Hello Christians.

[bklatinarab92]

Do I really have to provide the definition of a scientific theory?

The thing that many people seem to be stuck on is the fact that there may have been a "time" when time as we know it did now exist. I can go into more detail about how the Big Bang may not be what most people think of also. It could have just been a transition from dimensions that we can't understand to those we can. And as for evidence, we have direct evidence for the Bing Bang. We can see it in radiation that comes from far away (13 or so billion light years away). This radiation comes from the time of the Big Bang, and so we can observe the unobservable.

whos to say thats from big bang? you speak of logic but logic can neither be seen nor touched. Lets say your right we are transdimensioned from the unknown? sounds like quite alot of faith in something unheard, unknown, and unseen. You come to a creationist saying that well come on isnt a good argument, or that this has to be cuz god, but the believer in BBt requires faith in something unseen based on observation from a BBt world view. You sit here and say we justify ourselfs with 'well god knows' but you claim that same thing with this Theory, proof is not needed in this tread Rather a good reason to believe in a truth claiming world view!

ThinkingAthiest.. lets say the big bang was true then why live according to the manmade morals That hinder you guilty? why not do what you want if we are just a spontanious being. Why Do the right thing theres no future but today... who needs logic its unseen untouchable. only chemicals! and if we are so evolved then why are we so damned!? why are we not being the top of the chain as darwin put it!
the ants and bees work more efficiently then us why are we still around? and growing in population.. but lets say the Biblical God is true and He created us in His image. then we have reason to LOVE to Create to do the right thing! to thinnk! now we have a reason why we are still around even tho we are the worse things the planet has ever faced! nothing in history has been more devolved then humans! war, genocide, rape, murder.. and we also have reason to need his mercy! to need his love! and to accept the messiah! (savior) we've all done wrong! and morals is not relative! sorry rape is wrong at any level. To say there is no God is an excuse to justify my wrong doing! look into science look at the complexness behind it! to give all that glory to an explosion! illogical to say im no more worth the dirt on the earth just plain foolish. science is the search for truth yet most of science has been only studyed with a bias. Your loved atheist! by the creator even tho you doubt his work! but he loves you and lived on earth in the flesh to see that you cant deny his love! who here can say jesus was a liar!? so when he claimed to be the truth he was pretty confident! find lies and thatll be a good reason to deny christ! but until then ill deny the assumptions and hold on to that truth! thousands of years before christ god planned that you would have his Blood as payment for your sins! check the scripture! Genesis3-eve will have a baby to destroy the work of satan. Isaiah7:14-this is the sign, the virgin will be with child! they will call him emmanuel(god with us). isaiah53-He was despised, but it was for our sin he was pierced, he will make many righteous. Psalms 22- they peirced his hands and feet. <-- all before Jesus was born! and theres alot more bro pm me if you want em!
With Christ Love, Vincent Cruz

 

[bklatinarab92]

In all actuality, I am trying to say this. Daniel's visions were visions. It clearly states that in the Bible. But when it doesn't say that it was a vision or metaphor or parable, then you need to take it literally. If you don't, then everything(weather it says so or not) was a vision or metaphor.

amen on that! and GoL ill just suggest something when debating with people who are wise in the world but do not have fear of the Lord. Proverbs26:4-5. the second one is to show him his folly. but stand strong bro and dont lose your cool or your love! when a mans heart is hard it then becomes the job of the Holy Spirit to break him down! =] pray for em blessed are those who believe without seeing! godbless you bro! much love in Christ, Vincent Cruz

 

[cRIO]

you speak of logic but logic can neither be seen nor touched.

Neither can God.

sounds like quite alot of faith in something unheard, unknown, and unseen. You come to a creationist saying that well come on isnt a good argument, or that this has to be cuz god, but the believer in BBt requires faith in something unseen based on observation from a BBt world view.

So you can assume things but I can't? At least I give some evidence; you give none.

