Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach

[Fidel_Castronaut]

i.e. magic.

Yeah we get it. "Everything you can do I can do better" and all that.

Your imagination doesn't wash with those who can't experience or believe your imagination, Randy. I thought this would have been obvious by now no? There is no competition between 'science' and 'god'. One is a 'thing', a tool we use to discover things we don't currently know, whilst the latter is a get of of jail clause to explain things away that we can't be bothered to explore.

Come on, you're supposed to hit back with a spell. Preferably one with nice colours.

Can you at least agree with the following? (please notice the conditional "if")

If God exists and if He is capable of creating all things out of nothing (which is not a thing itself), then He would have no problem whatsoever suspending the laws of the physical universe to suit His own needs whenever He wanted to do so.

Yes or no?

No, because, even if we assume and accept there is 'god', I have no further evidence to accept your definition. There could have been a god, for example, that created everything, then either died or withdrew into a void of nothingness and has no impact on the physical universe we see around us. There's also no reason to assume just one god. What about gods? What about a collection of beings that, when combined, can do all the above, but separately they are unable to?

Regardless, even noting the 'if' conditional, I don't see the point in asking me the question. Even if I agreed that a god could do all that, it doesn't make it true. Just believing something doesn't mean it is right. And invoking the 'my dad is bigger than your dad' argument in a mature debate amongst adults is just infuriating and purile. Why even bother contributing Randy if that's the total sum of your efforts? And that's a serious question.