An atheists world

[bhsmte]

sure keep working on it, but it's a miracle.

you may not accept that, but your view has miracles too.

You can call it what you like.

Me, if it can be explained through accumulated knowledge, it would not qualify as a miracle.

 

[CabVet]

sure keep working on it, but it's a miracle.

you may not accept that, but your view has miracles too.

Yeah, take an antibiotic to 16th century France, or an airplane to 19th century Native Americans and they will say the same.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah, take an antibiotic to 16th century France, or an airplane to 19th century Native Americans and they will say the same.

raw materials existed, different. Try ex-nihilo, from nothing. A little different.

 

[bhsmte]

raw materials existed, different. Try ex-nihilo, from nothing. A little different.

Your making an assumption of from nothing, because it sounds good.

 

[CabVet]

raw materials existed, different. Try ex-nihilo, from nothing. A little different.

We don't know how the universe came to exist. You say it was from nothing based on your faith, so you call it a miracle. People that have never seen or heard of an airplane have no idea what it is, so they call it a miracle. No difference.

 

[createdtoworship]

We don't know how the universe came to exist. You say it was from nothing based on your faith, so you call it a miracle. People that have never seen or heard of an airplane have no idea what it is, so they call it a miracle. No difference.

again something is in existence, it's just unidentified. But when you say the big bang happened, thats from nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Lethe]

But when you say the big bang happened, thats from nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I snicker when I say this because it's mildly paradoxical, nothing doesn't exist.

There's no such thing.

If you take a chamber and pump out all the air, spontaneous pair production will insure that there isn't nothing in there.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your making an assumption of from nothing, because it sounds good.

what was it then? don't tell me infinatesimely small matter? Ever seen this in a lab experiment, dropped it in a testube? Ever took a picture? How do we know this is the case?

 

[Subduction Zone]

again something is in existence, it's just unidentified. But when you say the big bang happened, thats from nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Not necessarily.

I know I have posted a video that tried to explain the Big Bang. Did you see it?

Also if you had watched "A universe from nothing" you would have know that "nothing" is impossible in our universe.

 

[createdtoworship]

I snicker when I say this because it's mildly paradoxical, nothing doesn't exist.

There's no such thing.

If you take a chamber and pump out all the air, spontaneous pair production will insure that there isn't nothing in there.

ok what caused the big bang then?

 

[CabVet]

ok what caused the big bang then?

We don't know. But it's not because we don't know that we will make something up to explain it or call it a miracle.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't do that. I said the big bang was an explosion, then you correcting me saying it was not an explosion. What was it then?

answer me this?

This has already been answered.

so you don't believe the Big Bang exploded? Then what did it do? Expand?

Again from what? It expanded from absolutely nothing. If there was in fact something, where or what caused that to exist?

The minutephysics video I posted a link to addresses this question. Evidently you didn't watch it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All I am saying is if we produce someone that has been healed of aids then science is going to say the first test had a false reading. That is the excuse they use to try to worm their way out of having to explain how the people got healed. This is a lot more common in Africa but there are people here in this country that are healed. They usually do not talk about it a lot though.

So according to you the options are: (a) the initial test yielded a false positive result, or (b) the person was miraculously healed between the first test and the second test. Why do you think (b) is the more probable of the two? Many diagnostic tests have high sensitivity, but low specificity, for the condition of interest. They aren't perfect. A confirmed diagnosis usually depends on more than just a single test result. A presumptive diagnosis is usually made so that treatment can begin.

There are also other possibilities to consider. An individual can bear the histological hallmarks of a disease, without necessarily showing the symptoms. This is clearly demonstrated in Alzheimer's disease: some individuals are able to remain cognitively intact despite extensive pathology, whereas for others, even mild pathology is cognitively devastating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All I am saying is if we produce someone that has been healed of aids then science is going to say the first test had a false reading. That is the excuse they use to try to worm their way out of having to explain how the people got healed. This is a lot more common in Africa but there are people here in this country that are healed. They usually do not talk about it a lot though.

No, the fact is that there are false positives with AIDS tests. Even with modern testing. For example, from the Wiki article on diagnosing HIV/AIDS:

"The specificity rate given here for the inexpensive enzyme immunoassay screening tests indicates that, in 1,000 HIV test results of healthy individuals, about 15 of these results will be a false positive. Confirming the test result (i.e., by repeating the test, if this option is available) could reduce the ultimate likelihood of a false positive to about 1 result in 250,000 tests given. The sensitivity rating, likewise, indicates that, in 1,000 test results of HIV infected people, 3 will actually be a false negative result (the McGovern-Tirgari anomaly). However, based upon the HIV prevalence rates at most testing centers within the United States, the negative predictive value of these tests is extremely high, meaning that a negative test result will be correct more than 9,997 times in 10,000 (99.97% of the time). The very high negative predictive value of these tests is why the CDC recommends that a negative test result be considered conclusive evidence that an individual does not have HIV."

So even if they apply the test once 15 out of 1000 healthy people will register a positive. Now they would automatically retest and that lowers the possibility of error to one out of 250,000. A practical surety.

When were your tests done? If it was in the past and only a single test was done the odds of a false positive are fairly high. In the U.S. the odds of having AIDS is roughly 1 out of 10,000. That means with a group of 10,000 people you would average 1 with AIDS and 150 false positives if you test only one time.

So where and when you found someone with AIDS is extremely important. If you tested only once you cannot say that person had AIDS. It is not even likely that that person has AIDS. He only has a much higher likelyhood than the average person.

 

[RedRover]

So according to you the options are: (a) the initial test yielded a false positive result, or (b) the person was miraculously healed between the first test and the second test. Why do you think (b) is the more probable of the two?

Because the people attended a miracle healing service and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If you have never had that experience then it maybe difficult for you to relate to people who have been born again and are now a new creation in Christ. As the Bible says old things pass away and all things become new.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 cor 5 17

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the people attended a miracle healing service and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If you have never had that experience then it maybe difficult for you to relate to people who have been born again and are now a new creation in Christ. As the Bible says old things pass away and all things become new.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 2 cor 5 17

Coincidence is not confirmation. You did not say how long ago this was. In the past even if you got a positive test the odds were that you did not have AIDS. You had to be retested before you could be sure at all.

If God can cure AIDS here is a simple question for you, why does he hate amputees so much?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is even a good chance that the person was not telling the truth about having AIDS in the first place. People have been known to go to those sorts of meeting with disease that they did not really have.

 

[RedRover]

So even if they apply the test once 15 out of 1000 healthy people will register a positive.

Only a lot of these people have full blown aids and are sick. People that know them know that they have been healed and they received their miracle from God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only a lot of these people have full blown aids and are sick. People that know them know that they have been healed and they received their miracle from God.

If they had AIDS then they still have AIDS. If you cannot substantiate your claims with some sort of evidence all it takes to debunk it is the fact that there are no cases of people being cured from AIDS without treatment. There have been a few cases where people have undergone treatment and the AIDS virus now seems to be under control without treatment:

HIV & AIDS Information :: French researchers report 14 patients in 'remission' after controlling HIV for over 4 years off treatment

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, personal testimony is all but worthless. People lie. They do it all of the time.


That is why you need tests, that is plural tests both before and after.