Why Do the right thing theres no future but today

But there is a future. We are constantly loving towards it. Life can be just as rewarding even if it is "pointless."

and if we are so evolved then why are we so damned

Are we?

the ants and bees work more efficiently then us why are we still around

They fill a different niche.

but lets say the Biblical God is true and He created us in His image. then we have reason to LOVE to Create to do the right thing! to thinnk! now we have a reason why we are still around even tho we are the worse things the planet has ever faced! nothing in history has been more devolved then humans! war, genocide, rape, murder.. and we also have reason to need his mercy! to need his love! and to accept the messiah! (savior) we've all done wrong! and morals is not relative! sorry rape is wrong at any level.

Conversely, we could assume no god. And the planet has faced much, much worse that us. Devolved? I thought you didn't like evolution. And morals are relative. A couple hundred years ago, even devout Christians believed that slavery was alright.

About the rest of your post, why is the burden of proof on me? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I can find an instance where Jesus lied, but why don't you give proof where science has been seen to change facts to got theories, for example (recent science, it has changed a lot in the past few hundred years). Also, all your arguments work for pretty much any god. Why are you Christian and not, say, Muslim or Pagan?

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

To cRIO:

God is not petty, arrogant, etc... If you made a creation, then some of that creation then went rampant with STD's and other horrible things, wouldn't you want to protect your creation from it? God was protecting His people(Israelites) from the others(Gentiles). It was not until Jesus dies for all of our sins(Jews and Gentiles alike) that everyone became Gods people. Of course, a Gentile could have become a part of God's people by joining the sacrificial system and abiding by God's laws. So God was not arrogant or petty.

God MADE the STD's and other horrible things!

The point I was trying to make is that by your logic, you cannot believe in anything. As such, the only way you can actually believe in something is to switch worldviews. Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc... All allow you to believe in soemthing. But coming from your worldview, you cannot believe in it as it is automatically untrue. But then of course you aren't true either. And even if you think, your thoughts can't be true, so you can't even trust your own thoughts or believe in your unblief of belief! Its self-refuting!

That doesn't really follow... I think therefore I am. And regardless, not having proof for the accuracy of your senses does not mean you cannot believe what they tell you. They are obviously imperfect but they are the best we have. What's to be done?

To solarwave:

As I stated, they weren't real. They were visions from God which Daniel and Ezekiel did actually have. Sure, they were metaphors. But I am literal when it comes to reading the Bible. If I don't, then it becomes filled with my own bias and discord. What you are doing is putting limits on God. Just because science(which cannot show truth) says something, does that mean that it is true? This goes agianst scientific reasoning! So when somebody tries to force scientific "truth" down your throat, then that "truth" then actually refutes science and refutes itself. God created science, He is not bound to it. He is above science. So when you put His Word to science "truth" you make the entire Bible refute itself with science! Jesus wasn't real! God is false! I go to a famous qoute by Friedrich Niezche,"God is dead and we have killed him." Stop killing Him. He is alive and His word is literal. If His Word isn't literal, how do you know He isn't literal?

Poor Nietzsche quote context is poor. Read up on the people you quote before quoting them.

By making the Bible a myth, then the being that made the Bible is a myth as the way you came to know God is through a myth, then isn't it logical to assume that the very thing it speaks of is a myth?

Why is this the necessary case?

Aha! Moses and Abraham knew of God through divine inspiration. By saying that, then you know for a fact that those writings were accurate and were literal. Because if they weren't, then how do you know Abraham or Moses lived? You say we need the Bible to know Jesus, but if we say a part of the bible is untrue, hwo do you know Jesus is real?

Don't you guys have faith for a reason?

In all actuality, I am trying to say this. Daniel's visions were visions. It clearly states that in the Bible. But when it doesn't say that it was a vision or metaphor or parable, then you need to take it literally. If you don't, then everything(weather it says so or not) was a vision or metaphor.

