Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
If God did miracles, we would see amputees grow back limbs, but God obviously doesn't want to be that obvious :twisted:


The logic being that because bad things happen that there must not be miracles? If nothing bad ever happened there would be no need for miracles. If everyone was cured from their diseases it wouldn't be miraculous would it - it would be expected.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
If God did miracles, we would see amputees grow back limbs, but God obviously doesn't want to be that obvious :twisted:


The logic being that because bad things happen that there must not be miracles? If nothing bad ever happened there would be no need for miracles. If everyone was cured from their diseases it wouldn't be miraculous would it - it would be expected.

Not the point, making an amputees limb grow back would be a miracle, because it has no medical explanation. It is something that doesn't happen to humans ever. All other things that are called miracles either have a medical explanation, it is the odds that a certain amount of people will beat even the deadliest of cancers for example. And other things called miracles can easily be seen as coincidence by a rationalist.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
Not the point, making an amputees limb grow back would be a miracle, because it has no medical explanation. It is something that doesn't happen to humans ever. All other things that are called miracles either have a medical explanation, it is the odds that a certain amount of people will beat even the deadliest of cancers for example. And other things called miracles can easily be seen as coincidence by a rationalist.


So God works within the bounds of the rules he set for us. Humans are incapable of growing back limbs. If he caused a human to suddenly grow back a limb then it would kind of defeat the point of faith wouldn't it. If it is the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively then it would make sense to work within the bounds of human understanding in order to preserve the concept of faith.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
Not the point, making an amputees limb grow back would be a miracle, because it has no medical explanation. It is something that doesn't happen to humans ever. All other things that are called miracles either have a medical explanation, it is the odds that a certain amount of people will beat even the deadliest of cancers for example. And other things called miracles can easily be seen as coincidence by a rationalist.


So God works within the bounds of the rules he set for us. Humans are incapable of growing back limbs. If he caused a human to suddenly grow back a limb then it would kind of defeat the point of faith wouldn't it. If it is the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively then it would make sense to work within the bounds of human understanding in order to preserve the concept of faith.

If it is not the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively, then Jesus did not resurrect, turn water into wine, or all the other supernatural things he is said to have done, and the burning bush couldn't have talked to Moses either.

See how easy it is to be an atheist.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
Not the point, making an amputees limb grow back would be a miracle, because it has no medical explanation. It is something that doesn't happen to humans ever. All other things that are called miracles either have a medical explanation, it is the odds that a certain amount of people will beat even the deadliest of cancers for example. And other things called miracles can easily be seen as coincidence by a rationalist.


So God works within the bounds of the rules he set for us. Humans are incapable of growing back limbs. If he caused a human to suddenly grow back a limb then it would kind of defeat the point of faith wouldn't it. If it is the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively then it would make sense to work within the bounds of human understanding in order to preserve the concept of faith.

If it is not the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively, then Jesus did not resurrect, turn water into wine, or all the other supernatural things he is said to have done, and the burning bush couldn't have talked to Moses either.

See how easy it is to be an atheist.


Hello!

I can understand why some have the doubts that you express.

Yet why should God appear before anyone and everyone?

You are making arguments against God from the basis that His creation contains too many disparities. However - you have to see that this material world is intrinsically a duality and - we have to see why God created a 'world' of duality.

Pre-existence/transmigration is one factor in understanding how and why God interacts with us the way He does - why He is sometimes indifferent and why He leaves us feeling ambivalent. Recall God hated Esau - before he was born.

If God is to reveal Himself to us we are to become qualified first - how to become qualified is another discussion...but is summed in this - sincere desire.

:)
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you go on the assumption that God does not exist, you don't need to put an asterisk next to everything that happens.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
If you go on the assumption that God does not exist, you don't need to put an asterisk next to everything that happens.


Why do you have to go on that assumption? That predisposes you to a mindset to reject everything that might help you to see Him. In that way - you put a rejection asterisk on everything which you encounter that might have a providential connection...at least you could be open to the possibility that He does or does not exist...I was [more than] once open to the possibility that He doesn't. :wink:
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
If you go on the assumption that God does not exist


There is a difference between assuming he doesn't exist and arguing vociferously that he doesn't exist.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
If it is not the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively, then Jesus did not resurrect, turn water into wine, or all the other supernatural things he is said to have done, and the burning bush couldn't have talked to Moses either.


They were chosen by God to do God's work. God works in mysterious ways. I wouldn't expect a human to understand.

Quote:
See how easy it is to be an atheist.


It is easy to be an atheist. Not something I would be proud of.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
If you go on the assumption that God does not exist


There is a difference between assuming he doesn't exist and arguing vociferously that he doesn't exist.

I don't argue he doesn't exist, I argue that there is absolutely no evidence he exists.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
If it is not the goal of someone who created the universe not to reveal himself conclusively, then Jesus did not resurrect, turn water into wine, or all the other supernatural things he is said to have done, and the burning bush couldn't have talked to Moses either.


They were chosen by God to do God's work. God works in mysterious ways. I wouldn't expect a human to understand.
*********************************
What mysterious ways? How do you know God chooses people?

Quote:
See how easy it is to be an atheist.


It is easy to be an atheist. Not something I would be proud of.

Atheist equals rationalist. Still nothing to be proud of?
I'm an extremely proud atheist. I don't have to make up stuff to give me false hope. i don't do drugs either, though I support marijuana being totally legal (but I would like stiffer penalties for coke and heroin).
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
If you go on the assumption that God does not exist, you don't need to put an asterisk next to everything that happens.


Why do you have to go on that assumption? That predisposes you to a mindset to reject everything that might help you to see Him. In that way - you put a rejection asterisk on everything which you encounter that might have a providential connection...at least you could be open to the possibility that He does or does not exist...I was [more than] once open to the possibility that He doesn't. :wink:

I'm open minded to anything that has evidence associated with it. I mean that sincerely.
People fool themselves thinking there is evidence of God. Why should I consider God?, do you consider Thor?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
I'm open minded to anything that has evidence associated with it. I mean that sincerely.


Sciences explanation about how existence came to be could hardly be classified as evidence. My wife provided a mathematical proof that the universe could be shaped like a double donut for her master's thesis. Does that mean the universe is that shape? No. Proof is empirical evidence and science doesn't have any when it comes to the question of the genesis of existence.
theatheistjew





Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Posts: 398
Reputation: 11.2
votes: 10
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
I'm open minded to anything that has evidence associated with it. I mean that sincerely.


Sciences explanation about how existence came to be could hardly be classified as evidence. My wife provided a mathematical proof that the universe could be shaped like a double donut for her master's thesis. Does that mean the universe is that shape? No. Proof is empirical evidence and science doesn't have any when it comes to the question of the genesis of existence.

I understand your point. You've made it over and over again, but God in the Gaps doesn't do it for me. And science is coming closer to the answer.
Again, there are many many theories out there that don't include God, in fact, no scientific theories include God.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

theatheistjew wrote:
Craig wrote:
theatheistjew wrote:
If you go on the assumption that God does not exist


There is a difference between assuming he doesn't exist and arguing vociferously that he doesn't exist.

I don't argue he doesn't exist, I argue that there is absolutely no evidence he exists.



You saw my CT scan posted on this thread? That is objective proof of God.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Do you believe in or have you ever witnessed a miracle!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB