A Miracle!!

[rjh4 is back]

I know because I don't go around denying God exists. I am open (more so than most on this forum I suspect) to the idea of God. I used to believe one existed; I don't now. That might be what I believe for the rest of my life, it might not. If I saw any reason to believe in God, I would do so. I'm a rational person.

The point still stands though, that unverifiable examples of "miracles" are not going to persuade anyone other than believers. Unless it happens to me, I can't say anything about it. I have no way of distinguishing it from fantasy.

Just because you don't go around denying God exists does not mean that your presuppositions cannot keep you from the truth. If your presuppositions say that science and/or logic is the measure of everything (the standard used for measuring everything), then it seems to me you have presupposed that the God of the Bible does not exist for how can the God of the Bible be proven scientifically and/or logically (possibly by the TAG but presumably you have already considered this and rejected it)? If I say Jesus is God, he came to earth, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and rose from the dead as the proof that He is God, it seems to me that your presuppositions would not allow you to accept this as it is not provable scientifically as it happened in the past and any logical proof you would merely explain away (the witnesses were lying, delusional, so what if they were willing to die for it). So it seems to me that if God exists, you would never know it because of your presuppositions.

[Edwardo Piet]

Science or no science, if "God" cannot at all be distinguished from absence of God, if God can't be detected in any way, if God can't be recognized - then how is it rational to believe in him?

And, as it happens, knowledge through observation is what science does best - it's what it's about.

EvF

[Meatball]

Hey guys, my friend has always been weak-bodied, but yesterday she made an offering to Odin and now she has the strength of a thousand oxen. This was an instant strengthening, not a process of slowly getting stronger.

What do you think? Is Norse Paganism the true way?

[Edwardo Piet]

No.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

Meatball,

Funny that; I just asked my magic 8-ball if Odin was the true ruler of the universe and it said, "most certainly." I also just burnt some toast in my toaster and there was a giant O on it as if to confirm that Odin was God. That is THREE, count them THREE, (So by Christian logic only one ) different occurances that kind of point to Odin as the true God.

Rhizo

[theVOID]

Meatball,

Funny that; I just asked my magic 8-ball if Odin was the true ruler of the universe and it said, "most certainly." I also just burnt some toast in my toaster and there was a giant O on it as if to confirm that Odin was God. That is THREE, count them THREE, (So by Christian logic only one ) different occurances that kind of point to Odin as the true God.

Rhizo

Odin is a lesser god fool, Ra is the one true God.

[solarwave]

I didn't forget, however I'd suggest that the low reading age would be linked with the dyslexia problem; and the other "Brain problem"/"trouble with straight lines" is so vague and non-descript as to be unworthy of further comment.

Well Im not an expert so there is little more I can say on it. My problem was that it seemed as if you thought it was some kind of mild dyslexia.

It's not bias, it's true. Hallucination there is evidence of the existence of, other explanations there is evidence of the existence/possibility of too. So yes, of course hallucination is more likely. We at least have evidence that hallucination happens, so it's of course more likely to be evidence of that than of "God" which - as far as I know - there's no evidence of whatsoever.

Well quantum theory or relativity is wierd so why not play the hallucination card and say its more likely that every scientist is hallucinating that those theories are true. So what if they claim to have evidence, its obvious been made, maybe to make them look clever, maybe they see evidence that isn't really there, maybe they left some bits out that are important. Its so easy to play the hallucination or lying card that it barely seems right to do so. I don't just mean to you but to me as well. If you start off thinking God is unlikely then hallucination is a good option, but thats of course starting with a bias.

Evidence is enough. Of course - it's paramount. The problem is 1. It isn't evidence. 2. Other alternatives are more likely. 3. If I can't think of any evidence that I will accept, that doesn't mean I'll accept without evidence. I'm not saying God is impossible, certainly not - I'm an agnostic atheist - but I am not going to believe without evidence regardless of if I can think of any or not.

I would be tempted to bet money if I got some sort of doctors papers on her before and after they would be brushed under the carpet by many here. Even if I got a number of people with changed lives, healed bodies, stories of God working in their lifes, it would be pretty much ignored.

I dont want you or anyone else to believe because of what I say (it will never happen) all I want is to say, maybe, just maybe there could be something to this God stuff, so you would look into it (ie: a good church) yourself. I dunno maybe thats asking alot ;P

[theVOID]

It's not bias, it's true. Hallucination there is evidence of the existence of, other explanations there is evidence of the existence/possibility of too. So yes, of course hallucination is more likely. We at least have evidence that hallucination happens, so it's of course more likely to be evidence of that than of "God" which - as far as I know - there's no evidence of whatsoever.

Well quantum theory or relativity is wierd so why not play the hallucination card and say its more likely that every scientist is hallucinating that those theories are true. So what if they claim to have evidence, its obvious been made, maybe to make them look clever, maybe they see evidence that isn't really there, maybe they left some bits out that are important. Its so easy to play the hallucination or lying card that it barely seems right to do so. I don't just mean to you but to me as well. If you start off thinking God is unlikely then hallucination is a good option, but thats of course starting with a bias.