Again, faith exists for a reason.

 

[Girder of Loins]

God MADE the STD's and other horrible things!


That doesn't really follow... I think therefore I am. And regardless, not having proof for the accuracy of your senses does not mean you cannot believe what they tell you. They are obviously imperfect but they are the best we have. What's to be done?


Poor Nietzsche quote context is poor. Read up on the people you quote before quoting them.


Why is this the necessary case?


Don't you guys have faith for a reason?


Again, faith exists for a reason.

Well, yes. You could say God made STD's. But how do STD's happen? Through immoral acts(from an absolute-truth point of view), right? While, yes, some STD's can happen from one sexual intercourse, the majority are from multiple accounts of such acts.

To say they(senses) are the best we have is circular reasoning. I say God is the best we have.

Now, you seem to be confused on what faith is. Christ says that we are not to have blind faith, but a faith that is backed up by proof. So my faith does not come from me blindly following Jesus while screaming in a horrific voice,"I LOVE JESUS!!!!!" Instead, I look at the facts(not hypothesese), compare it to the bible, or compare the bible to the way the universe is. If my Bible says monkeys are made fromn rice balls, this would be retarded, and I would no longer be a christian.

 

[WhereIsReligion]

GIRDER OF LOINS if matter can neither be made nor destroyed then god couldn't make everything either. But you are correct. It cannot.

 

[Girder of Loins]

GIRDER OF LOINS if matter can neither be made nor destroyed then god couldn't make everything either. But you are correct. It cannot.

True, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. But this law refers by any physical means(or chemical). So, we need a metaphysical(outside physical world) force to create the universe. Unless of course you believe in the Infinite Universe Theory, which has no facts to support it because it doesn't believe in them, as apparently nothing exists in that model.

 

[WhereIsReligion]

True, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. But this law refers by any physical means(or chemical). So, we need a metaphysical(outside physical world) force to create the universe. Unless of course you believe in the Infinite Universe Theory, which has no facts to support it because it doesn't believe in them, as apparently nothing exists in that model.

Then how does a being that is not in the physical world, create it?
If nothing exists, then we can't prove it doesn't exist or does exist.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Then how does a being that is not in the physical world, create it?

So you are saying an author cannot create words because the author is not word? A prgrammer cannot create a video game because he is not lines of code? You don't have to be something to make it, I need only imagine it and have the power to do it.

If nothing exists, then we can't prove it doesn't exist or does exist.

I was referring to the Infinite Universe Model, a model shown to me that was obviously wrong. Your reasoning is why I reject it. I was throwing some humor in my post, as I tend to over critique people. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[WhereIsReligion]

So you are saying an author cannot create words because the author is not word? A prgrammer cannot create a video game because he is not lines of code? You don't have to be something to make it, I need only imagine it and have the power to do it.



I was referring to the Infinite Universe Model, a model shown to me that was obviously wrong. Your reasoning is why I reject it. I was throwing some humor in my post, as I tend to over critique people. Sorry for the confusion.

But the writer and programmer are in the same "world" so to speak, the author is the same physical world. Can't he just be an impersonal god? If the physical world was always there because of god, can't we just say it always was there without a god? Like what Carl Sagan said, if we say god was always their, can't we just say the universe was always there?
Confusion can be good, makes you stop and think.

 

[Girder of Loins]

But the writer and programmer are in the same "world" so to speak, the author is the same physical world. Can't he just be an impersonal god? If the physical world was always there because of god, can't we just say it always was there without a god? Like what Carl Sagan said, if we say god was always their, can't we just say the universe was always there?
Confusion can be good, makes you stop and think.

