as yet come across an entirely satisfactory answer; however if God interveened he would have stopped their freedom. What is also interesting to note is Satan must have already rebelled, as he is in the Garden to tempt eve. (If you take the story 'literally').

Actually, I have little interest in the apple, or anything God did outside of creation. The question I am interested in is - why did god create people as they are and in full knowledge of what would happen when he always intended for them to be happy -- or to suffer?

 

And the answer is that "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist." Yes, you can define good as whatever God does (since he can't do evil). Definitionally, God does the best thing because anything else would not be God's will. Yes, that would clear this problem right up. But one thing it wouldn't do is use "good" and "evil" in anything approaching a normal use of the terms. Also, stating the same thing in other words doesn't mean the meaning changes.

[Jae Onasi]

The only thing that would cause a problem, in fact, is if God held us morally responsible for those 'choices'... in the form of, say, eternal damnation / separation from god.

So God knows what will happen. If He does act, and forces someone to do something against their will, what's going to happen to that person? Are they going to like it? Do you like being forced to do something against your will? If God forces everyone to love Him, is that real love? It is not. It's simply obedience at best. The only way to allow people to show love is to give them the opportunity to make the choice to do so. Anything else is forced.

 

You're assuming that people go to hell against their will. They don't. They have made the choice, in rejecting God, to willingly go to a place without the presence of God. Do you think a loving God wants people to go to hell? Do you not think He tries to offer His love repeatedly? The people who end up in hell, whatever that may be, will end up there because they _wanted_ to be in a place without God. And God will allow them to have what they want.

 

On the subject of people being saved at the very last moment, let me use an analogy. God wants to rescue anyone who will accept His love, regardless of where they're at in life. Let's say there's a massive storm is coming, and God is the rescuer. First, He goes out and warns everyone to come to the shelter and into safety. Some people go. Some stay in their homes.

 

Then the storm comes. God goes to those who've refused the shelter and once again offers safety. Some more go. A few still stay, not believing the storm will be that bad.

 

Then the storm starts to rip apart homes and some have to be rescued. God reaches out to them and rescues them, if they accept his offer of rescue. Some will still reject the offer of rescue until their house is falling apart. Some will reject that offer of rescue until they're drowning in a flash flood and are about to die.

 

It doesn't matter if the person was brought to safety before the storm started or if they had to be plucked from the raging river at the brink of death--God will save anyone who wants it.

[Ray Jones]

Why do I get the impression that is an emotional and specific responce?

Dunno. Because it is not.

 

 

I've been healed from appendicitus and seen a broken leg healed - on the same camp where I've seen that healed, another lad broke his arm and had to go to hospital to have it sorted out.

I wonder how one can see a broken leg being healed? Because someone jumps up and walks away? I'd really like to know that.

 

 

1. If atheism is true, how did they above happen?

Atheism cannot not be "true". It is merely a concept. However, what you mean is if there is no god, how does the above happen?

 

(a) If the above did really take place in any way, how does that indicate the existence of god in any way?

 

(b) You don't believe David Copperfield really makes things disappear, do you? And you don't really believe Luke is racing on some fast and hovering bike through Endor's woods, do you?

 

 

2. Presuming there is a God, why does he heal some and not others?I'm affraid the second is not a question I can answer, sorry.

Because god, using his all knowing wisdom, simply does not heal people and especially not from having broken legs and appendicitis and even more not during public events.

 

And you want to know why he does not?

 

Because (a) people would ask, "Why does he heal some and not others?" And (b) people would start making events out of this, just to gain power and control over the ill, and to get their money. And © it would spread envy among those whose suffering is worse, but won't get healed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EDIT]

 

 

 

So God knows what will happen. If He does act, and forces someone to do something against their will, what's going to happen to that person? Are they going to like it? Do you like being forced to do something against your will? If God forces everyone to love Him, is that real love? It is not. It's simply obedience at best. The only way to allow people to show love is to give them the opportunity to make the choice to do so. Anything else is forced.

When you stop your kids from doing something that will cause harm to whomever, do they always like it, or welcome your intervention?

 

You're assuming that people go to hell against their will. They don't. They have made the choice, in rejecting God, to willingly go to a place without the presence of God. Do you think a loving God wants people to go to hell? Do you not think He tries to offer His love repeatedly? The people who end up in hell, whatever that may be, will end up there because they _wanted_ to be in a place without God. And God will allow them to have what they want.

