Stump the Christian?

[dyresand]

If anyone ever grows back a missing body part, it'll be through the advances of science, not the grace of gawd.

Right.

Because God Cannot. Possibly. Exist. This is known and understood by all who have any brains.

For one. a being with nearly infinite or infinite energy that looks human because humans are made in his image and on top of that
impregnated a prostitute. Here is a the kicker a prostitute gets impregnated by a invisible magical sky being and ironically enough
gives birth to god himself/his son. Then to spit on open wounds this same being created the conditions of humanity ahead of time to make a 
plan at any time he could have not let himself die. Then he is born and he dies years later. Even more damning jesus/god said when i come back
ill kill you all. Not only is there no evidence of him living there is no evidence of his own death.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If anyone ever grows back a missing body part, it'll be through the advances of science, not the grace of gawd.

Right.

Because God Cannot. Possibly. Exist. This is known and understood by all who have any brains.

Strawman.

Most likely wasting my time but whatever, nobody is saying that. There might be evidence of a god, somewhere. Unlikely as it is, it's improbability doesn't preclude it's possibility.

But consider a logical and rational approach for a second. Say a magical, fantastical event were to occur, and this supernatural event was to be understood and accepted by all as beyond our current understanding of 'reality', would the next rational and logical thing be to automatically presume it was this a god, and not only a god, but your very specific version of a very specific type of God? why the preclusion of a god and not an as of yet unknown agent or structure? Why The continual automatic need to jump to conclusions? Why no want or desire to find out more?

Wouldn't one feel silly if one attributed a given event to your specific version of a god, only to find out if was an alien race, or indeed perhaps another deity, or something else entirely?

[Mr Greene]

Speaking for myself; If we take the OT as being the word of the Jews, then we need to verify the accuracy of the statements made therein. That can really only be done through archaeology and we run into the problem that the physical evidence directly contradicts the account given right upto ~450BC (Macedonian conquest / "Return from Babylon") Which means there never was a monotheistic kingdom or prophets, or prophesies, and thus the entire argument for monotheism collapses for me right here.

[Esquilax]

Asked and answered:

Well, so much for that proof. You've already inserted all the wiggle room you would need to avoid admission of God's existence.

Here's the thing, and I know this tramples on your little "aha! You won't ever believe!" moment, but I don't care, because that's the same self-reinforcing delusional horseshit that a lot of theists use to make themselves feel better about their failure to convince anyone: accepting that there may be multiple answers to a question, in the absence of conclusive evidence, does not mean that any one answer gets short shrift from us when we consider them. We get shown an event that seems supernatural, and without some form of evidence regarding its nature, it would be idiotic of us not to consider multiple possible solutions, and in the case of a supernatural seeming event, yeah, aliens would come up, because sans additional evidence they are equally likely as the god conclusion, and in fact may be more so, since we know that life existing somewhere in the universe is at least possible where we don't have that same knowledge regarding spirit beings of any stripe. You're sitting there getting all smug at us because we won't favor your god with more credibility in a scenario without conclusive evidence, simply because you like him the best. You're asserting that we're being irrational because we're rationally eliminating assumptions and awaiting the evidence before we draw a conclusion, it's ridiculous.

It's not like we're considering these hypotheticals in a vacuum either, Randy. We have a rich history of phenomena and their later-discovered causes to look back on, and doing so produces a trend of overly eager theologians and idealogues attributing every unknown phenomena to a supernatural or divine cause of some description (diseases are demons, rainbows are god signs, lightning is Zeus, etc etc) and a similar trend of those answers being discovered, only for those same supernatural causes to be dead wrong, one hundred percent of the time. No matter how new and shiny and impressive you want to portray some new unknown phenomena, it must be considered within that context, that's simply an inescapable consequence of epistemology being built out of experience.

The really frustrating part of all this is that a god could easily just sort of appear and work his supernatural phenomena in plain sight, explicitly, and allow us to investigate it in sufficient detail to confirm that it is, in fact, the work of a god. That's not an impossible thing, and yet here you are, immediately assuming that such a thing could never happen, that any such supernatural phenomena would necessarily be mysterious and ambiguous, but somehow it still should be enough to automatically assume not just any god, but your god specifically.

[emjay]

That's the most annoying part - if god wants souls why not show himself, unambiguously? He'd get a lot more souls that way. What's so special to him about people having to have faith rather than have the facts proven?