Oh ya, I love confusion. Here is my problem:

We know our universe, by the equation E=mc^2, that the definition of the universe is space-time. We also know that matter is defined as whatever takes up space. Since space and time are related(and cannot exist without the other), we can say matter takes up time as well. We also know that infinity is a concept and does not exist in the real world(one will never each infinity in anything). Since there is no infinity, there cannot be a minus infinity in the real world(not talking about math right now, that is completely different). Since these are true, minus infinity in time cannot exist in the real world. Time and space had to have a start (as we have a "now", and can therefore not have an ininfite backwards in time and space). As such, matter had to have a start. We know matter cannot be created or destroyed through any physical or chemical means, neither can energy. Therefore, the universe had to have a start outside of the universe.

Thank you.

 

[Seriyan]

We also know that infinity is a concept and does not exist in the real world(one will never each infinity in anything).

Seems rather weak. Could you defend that justification? How do you know one can never reach infinity in anything?

As such, matter had to have a start. We know matter cannot be created or destroyed through any physical or chemical means, neither can energy. Therefore, the universe had to have a start outside of the universe.

Thank you.

Wait, what? "Stuff can't be created. Therefore it was. Only outside."

That makes no sense. How did you derive the conclusion there?

 

[Girder of Loins]

Seems rather weak. Could you defend that justification? How do you know one can never reach infinity in anything?

Inifnity is a limit. In euclidean graphs, think of it as an asymptote. A number that a graph(like y=x) will infinitely get closer to but never reach, for the closer you get, you are still the same distance away from it, infinity. What is the highest math you have taken, because Algebra 2 or Calculus should have touched on this.

Wait, what? "Stuff can't be created. Therefore it was. Only outside."

That makes no sense. How did you derive the conclusion there?

Since matter had to be created, but could not be created by any physical or chemical reaction, then something outside of the universe(where matter resides) had to create it(something unphysical and unchemical). This we call the metaphysical universe where God resides.

 

[Seriyan]

Inifnity is a limit. In euclidean graphs, think of it as an asymptote. A number that a graph(like y=x) will infinitely get closer to but never reach, for the closer you get, you are still the same distance away from it, infinity. What is the highest math you have taken, because Algebra 2 or Calculus should have touched on this.

My highest level of math? There really is no "highest" level when you start considering different branches of mathematics, but this semester I'm studying groups, rings, and fields, and I understand all basic calculus (i.e. no analysis).

EDIT: I wanted to expand on this part a little bit, since my first posting was rather rushed. Basically, there's a distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities. The difference between the two should be pretty clear from their names: potential infinites are things like series and sequences that are unbounded, i.e. they're infinite only in that they have no end. Actual infinities, on the other hand, are sets with an infinite cardinality that exist as a completed totality. For example, the set of all integers and the set of all reals are both actually infinite (the more formal term being "transfinite").

You've just showed that the infinities used in calculus are of the potential variety. This doesn't prove anything about the nonexistence of other infinities.

Since matter had to be created, but could not be created by any physical or chemical reaction, then something outside of the universe(where matter resides) had to create it(something unphysical and unchemical). This we call the metaphysical universe where God resides.

Anything that can interact with the universe is by definition part of the universe, though. How can God be outside of it?

 

[Girder of Loins]

My highest level of math? There really is no "highest" level when you start considering different branches of mathematics, but this semester I'm studying groups, rings, and fields, and I understand all basic calculus (i.e. no analysis).

EDIT: I wanted to expand on this part a little bit, since my first posting was rather rushed. Basically, there's a distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities. The difference between the two should be pretty clear from their names: potential infinites are things like series and sequences that are unbounded, i.e. they're infinite only in that they have no end. Actual infinities, on the other hand, are sets with an infinite cardinality that exist as a completed totality. For example, the set of all integers and the set of all reals are both actually infinite (the more formal term being "transfinite").

You've just showed that the infinities used in calculus are of the potential variety. This doesn't prove anything about the nonexistence of other infinities.

I'm not saying the term "infinity" does not exist. I'm saying one will never reach infinity, unless you count for an infinite amount of time, in which case you will never reach as you would die.

And I just wanted to know what math you took in high school, I know there isn't any true "highest" math level.

