Married to a Christian

[Minimalist]

The problems I have with that are that then I either am delusional, a liar or have no evidence.

By George, I think you've got it.

[tackattack]

If your standard is for naturally impossible I have nothing I can give you from personal experience. However what about someone who can see without pupils, bodies that don't decay or statues that bleed, cry and sweat?

I am a glutton for punishment, aren't I? Go on, let's see it. Even IF true (which I doubt), none would be proof of a God, just of something pretty weird.

Really, we're going to go through all those motions for no reasons, and with that kind of bias. You have google, if you want evidence it's for you to find, I'm not feeding you anything especially if you don't want it in the first place. You are correct though in that miracles, if veried to an acceptable level would only be proof of miracles, not of God. Does no good for me in proving my particular god, but would invalidate a substance monist, until they found a way to call the supranatural natural.

The problems I have with that are that then I either am delusional, a liar or have no evidence.

By George, I think you've got it.

Really min, you can be quite an ass sometimes. You know I did leave out a fourth possibility, that you deny presented evidence, but I was trying to be nice. Thanks for the consistency.

[ElDinero]

To be honest tack, after I posted that, I did go and search for those things briefly. I found they were all either unsubstantiated or disproved and admitted to be hoaxes. However, I didn't want to be accused of attacking a straw man by telling you which evidence you were relying on, which is why I thought I'd wait for you to provide it.

I'm actually mildly insulted that you would turn to such things as supposed 'evidence' of anything, since they're completely unverified (mostly relying on nothing but verbal accounts - feel like we're going round in circles) and in the case on non-decaying bodies, thoroughly explained. So how about YOU use Google?

And yes, of course I am going to have a bias when somebody tells me that a statue which is made of stone has started fucking crying, because it flies in the face of everything we know about what stone DOES do (sit there doing nothing) and what stone DOESN'T do (bleed and cry). Are you telling me you'd approach things with an entirely open mind if I told you that my TV had sprouted legs and had gone jogging?

Honestly, it's easier to get blood from a stone than get you to admit that your evidence is lousy. Oh ho ho ho

[KichigaiNeko]

Honestly, it's easier to get blood from a stone than get you to admit that your evidence is lousy. Oh ho ho ho

Yep...it's called BACTERIA!! We did a post about it a month or so ago Tacky...try the forum search bar

[Minimalist]

You know I did leave out a fourth possibility, that you deny presented evidence, but I was trying to be nice.

Don't be nice. We've already gone through the problems with "personal experience" as evidence.

[JudgeDracoAmunRa]

My husband just assumed I believed in god, something that I find annoying in itself.

I feel pretty much the same when people - straights usually - assume I'm the same as them: "Are you married?" Dont ask me if I'm married! I'm not bloody allowed to get married! You people don't realise how lucky you are. Am I married? Oh sweet Jesus!

[tackattack]

To be honest tack, after I posted that, I did go and search for those things briefly. I found they were all either unsubstantiated or disproved and admitted to be hoaxes. However, I didn't want to be accused of attacking a straw man by telling you which evidence you were relying on, which is why I thought I'd wait for you to provide it.

I'm actually mildly insulted that you would turn to such things as supposed 'evidence' of anything, since they're completely unverified (mostly relying on nothing but verbal accounts - feel like we're going round in circles) and in the case on non-decaying bodies, thoroughly explained. So how about YOU use Google?

And yes, of course I am going to have a bias when somebody tells me that a statue which is made of stone has started fucking crying, because it flies in the face of everything we know about what stone DOES do (sit there doing nothing) and what stone DOESN'T do (bleed and cry). Are you telling me you'd approach things with an entirely open mind if I told you that my TV had sprouted legs and had gone jogging?

Honestly, it's easier to get blood from a stone than get you to admit that your evidence is lousy. Oh ho ho ho

Saponification requires very precise conditions and doesn't apply to even half the cases I've seen. If you want to say incorruptibles and not having pupils but being able to see are both freaks of nature instead of miraculous signs from God fine by me. They're documented though and Gemma De Giorgi is even still alive. I don't mind rigorous testing of these "freaks of nature", but there comes a point when you have to say science can't explain it. I know that doesn't give the religious a right to say lookGoddidit, but if only one case is "proven" to have ametaphysical cause substance dualism would still be possible (but not rigorously substantiated) and substance monism can't be true.

I fully admit these examples aren't evidence I would call on par with mathmateical proofs (read lousy for you to use). Personally, I consider them indicative, unverified and I personally have experienced nothing like it. They are in line with my beliefs which I believe to be rational, from personal experience and usefullness. I remain open to them as they haven't been disproved, as I would remain open to the idea of your table running. IF you claimed that, and presented any evidence, I would not off-handedly assume it was a conspiracy, or that you intend to decieve or deconvert me, or that you were lying. I would, knowing you as little as I do would start off from the assumption that you're joking first, and from there we'd determine whether it was reasonable.

Have you experimented with magnets and gravity? You've thrown a ball up and it came down, you've put a magnet on a refridgerator I'm assuming? These provide you with personal experience that lends creedence to the theoies of gravity and magnetism. They're useful and measurable to you. There is science that can reliably test those theories as well. I have similar personal experiences backing up my theories for my God. They're not perfect, but they're consistant, useful and don't deny any presented scientific evidence. There is no mechanism in science I'm aware of that could measure the immaterial, so I understand why most people on this site consider them unfounded, unsupported and unprovable. I agree with that, but o take it a step further and say they're delusion, irration and not evidence at all hopefully you can see why I express a problem with that classification.

Even if I provided a scientificly measurable miracle right now in this very setting, it still could be used to prove God exists, just that miraclese happen. There is no scientific evidence God exists because that would require an unobtainable perspective on the immaterial outside our universe.

Bottom line, to prevent any more circling, I realize that a lot of the atheists here would prefer the conclusion that it's because God doesn't exist. That may very well be the most pragmatic approach, but I believe it closes the opportunity to experience God and encourages denying useful and practical indicative experience. Everyone's entitled to their opinions and perspectives though and I think I clearly stated mine.

[KichigaiNeko]

We covered this Tacky...at least in part Here.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know that doesn't give the religious a right to say lookGoddidit, but if only one case is "proven" to have ametaphysical cause substance dualism would still be possible (but not rigorously substantiated) and substance monism can't be true.

You bolded the wrong word here Tack, I fixed it for you. Care to do the proving now?