 

On the subject of people being saved at the very last moment, let me use an analogy. God wants to rescue anyone who will accept His love, regardless of where they're at in life. Let's say there's a massive storm is coming, and God is the rescuer. First, He goes out and warns everyone to come to the shelter and into safety. Some people go. Some stay in their homes.

 

Then the storm comes. God goes to those who've refused the shelter and once again offers safety. Some more go. A few still stay, not believing the storm will be that bad.

 

Then the storm starts to rip apart homes and some have to be rescued. God reaches out to them and rescues them, if they accept his offer of rescue. Some will still reject the offer of rescue until their house is falling apart. Some will reject that offer of rescue until they're drowning in a flash flood and are about to die.

 

It doesn't matter if the person was brought to safety before the storm started or if they had to be plucked from the raging river at the brink of death--God will save anyone who wants it.

In short, during evolution, there have several concepts to manage dangerous situation developed, like, be loud, be quiet, run, don't run, copulate, vomit, make crap, seek cover, seek the open, play a game of chess.

 

So far none of them has been superior, but all of them work, thus they help saving the human species, ergo your god's doing a good job.

 

So why involve storms?

[jonathan7]

Dunno. Because it is not.

 

I wonder how one can see a broken leg being healed? Because someone jumps up and walks away? I'd really like to know that.

 

Because he broke it while playing sport, and the bone was pushing a rather large bump against the skin? (I do Safari's into the desert and am a qualified in many different forms of first aid, as well as being brought up in a medical family; though I suppose I mistook the bone wrongly). I could give other examples, but you've already decided I'm lying, or making things up, so no point in saying anything else.

 

Suffice to say; my best friends who are athiests, do not doubt the validity of my statements; but would dispute that a miracle had not occured, just a scientific phenomeon not known to man yet.

 

Because god, using his all knowing wisdom, simply does not heal people and especially not from having broken legs and appendicitis and even more not during public events.

 

I was diagnosed with appendicitis last year; I was in hospital and literally 10 minutes from going into theatre. If I had had the operation I would have missed the Christian camp I lead on; in knowledge of this I sent out a text asking for my fellow leaders to pray for me… I was healed; the consultant said to me that it should be medically impossible to get better from appendicitis without the appendices being removed. He explained it as being something other than appendicitis; although all my symptoms had pointed to that being the correct diagnosis. He had a rather confused look on his face. I leave you to conclude what you will.

 

If you wish to disbelieve me that is your decision and I see little point in continuing the discussion, as you have already made your mind up so I'm clearly lying.

[SpartanPride]

I wonder how one can see a broken leg being healed? Because someone jumps up and walks away? I'd really like to know that.

 

Isn't it simple? The pain goes away? You look at an X-ray. You aren't the judge of whose healed or not.

 

Atheism cannot not be "true". It is merely a concept. However, what you mean is if there is no god, how does the above happen?

 

(a) If the above did really take place in any way, how does that indicate the existence of god in any way?

 

Because there's no such thing as magic, and when you do these things, you really have to put your faith in God.

 

 

Because god, using his all knowing wisdom, simply does not heal people and especially not from having broken legs and appendicitis and even more not during public events.

 

Okay, now here is where you go wrong. Why wouldn't God heal people he loves?

 

If your children were sick or hurt, if you had the power in you, wouldn't you heal them in a second?

 

You make God out to be someone whose afraid of other people, afriad of public events. Trust me, he's not.

 

And you want to know why he does not?

 

Because (a) people would ask, "Why does he heal some and not others?" And (b) people would start making events out of this, just to gain power and control over the ill, and to get their money. And © it would spread envy among those whose suffering is worse, but won't get healed.

 

A) God would heal everyone who asked if they all actually believed. Whether it be through an instant miracle, or a gradual healing.

B) God isn't afraid of people, and he certainly wouldn't hold of healing others for a single, corrupt individual.

C) Believe and you will recieve (As my pastor likes to say ). They can get healed.

 

 

One of my closest friend's healing was fake? I'm going to have a hard time believing that, because whenever he comes to my house, he no longer uses a wheelchair.

[Ray Jones]

Because he broke it while playing sport, and the bone was pushing a rather large bump against the skin? (I do Safari's into the desert and am a qualified in many different forms of first aid, as well as being brought up in a medical family; though I suppose I mistook the bone wrongly). I could give other examples, but you've already decided I'm lying, or making things up, so no point in saying anything else.