Anything that can interact with the universe is by definition part of the universe, though. How can God be outside of it?

Actually, the definition of the universe is space and time. Nothing else. A more formal name for "universe" is "space-time". The universe is not a giant "bubble" that matter dwells in. It is more a shadow. Things in the shadow dwell by the shadow's rules. Things outside do not. One can mess with the universe and still not be a part of it as it does not abide by its rules.

 

[Bordamere]

I'm not saying the term "infinity" does not exist. I'm saying one will never reach infinity, unless you count for an infinite amount of time, in which case you will never reach as you would die.

And I just wanted to know what math you took in high school, I know there isn't any true "highest" math level.

I think what he was trying to point out is that you are possibly equivocating "infinity" between those two definitions.

Something that I must ask is when exactly do you think the universe will end? At this rate it is going to continue expanding and the stars are going to burn out and everything is just going to be cold emptiness. But there is no end implied here. The sphere in which everything is help will just continue to go on and on. To me, that sounds like the infinity you said was impossible, even if we won't be around to experience it. So if this positive infinity is possible, what is stopping a negative infinity from being so?

(Related: The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov)

Also, I took Differential Equations in High School if that adds anything to my internet ethos in this discussion.

Actually, the definition of the universe is space and time. Nothing else. A more formal name for "universe" is "space-time". The universe is not a giant "bubble" that matter dwells in. It is more a shadow. Things in the shadow dwell by the shadow's rules. Things outside do not. One can mess with the universe and still not be a part of it as it does not abide by its rules.

Well it looks as if you two are using completely different definitions of what the universe consists of.

The issue I have with your definition is that you say that one can interact with the universe, but yet still not be a part of it. I must ask how you ever know this for a fact? You seemingly state it as if it is something obvious. Name me anything that we've found that proves this to be true or anything that we've ever found that is outside of the universe. Where is the evidence of this metaphysical universe?

Also, I don't understand the important of the bubble/shadow distinction. Please elaborate.

 

[Seriyan]

I'm not saying the term "infinity" does not exist. I'm saying one will never reach infinity, unless you count for an infinite amount of time, in which case you will never reach as you would die.

And I just wanted to know what math you took in high school, I know there isn't any true "highest" math level.

Alright. Well, actually, you could pretty easily count to infinity. Just spend a second on the first number, half a second on the second, a quarter on the third, and in general 1/(2^n) seconds on the nth number. You'll count to infinity in a finite amount of time, assuming you can count numbers infinitely fast (a mere medical impossibility).

But alright, let's go with your claim that it would take an infinite amount of time. What does the nonexistence of convergent infinite series have to do with the infinite (or not) nature of time? Do you honestly think the fact that my inability to count to infinity at a normal pace because of my mortality is a serious objection to the idea that time is infinite?

Of course not. You're not going to be able to disprove the idea of an infinite time-axis on the basis of the non-completion of infinite actions that we undertake, even if you were able to prove that such things are indeed impossible.

Actually, the definition of the universe is space and time. Nothing else. A more formal name for "universe" is "space-time". The universe is not a giant "bubble" that matter dwells in. It is more a shadow. Things in the shadow dwell by the shadow's rules. Things outside do not. One can mess with the universe and still not be a part of it as it does not abide by its rules.

Stipulation of a being "outside the universe," further stipulating that it does not play by any discernible set of rules and can in no way be disproved, is not a way to make an argument. You've justified none of these assertions.

Also, hey Bordamere. How's your semester been?

 

[Girder of Loins]

I think what he was trying to point out is that you are possibly equivocating "infinity" between those two definitions.

Something that I must ask is when exactly do you think the universe will end? At this rate it is going to continue expanding and the stars are going to burn out and everything is just going to be cold emptiness. But there is no end implied here. The sphere in which everything is help will just continue to go on and on. To me, that sounds like the infinity you said was impossible, even if we won't be around to experience it. So if this positive infinity is possible, what is stopping a negative infinity from being so?