Does your PC work, or are you imagining that? What about PET scans?, were the scientists imagining both the anti-matter that found the tumor and the tumor they subsequently removed? Does your microwave heat up your food or are you imagining that too?

All these things are possible because Quantum Mechanics is true, if it wasn't... none of your electronic devices would work. Say goodbye to circuit boards and everything that requires them. Say goodbye to Xrays, Microwaves, PET Scans and many, many other things would simply not work.

Evidence is enough. Of course - it's paramount. The problem is 1. It isn't evidence. 2. Other alternatives are more likely. 3. If I can't think of any evidence that I will accept, that doesn't mean I'll accept without evidence. I'm not saying God is impossible, certainly not - I'm an agnostic atheist - but I am not going to believe without evidence regardless of if I can think of any or not.

I would be tempted to bet money if I got some sort of doctors papers on her before and after they would be brushed under the carpet by many here. Even if I got a number of people with changed lives, healed bodies, stories of God working in their lifes, it would be pretty much ignored.

I dont want you or anyone else to believe because of what I say (it will never happen) all I want is to say, maybe, just maybe there could be something to this God stuff, so you would look into it (ie: a good church) yourself. I dunno maybe thats asking alot ;P

You would need more than stories - if you are really to believe that anecdotal evidence is sufficient then why aren't you also a Muslim and a Buddhist? They have plenty of anecdotal evidence too! What about people who have felt better after having their body thetans removed? You should probably become a scientologist too... after all, there is so much anecdotal evidence! Oh, what about all the people who hav e seen Ghosts? Or talked to the dead? What about Alien investigations? We better believe all of it because the anecdotal evidence is just too fucking impressive right?

What you would need to do is set up double-blind trials - Some people are prayed for and given a placebo and some people are only given a placebo and told that they are being prayed for when they are in fact not. If there is a significant positive correlation between prayer and healing then it would be extremely easy to determine... Too bad it doesn't work; these studies have already been done!

[AngelaRachnid]

She was dyslexic she believed in dog? OK bad joke but someone was going to say it.

To be completely pedantic, that's not what dyslexia is. Reversal of words can be a symptom of dyslexia, but it is not what characterizes the neurological problem. It happens when a person cannot connect then alphabet with the words they are reading. For example, they have trouble perceiving words as a combination of the alphabet. They would have trouble combing the sounds or O and R to make the word "or". There are other aspects of dyslexia that has nothing to do with word reversal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

As far as the miracle goes, everyone else has said what I would have. No need to add to it.

Hola nice to meet you

Ok so you are being pedantic, have a butchers further down my post and you will see that i am also slightly dyslexic, I understand what dyslexia can be/mean etc, going back to the OPs post my mild dyslexia still hasnt stopped me publishing in excess of 50 papers/articles, and without word you wouldn't have a clue (cause i mostly don't) what I am writing (with excel i can now also show that i can do maths), and bugger all to do with god (although my parents probably preyed for my writing to get better, but that didn't work)

A

---

You seem to have taken some offence that we dont believe you have proof of a god given miracule, so lets try and be serious and both try to anser the point we bring up?

I would like to tell you about a miracle that happened to someone I know (even if that isn't all that well).

How not that well, ? someone you know, someone you have heard of, someone you met once or twice?

She was healed a few years ago (I've only known her for a few months) by God. This was an 'instant' healing, not a process of slowly getting better (I don't think you even can get slowly better from what she had). She was dyslexic and also had another problem with the brain where she couldn't see green, big contrasts and straight lines properly and had a reading age of 8.

Ok have you seen the opticians report? was she wearing the wrong type of spectacles? had she previously had a head injury from birth onwards?

She was then prayed for, healed, took her english GCSE and got an A in it.

What is the time period from preying to her english GCE? did she have extra tutoring during this period? did she prior have any external "special needs" tutors? did she have a "scribe" while she sat her exam?

Is she a christian/believer? (this question is important)

Did she/her family/pastor/someone else tell you this story?

Of course there are other people who have been healed who I could tell of, but I havn't known them personally so may be less believable. What do you think?

Name them, I have heard of many people who have been healed only to end up in intensive care a few days-weeks later because they stopped taking their meds on the word (and donation) of some snake oil preacher. Ever heard of the story of "Marjoe" google it. There is also a couple of episodes of House that deal with faith healers which is also an excellent track by the late great Alex Harvey (used to watch Cherry and the girls dance to this one).

Your turn, can you answer the questions?

A

If i have screwed up the quote bits again I apologise

[Eilonnwy]

If I say Jesus is God, he came to earth, lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and rose from the dead as the proof that He is God, it seems to me that your presuppositions would not allow you to accept this as it is not provable scientifically as it happened in the past and any logical proof you would merely explain away (the witnesses were lying, delusional, so what if they were willing to die for it).

Are you saying no one would die for a lie?