In other words if God's purpose is to give people free will in order to choose whether they accept him or not that can still be done by showing himself or his works unambiguously - people would still have to make the choice. Making it based on faith just adds an entirely unnecessary complication, or so it seems to me.

[pocaracas]

That's the most annoying part - if god wants souls why not show himself, unambiguously? He'd get a lot more souls that way. What's so special to him about people having to have faith rather than have the facts proven?

It's special to those wanting to perpetuate the belief system.

It's called a belief because you're believing in what these people are saying/writing.

Like I keep saying, it's people all the way down.... People! It's people! ___________ is people!

[emjay]

That's the most annoying part - if god wants souls why not show himself, unambiguously? He'd get a lot more souls that way. What's so special to him about people having to have faith rather than have the facts proven?

It's special to those wanting to perpetuate the belief system.

It's called a belief because you're believing in what these people are saying/writing.

Like I keep saying, it's people all the way down.... People! It's people! ___________ is people!

Sorry I just edited my post just as you added yours. I agree with what you say - man made is the best explanation for it but I would like to hear Randy's take.

[Cato]

My wife was an adult when she lost her finger beyond the nail bed. Do you have any links for that scenario?

Under the right conditions yes

http://mentalfloss.com/article/51879/you...ne-and-all

Read the article; requires part of the nailbed.

[Randy Carson]

Well, so much for that proof. You've already inserted all the wiggle room you would need to avoid admission of God's existence.

Here's the thing, and I know this tramples on your little "aha! You won't ever believe!" moment, but I don't care, because that's the same self-reinforcing delusional horseshit that a lot of theists use to make themselves feel better about their failure to convince anyone: accepting that there may be multiple answers to a question, in the absence of conclusive evidence, does not mean that any one answer gets short shrift from us when we consider them. We get shown an event that seems supernatural, and without some form of evidence regarding its nature, it would be idiotic of us not to consider multiple possible solutions, and in the case of a supernatural seeming event, yeah, aliens would come up, because sans additional evidence they are equally likely as the god conclusion, and in fact may be more so, since we know that life existing somewhere in the universe is at least possible where we don't have that same knowledge regarding spirit beings of any stripe. You're sitting there getting all smug at us because we won't favor your god with more credibility in a scenario without conclusive evidence, simply because you like him the best. You're asserting that we're being irrational because we're rationally eliminating assumptions and awaiting the evidence before we draw a conclusion, it's ridiculous.

It's not like we're considering these hypotheticals in a vacuum either, Randy. We have a rich history of phenomena and their later-discovered causes to look back on, and doing so produces a trend of overly eager theologians and idealogues attributing every unknown phenomena to a supernatural or divine cause of some description (diseases are demons, rainbows are god signs, lightning is Zeus, etc etc) and a similar trend of those answers being discovered, only for those same supernatural causes to be dead wrong, one hundred percent of the time. No matter how new and shiny and impressive you want to portray some new unknown phenomena, it must be considered within that context, that's simply an inescapable consequence of epistemology being built out of experience.

The really frustrating part of all this is that a god could easily just sort of appear and work his supernatural phenomena in plain sight, explicitly, and allow us to investigate it in sufficient detail to confirm that it is, in fact, the work of a god. [emphasis added] That's not an impossible thing, and yet here you are, immediately assuming that such a thing could never happen, that any such supernatural phenomena would necessarily be mysterious and ambiguous, but somehow it still should be enough to automatically assume not just any god, but your god specifically.

He did. First for the Jews, and then for the earliest followers of Jesus - both before and after the ascension. And yet, there are still those who refuse to believe.

Suppose God did another miracle for everyone in this forum, and you all believed. In a hundred years, skeptics like you would deny it.

[Randy Carson]

That's the most annoying part - if god wants souls why not show himself, unambiguously? He'd get a lot more souls that way. What's so special to him about people having to have faith rather than have the facts proven?

Or why not simply create everyone in heaven and move on?

In other words if God's purpose is to give people free will in order to choose whether they accept him or not that can still be done by showing himself or his works unambiguously - people would still have to make the choice. Making it based on faith just adds an entirely unnecessary complication, or so it seems to me.

Well, this is just me kicking around ideas but I think the reason is rather simple. God is really, really big...powerful...and to sinners, terrible in His wrath.

I'm not a Genesis literalist, but there is something theologically sound, I think, to the idea that Adam and Eve HID from God after they had disobeyed.

If we saw God as He really is, we, as people who are separated from Him by sin, would not have much freedom. We would be so awestruck and fearful that we would have no choice not only to accept his existence but also to flee his presence.