(Related: The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov)

Also, I took Differential Equations in High School if that adds anything to my internet ethos in this discussion.

Yes, with the rate we are going yes, the universe will continue indefinitely. But that doesn't mean infinity will be reached. It is a limit. One will continue to travel towards it, but never reach it.

Well it looks as if you two are using completely different definitions of what the universe consists of.

The issue I have with your definition is that you say that one can interact with the universe, but yet still not be a part of it. I must ask how you ever know this for a fact? You seemingly state it as if it is something obvious. Name me anything that we've found that proves this to be true or anything that we've ever found that is outside of the universe. Where is the evidence of this metaphysical universe?

It is not something obvious, but I am trying to sum up my beliefs. I used the bubble/shadow example to help clarify my points. We see a lot of things interact with our universe that are not part of it. My teacher had lupis. She has been diagnosed with it since 17, I think. She got healed from it last year because we prayed. She had had a doctor's appointment a couple weeks before, and it was getting bad again. Then next week, after the prayer, all lupis was gone. Coincidence? There is no cure for it, no meds, no help. One can only suppress the effects. But all lupis was gone from her. And we prayed for a guy who had prostate cancer. It was going bad as well. He went to the doctor again(he hurt his head), and it was 80% gone. Only 20% was left. Coincidence?

 

[Bordamere]

Yes, with the rate we are going yes, the universe will continue indefinitely. But that doesn't mean infinity will be reached. It is a limit. One will continue to travel towards it, but never reach it

What exactly is separating something that is never ending from existing for infinity? In my mind nothing, and it appears to me that you are using a definition of infinity that by word is unreachable, but nothing I am saying will do anything against that definition. But the issue I have is that you are equivocating that definition to reality, where it has no place in belonging.

It is not something obvious, but I am trying to sum up my beliefs. I used the bubble/shadow example to help clarify my points. We see a lot of things interact with our universe that are not part of it. My teacher had lupis. She has been diagnosed with it since 17, I think. She got healed from it last year because we prayed. She had had a doctor's appointment a couple weeks before, and it was getting bad again. Then next week, after the prayer, all lupis was gone. Coincidence? There is no cure for it, no meds, no help. One can only suppress the effects. But all lupis was gone from her. And we prayed for a guy who had prostate cancer. It was going bad as well. He went to the doctor again(he hurt his head), and it was 80% gone. Only 20% was left. Coincidence?

The simple answer to you question is yes, those were just coincidences. First off, no scientific studies have found intercessory prayer to be true. If it truly did work as you are claiming it to work, then it would be clearly observable.

Secondly, have you ever prayed for someone to be healed and it didn't happen? I'm sure that there are many many more examples of this being the case rather than examples of your teacher with her lupis or that guy with prostate cancer. But nobody talks about those examples. It isn't very inspiring to talk about how you prayed for someone and he/she died anyways. It gets written off as "being a part of god's plan" or something like that. What is you response when this is the result instead?

Thirdly, what is so unreasonable about the body functioning in some way that we have yet to understand to fight off strong ailments such as the ones you stated? And just because we don't understand them yet, doesn't mean that it has to be immediately attributed to god. I have to say that is a much easier solution than to say that god was the cause behind it, because then there is the problem of explaining exactly how he/she went about it.

Correlation does not equal causation, but a strong correlation can be telling of an underlying trend. But I don't even think correlation can be applied here if you look at it at a macro scale. You prayed, and then something positive happened. Now does something positive always happen? Remember ever time you've prayed for something and thinking if the same type of results happened then too. Now imagine if we were to tally the majority of the prayers of the planet that were asking for similar, unlikely things (such as a cancer being cured). This is going beyond the nice stories printed in the newspaper and also taking into account all of the people who died despite prayer. People like my great uncle who died of pancreatic cancer despite his sister praying at his bedside. My great uncle who had just remarried at the age of 60 and was ready to live a good time longer. Is it a coincidence that he died with his older sister at his bedside, leaving his new wife tragically widowed despite the prayer?

