Darwin's God

[DaneaFL]

How is it you fail to recognize that the way He does that is via PEOPLE? I mean, it is what the Bible is all about

Ok, first of all, that's just a big massive cop-out and you know it.

Second of all, that's NOT what the Bible is all about! The bible has many supernatural miracles, plagues, visions, pillars of fire, burning bushes, walking on water, raising the dead, etc.

If that stuff was going on today I definitely wouldn't be an atheist... the power of Yahweh would be so apparent that you would be crazy not to fear him.

Funny how God thought that bronze-age, superstitious people would need actual physical evidence in order to believe in his power but that our modern, sophisticated society would do fine with just an old book as proof.

Interesting isn't it?

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, first of all, that's just a big massive cop-out and you know it.

Second of all, that's NOT what the Bible is all about!

Disagreed on both points, which are both easily proven.

The bible has many supernatural miracles, plagues, visions, pillars of fire, burning bushes, walking on water, raising the dead, etc.

NONE of which happened w/o a person actively involved! Care to test this idea? Go ahead, bring up an instance and I'll show you how it was the dominion that God gave to man that was necessary. EVERY instance! Yes it is what the Bible is all about, so that we may understand what a "relationship with God" even means

If that stuff was going on today I definitely wouldn't be an atheist... the power of Yahweh would be so apparent that you would be crazy not to fear him.

Glad to see you come to your senses, Danea. That stuff goes on today far more than ever

would do fine with just an old book as proof.

Interesting isn't it?

No, it's a straw man - or just plain wrong, whichever you prefer. (Also provable, but let's stick to the above first)

 

[KCfromNC]

Naturalistic explanations are the whole purpose of science. If gods and unnatural causes do in fact exist they are still not within the scientists area of expertise or part of their field of inquiry.

And based on the lack of results from creationists and various other faith-based ways of gaining knowledge about the universe, they don't seem to be in anyone else's area of expertise either. It's interesting that these non-naturalistic entities act so much like they don't exist.

 

[KCfromNC]

Seems more like doubletalk to me. But by all means, continue to try to be clever.

Yep, we have pages and pages of words avoiding giving actual evidence for god(s). This is totally different from how one demonstrates something which really does exist - you are given evidence for it. One wonders why god(s) must be treated so differently from things which are real.

 

[DaneaFL]

NONE of which happened w/o a person actively involved! Care to test this idea? Go ahead, bring up an instance and I'll show you how it was the dominion that God gave to man that was necessary. EVERY instance! Yes it is what the Bible is all about, so that we may understand what a "relationship with God" even means

lol of course a person was involved, how else would we know about it if no one was there to witness it? That's just silly.

So you are comparing a miracle like Balaam's talking donkey with how Jesus helped Pastor Tim find his car keys this morning?

I already told you what the difference was, you just are just trying to obfuscate the point with your silly rebuttal.

One is actual physical evidence. We would have clear, observable evidence if God caused an animal to talk. We could record it and play it on television all over the world and millions would see the power of Yahweh!

If God caused the Gulf of Mexico to part down the middle we would have actual, physical evidence of a supernatural event.

By contrast, all we have today is weak anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and hear-say.

"God helped me avoid the car crash!", "God guided the hand of that surgeon!", "God cured me of cancer!", "God protected me during my trip!"

This is all weak, anecdotal evidence... and this type of evidence does not count when you are trying to figure out if something actually exists or not.

The reason it doesn't count is because you have a relatively small sample size that you are cherry-picking from a much larger number of outcomes. This means that your conclusion will NOT represent the whole and therefore is probably meaningless.

An example of this is the "God saved me from that car crash" one.
Really, you think God saved you from that particular car crash? It wasn't the seat belt, your car's brakes, your reaction time, the frame of your car, the paramedics?

What about the other 40,000 people that died in the US last year in car crashes? Did God forget about them? How many of them prayed to God before they got in their car that day?

You see, from this evidence I can't tell if prayer works or not. Until you can prove that praying to your particular God will increase my odds of not dying in a car crash then why do it?

 

[razeontherock]

One is actual physical evidence. We would have clear, observable evidence if God caused an animal to talk. We could record it and play it on television all over the world and millions would see the power of Yahweh!

Not if you weren't there with your TV camera.

If God caused the Gulf of Mexico to part down the middle we would have actual, physical evidence of a supernatural event.

Not after the water returned you wouldn't

By contrast, all we have today is weak anecdotal evidence, personal experience

IOW, evidence.

Until you can prove that praying to your particular God will increase my odds of not dying in a car crash then why do it?

I'm not sure how this got turned around to your not understanding what prayer is

 

[Non sequitur]

Right ... until science can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

"They" did.

 

[DaneaFL]

Not if you weren't there with your TV camera.

Well I have a camera on my phone and my friends say I never put it down so it's safe to assume that I would record it if I saw it.

I'm not sure how this got turned around to your not understanding what prayer is

Oh I know exactly how prayer works. No matter what the outcome, prayer works!

If you got what you prayed for, God is good and prayer works!

If you don't get what you want, God has a different plan for you, and prayer works!

If nothing happens for a very long time, well you have to have patience because God "has perfect timing" and of course, prayer still works!

Don't you see a problem with this logic? Using this system, the laws of probability take over and any desired outcome becomes inevitable if given enough time.

If you pray for a new job, you might get one in 1 day, 3 weeks, or 3 years but eventually the odds are that you will get one... and when you do, of course you are going to attribute it to your prayers!

If you pray for your sick child to get better but he ends up dying, well "God works in mysterious ways".

If you pray for rain but you get a severe drought for a year, well that's God testing your faith... and then when he finally sends rain in the form of a massive storm, well that's because you doubted him earlier!

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/rick-perrys-unanswered-prayers/

You see, prayer always works no matter how you spin it! You CAN'T PROVE PRAYER WRONG! that's why it's so bogus...

My favorite Christian cop-out is the one where they tell you that you shouldn't pray for specific things, only that "God's will be done." Well, isn't God's will going to be done no matter what??? It's absurd...