Oh, I surely have *not* decided you are lying. Bumps aside, in fact I am merely asking, how do you see a broken leg getting healed. Or to be more precise, did *you* see how it broke, and have *you* tested it to be broken, before the healing occurred? And have *you* tested the healed leg to be healed? And how have you done so?

 

 

Suffice to say; my best friends who are athiests, do not doubt the validity of my statements; but would dispute that a miracle had not occured, just a scientific phenomeon not known to man yet.

Oh, I am by no means atheist.

 

However, and regardless what I am, I strongly tend to make a distinction between what it reads on the label and what's actually inside the box.

 

 

I was diagnosed with appendicitis last year; I was in hospital and literally 10 minutes from going into theatre. If I had had the operation I would have missed the Christian camp I lead on; in knowledge of this I sent out a text asking for my fellow leaders to pray for me… I was healed; the consultant said to me that it should be medically impossible to get better from appendicitis without the appendices being removed. He explained it as being something other than appendicitis; although all my symptoms had pointed to that being the correct diagnosis. He had a rather confused look on his face. I leave you to conclude what you will.

So how do you know it was your god healing you, and not lets say, a fart, or as the doctor suggested appendicitis being the wrong diagnose? Have you studied medicine, like that doctor?

 

 

If you wish to disbelieve me that is your decision and I see little point in continuing the discussion, as you have already made your mind up so I'm clearly lying.

Would you please show me where I said so?

[jonathan7]

Firstly lets establish this; I have always been more Scully than Mulder, however, even Scully having seen with her own eyes starts to believe in Aliens...

 

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts" (aka Sir Auther Conan Doyle)

 

Oh, I surely have *not* decided you are lying. Bumps aside, in fact I am merely asking, how do you see a broken leg getting healed. Or to be more precise, did *you* see how it broke, and have *you* tested it to be broken, before the healing occurred? And have *you* tested the healed leg to be healed? And how have you done so?

 

Yes clearly, long thin hard bumps not being where they should be, and then there being no bone where there should be in the leg; clearly shows it was a mis-diagnosis on my part and the student doctor present...

 

In terms of that type if data as in X-ray before and after there is none, as he never went to hospital.

 

You decide, though I doubt it matters what evidence I bring to bear; you've already decided the answer before hearing the evidence. If if I showed X-rays; I would think you would claim them to be fraudulant.

 

So how do you know it was your god healing you, and not lets say, a fart, or as the doctor suggested appendicitis being the wrong diagnose? Have you studied medicine, like that doctor?

 

See, now your putting words into the doctors mouth; for the record 3 Doctors had diagnosed me with appendicitus... However if you do not wish to believe in miracles you have already ruled that hypothesis out.

 

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" (aka Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

 

 

Would you please show me where I said so?

 

Well either I'm lying or I'm stupid; as clearly I don't have the ability to tell if a leg is broken or not.

[Ray Jones]

Isn't it simple? The pain goes away? You look at an X-ray.

So, in fact, jonathan7 had an x-ray-thingy in the church? How do I see someone else's pain going away?

 

 

You aren't the judge of whose healed or not.

And who is, if it is *me* who you do want to believe your experience?

 

 

Because there's no such thing as magic, and when you do these things, you really have to put your faith in God.

Right, there is no such thing as magic, but still David makes things disappear, and Luke is fighting Darth Vader with a glowing light-sabre.

 

 

Okay, now here is where you go wrong. Why wouldn't God heal people he loves?

To be fair, even against those he doesn't "love".

 

 

If your children were sick or hurt, if you had the power in you, wouldn't you heal them in a second?

I even do help them, with all the "mortal powers" I got. Or what do you think I do when my daughter gets ill? However, I have only 2 children, and am not watching over countless lifeforms all over the universe. Also, I dare say god would be clever enough to notice some kind of idiocy to have people getting ill just to heal them like *snap*.

 

 

You make God out to be someone whose afraid of other people, afriad of public events. Trust me, he's not.

Did I? Show me. All I said is he would not. Not tat he is afraid of. BIG difference.

 

 

One of my closest friend's healing was fake? I'm going to have a hard time believing that, because whenever he comes to my house, he no longer uses a wheelchair.

Good. I am happy for your friend. However, that directly indicates god's intervention how?