Just because you prayed for someone and they got better, doesn't mean that the prayer was the reason.


Also, what I asked for was definitive evidence that something exists outside the universe and what you gave me was anecdotal evidence. I am failing to see the connection between this and proof of something existing outside the universe. Even if I were to accept that this did mean that god exists and responds to prayers by healing people, there is still no connection to show that he/she exists outside of the universe.

 

[Girder of Loins]

What exactly is separating something that is never ending from existing for infinity? In my mind nothing, and it appears to me that you are using a definition of infinity that by word is unreachable, but nothing I am saying will do anything against that definition. But the issue I have is that you are equivocating that definition to reality, where it has no place in belonging.

For some reason, I feel like I have been saying that this entire time.

The simple answer to you question is yes, those were just coincidences. First off, no scientific studies have found intercessory prayer to be true. If it truly did work as you are claiming it to work, then it would be clearly observable.

I know it was never truly evidence, but science does not deal with supernatural, it deals with natural. So, "faith healings" are classified as (currently) unnatural things. "Miracles" if you will.

Secondly, have you ever prayed for someone to be healed and it didn't happen? I'm sure that there are many many more examples of this being the case rather than examples of your teacher with her lupis or that guy with prostate cancer. But nobody talks about those examples. It isn't very inspiring to talk about how you prayed for someone and he/she died anyways. It gets written off as "being a part of god's plan" or something like that. What is you response when this is the result instead?

Yes I have. And I know people who have a 1 out of 200 success rate. But as a Christian, healing one person is better than not healing one person. "I didn't fail, I found 2000 ways not to make a light bulb."

Thirdly, what is so unreasonable about the body functioning in some way that we have yet to understand to fight off strong ailments such as the ones you stated? And just because we don't understand them yet, doesn't mean that it has to be immediately attributed to god. I have to say that is a much easier solution than to say that god was the cause behind it, because then there is the problem of explaining exactly how he/she went about it.

I don't find it unreasonable, I find it unexplainable by current sciences. So, supernatural is the obvious way to go until some experiment or insight can give me the answer scientifically. I am driven first by science and reason(thinking through stuff and its implications) hand-in-hand. So for me, if science can't prove it, something unnatural did it(supernatural).

Correlation does not equal causation, but a strong correlation can be telling of an underlying trend. But I don't even think correlation can be applied here if you look at it at a macro scale. You prayed, and then something positive happened. Now does something positive always happen? Remember ever time you've prayed for something and thinking if the same type of results happened then too. Now imagine if we were to tally the majority of the prayers of the planet that were asking for similar, unlikely things (such as a cancer being cured). This is going beyond the nice stories printed in the newspaper and also taking into account all of the people who died despite prayer. People like my great uncle who died of pancreatic cancer despite his sister praying at his bedside. My great uncle who had just remarried at the age of 60 and was ready to live a good time longer. Is it a coincidence that he died with his older sister at his bedside, leaving his new wife tragically widowed despite the prayer?

Just because you prayed for someone and they got better, doesn't mean that the prayer was the reason.

All I can say is you are right. I don't believe this is evidence in and of itself. But when taken with other evidences(for other times and other topics), it is like icing on a cake. Not good enough by itself(unless its cream cheese), but with the cake, its delicious. I hope you aren't diabetic and completely missing my analogy.

Also, what I asked for was definitive evidence that something exists outside the universe and what you gave me was anecdotal evidence. I am failing to see the connection between this and proof of something existing outside the universe. Even if I were to accept that this did mean that god exists and responds to prayers by healing people, there is still no connection to show that he/she exists outside of the universe.

As I said, this is not evidence by itself. But when other evidences are taken into account, it does seem remotely reasonable evidence.