Putting God to the Test

[Mister Agenda]

What is so strange about a God who can raise the dead. In the circles I frequent this sort of thing happens often, not with me personally but with pastors I know of. If a person truely believes in God they believe he can raise the dead. Jesus said in the bible we would do the same works he did one of the things Jesus did was raise the dead. I hope one day you come to your senses, and look at the evidence rather than express your opinions on facts. What more can a Christian do than record miracles, you say they should be struck of the register because they say they have a recorded example of a dead raising. Why don't you start to believe facts rather than sprout of your atheist opinions on people. What sins do you commit that are so great you are prepared to ignore facts. Christians are people too with brains and an interlect we just know what God has done in our lives, and the lives of others. What evidence do you have to support your claims that these people are crazy, it is just your opinion, nothing more.

My experience with fundamentalist churches is that they are rife with outlandish rumors. It's considered impolite not to take a brother or sister at their word, mix in Chinese Whispers and confirmation bias, and you get plenty of third-hand hearsay 'evidence' of whatever their particular denomination espouses.

If there's a God with the attributes usually attributed, it could raise the dead. That doesn't mean that it does raise the dead. Whether or not there is a God, we should only believe the dead are being resurrected if it is verifiable. That it never is, however, is an indication that there is no God that actually raises the dead, or that if there is, it covers its tracks.

Christians are perfectly capable of understanding what would constitute verifiable, scientific evidence. The only reason for them not to be able to produce such for their miracles would be that they can't. They don't want their 'miracles' scientifically scrutinized, because they know in their hearts that their reports can't survive that kind of examination.

That's why this Christian has to resort to poisoning the well with accusations of great sin as the explanation for why we don't find him convincing instead of bringing evidence where the scientific method has been used to eliminate the effect of bias and errors of perception. Our proneness to such is one of the main reasons we need the scientific method to figure out what's really most likely to be true.

A Christian who was secure in their faith would be comfortable with the fact that they have nothing but their faith to support their claim that their particular God exists and is the 'real one'. A Chrisitian of intellect would understand what would actually constitute evidence for a miracle and why the bar needs to be set high.

Perhaps the essential difference there would logically be between a Christian and a rational skeptic is that they believe faith is a virtue and we do not. If it's a virtue, why grasp for evidence?

---

Hi,

I really hope that God answers your prayer. It will be interesting to see how things go. I have never really challenged people to put God to the test before. But he has done so many things for me that I can't see why he would not do them for others like yourself.

Thank you. I know if this happens it would not be convincing to another skeptic, I haven't eliminated coincidence from the equation, but if I've learned anything, it's that if there is a God, it does not provide evidence you can show another skeptic.

Really??? Don't you want to live forever?

I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to read a book I knew would never end, or see a movie that would never end. I can't think of anything that would make this life more meaningless than that it is mere momentariy prelude, a mere instant before an endless existence that has infinitely far to go after a trillion trillion years, after all the stars have died and particles have decayed and the universe filled only with photons endlessly flying farther apart, and THAT being only an instant compared with the existence still to come. Certainly whatever was still existing then would not be something the current me would recognize as still being me.

Would you trust a God who could not raise the dead.

A God who does not raise the dead is not the same thing as a God who cannot raise the dead. And if I got to pick Gods, I would trust one less powerful (maybe even unable to raise the dead) and doing its best to one that's all powerful but doesn't do better than this.

---

Hi,

what I am suggesting is if there is a God, as I know there is, what is so strange about the claim that the dead can be raised. It is 100% logical that God can raise the dead.

It's 100% logical that God can turn the sun blue with pink polkadots. That it would be within the realm of power ascribed to God doesn't mean that it is something that God does, or should, do.

---

I am sorry you think what God does is absurd.

You are not God. Thinking your claims about what God does are absurd is not the same thing as thinking that what God, if there is one, does is absurd.

Well you are living on shaky ground, one day the flood of death will come, and will you be ready for it's journey, you can ignore what people tell you for perfect evidence, but you may never get what you demand.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I am no fool, I know who I am, I know what I have experienced. I trust others who have experienced the same.

But you don't trust others who have different experiences. All religions that claim their deity or deities perform miracles have similar evidence that miracles actually happen for them, but other religions say your religion is false or incomplete. On what basis do you dismiss them other than you were raised to believe a different religion?

What do you want me to become a drinking, porno loving, fool?

You would only become a drinking, porno loving fool if that is what you really want to be and it is only the religious tenets you hold that are keeping you from being one.

Or should I remain a God fearing husband, who experiences the miraculous often. I choose to stay with what I have.

We didn't come to a Christian site, looking for you. You came to us. Don't make out like we're the ones pursuing to make you change your mind. You are more than welcome to believe what you want, which is a courtesy you have not extended to us.

You can go to hell if you want, ignoring all the facts for your precious double blind studies, but I choose to live in the truth, and respect God's law and rule.

There is no more unjust an idea than that someone should endure infinite suffering for finite offenses...OR that they should be rewarded with infinite pleasure for finite obedience. If there were a hell, I would not want to go there, but it's clearly a device used to scare believers into being afraid to think outside their box. I'm sure you sincerely believe that you are choosing to live in the truth, but your sincerity doesn't make it so.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.

Another example of injustice, if it were true. A God powerful enough to just make all the troublemakers disappear, instead chooses to destroy all but a handful of living things in a painful way. It sounds like what it is: A big flood with a few survivors that affected the world they knew but not the whole world, interpreted as an act of God in exactly the same way Pat Robertson interprets a destructive hurricane as God's punishment for women's rights and not punishing gay people.