 

 

 

 

Yes clearly, long thin hard bumps not being where they should be, and then there being no bone where there should be in the leg; clearly shows it was a mis-diagnosis on my part and the doctor present...

Happens, eh?

 

 

In terms of that type if data as in X-ray before and after there is none, as he never went to hospital.

Broken bones belong to a doctor, seriously.

 

 

You decide, though I doubt it matters what evidence I bring to bear; you've already decided the answer before hearing the evidence.

*THIS* is getting really boring, you know.

 

 

If if I showed X-rays; I would think you would claim them to be fraudulant.

If I could backup that claim, yes. Until then, x-rays of the leg in question before and after the spontaneous healing would be more convincing to me than someone I don't know throwing his crutches away.

 

See, what I want as a first step is simple: evidence of one broken leg at 10:00 am, and evidence of the same leg now healed at 10:05 am on the same day.

 

Then, and only then I dare drag god into this.

 

 

See, now your putting words into the doctors mouth; for the record 3 Doctors had diagnosed me with appendicitus... However if you do not wish to believe in miracles you have already ruled that hypothesis out.

I'm am putting nothing anywhere. And please let me decide what I rule out and what not.

In fact *you* are the one putting words in my mouth, and have decided to rule things for me out, merely based on your observation that I am not running around like "zOMG MYRECEL MYRECEL!!!"

 

 

Well either I'm lying or I'm stupud; as clearly I don't have the ability to tell if a leg is broken or not.

Listen, this is not leading you anywhere. I merely asked how you verified your observations. I have never said you would not be able to diagnose a broken leg, or that you are stupid. So do me a favour and stop that.

[Achilles]

You're assuming that people go to hell against their will. They don't. They have made the choice, in rejecting God, to willingly go to a place without the presence of God. Do you think a loving God wants people to go to hell?

Of course I do. He created hell didn't he? What kind of "loving god" a) creates hell and then b) sends his creations there to be tormented? And why? Because they didn't believe in him. And why don't they believe in him? Because he never provided any evidence for his existence. But somehow he's fair and just right? Right.

 

Do you not think He tries to offer His love repeatedly?

He has not once appeared to me to offer anything, let alone his love. Unless of course you're referring to the holy bible, where his son told some other guy (John) to tell me that I would burn in a lake of fire unless I accepted his love. Finding no evidence for John, Jesus, God, or Hell, I choose not to blindly accept this flimsy ultimatum.

 

The people who end up in hell, whatever that may be, will end up there because they _wanted_ to be in a place without God. And God will allow them to have what they want.

Very convenient that he sets the board, establishes the rules, etc, but ultimately the responsibility falls to us, the "sinners", to compensate for his twisted logic. Seriously, the god guy sounds more and more like the dude from Saw.

[Jae Onasi]

It has now been established that Ray is not trying to call jonathan7 a liar by asking for some evidence of the healing(s). Let's move back to the topic. Thanks.

[mur'phon]

You're assuming that people go to hell against their will.

 

I dissagre, asuming an omnipotent and omnicent god created us, he decided what people should go to hell, because he created them that way. I would say most people who end up in hell do so against their will, and end up there because of gods will.

[Totenkopf]

A bit self-serving there, murph. I do sometimes wonder, though, why a god would create something he knew (that pesky omnicience thing) would ultimately choose to make all the wrong decisions. Why should damnation be eternal when the mistakes we make here are based on incomplete information over an infitesimally shorter period of time than our potential punishment will last in the end?

[mimartin]

Why should damnation be eternal when the mistakes we make here are based on incomplete information over an infitesimally shorter period of time than our potential punishment will last in the end?

Life isn't fair, why should the afterlife be any different?

[Totenkopf]

Ah, sweet cynicism. (both ^ and v)

[mur'phon]

Life isn't fair, why should the afterlife be any different?

 

Because I believe the christian god is suposed to be fair and good? Therefore why does he want people to go to hell? Had he not wanted them to, he wouldn't have made them in such a way that they will end up in hell.

[Web Rider]

Why should damnation be eternal when the mistakes we make here are based on incomplete information over an infitesimally shorter period of time than our potential punishment will last in the end?

 

Depending on which religious(Christian) literature you read, it isn't. If you earnestly try to repent while in hell, after like, 10,000 years, God may decide to audit your file. Of course, He can still say "no, not good enough".