Most challenging arguement you have faced?

[tackattack]

But evidence should be relatable to the proof. Mathmatical proofs with mathmatical justification, historical artifacts for archeological proof, etc. Consistantly I've seen a requirement for scientific justification for metaphysical proof. So while the quality of evidence is a factor in it's acceptance vis credibility, the proof should match the pudding.

[Thor]

the height is not the standard of evidence, but the difficulty in accepting said evidence.

It's ironic that you post this. I have encountered many Creationists who look at obvious, verifiable evidence and either twist it to fit their preconceived notions or they ignore it entirely.

Now, as for evidence of a deity, whatcha got?

[Violet]

the height is not the standard of evidence, but the difficulty in accepting said evidence.

It's ironic that you post this. I have encountered many Creationists who look at obvious, verifiable evidence and either twist it to fit their preconceived notions or they ignore it entirely.

Now, as for evidence of a deity, whatcha got?

Well... tacky isn't a creationist... is he? :S (By that I mean in the sense of denying the processes by which "God" created the universe... as many "creationists" seem to claim, though they don't seem to follow all the way through with their logic.)

@ the italic: Existence itself. I explained in another post that a universe created by "God" is indistinguishable from one arising naturally. Hence why his power is so 'awesome' and the amount of faith required to believe in him so great

Therefore every bit of the universe we scientifically 'uncover' is yet more evidence of "God"

[tavarish]

But evidence should be relatable to the proof. Mathmatical proofs with mathmatical justification, historical artifacts for archeological proof, etc. Consistantly I've seen a requirement for scientific justification for metaphysical proof. So while the quality of evidence is a factor in it's acceptance vis credibility, the proof should match the pudding.

I wholeheartedly agree.

When theists make claims about the origin of the universe, that's cosmology.

When theists make claims about the origin of life on earth, that's biology.

When theists make claims about the origin of the species, that's evolution.

When theists make claims about the the healing power of prayer, that's medical science.

More often than not, the particular actions of the Christian God are in the realm of testable, verifiable science.

[tackattack]

@ Sae- well I guess if you think order from chaos is natually occuring then I would agree with that last statement.

@Thor- Ok I'll drum up some energy tonight and coalesce my previously unanswered posts and some new ideas on a new thread most likely, even though most will probably find it tedious.


edited to add@tav- sorry I was typing as you were. Because to make a positive and verifiable claim a scientific "methodology" would be the most congruent with "reality". Just because the realms of study are called something else as they relate to the end result, Origins typically fall under the creator argument.

[Watson]

"When theists make claims about the healing power or prayer, that's medical science."

I'd like to point out here that, while faith healing does address medical problems, if healing prayer worked in the implicated manner then it would be a suspension of medical principles that healed the person, not a quickening or or bolstering of medical help.

[Violet]

@ Sae- well I guess if you think order from chaos is natually occuring then I would agree with that last statement.

True, but both statements (that order has come from chaos, or that "God" ordered the universe) require an unprovable assumption as to whence the universe has come to this state... and that it is evident that it has come, therefore there are likely process by which this has occurred... and that "God" and 'nature' would look the same to us... therefore all the more 'evidence' of a 'designer' like "God".

I am entirely playing the 'devil's advocate' here in response to you Thor... I do that often

[tavarish]

"When theists make claims about the healing power or prayer, that's medical science."

I'd like to point out here that, while faith healing does address medical problems, if healing prayer worked in the implicated manner then it would be a suspension of medical principles that healed the person, not a quickening or or bolstering of medical help.

It's something demonstrable and observable within the field of medicine. Time and time again it has proven to be absolute hogwash and the only marked improvement would be in the psyche.

[Watson]

Hmmmm, I agree it would be observable, however, I have contention with your saying it would be demonstratable. If it were a miracle by your apparent definition of the word, then it would be uncontrollable by mankind and likely a one-time sort of thing.

If it were some sort of healing prayer, then of course it is onl within the psyche. But you would be surprised how much the psyche affects the state of the body, I think.

[Minimalist]

"When theists make claims about the healing power or prayer, that's medical science."

I'd like to point out here that, while faith healing does address medical problems, if healing prayer worked in the implicated manner then it would be a suspension of medical principles that healed the person, not a quickening or or bolstering of medical help.

You need to visit Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/


Faith Healing never seems to work in any situation where it is measurable or demonstrable. A whole shitload of morons praying for one soldier maimed in Iraq to grow back a limb would, if it happened, do more to advance their sorry vision of a deity than anything else.

Sadly, ole god doesn't seem to be up to the task.