Dear Christians: why doesn't god DO something? - Page 11

andyfox · #**101** 10-23-2005, 06:39 PM

"When your hero Lenin was embalmed . . ."

I saw John Lennon the night he and Harry Nilsson were bombed at the Troubador, I had no idea he was en-balmed.

"You think it's fun living a life of celibacy?"

As I get older, I suspect I'll be finding out. I'm close now.

I am not a scientist. When I see or hear of something that defies physical laws, I look for a rational explanation first. While the scientists might not have the details exactly correct, might they not be closer to the truth than the miracle theory?

Didn't the Egyptians use some type of enbalming technique?

andyfox · #**102** 10-23-2005, 06:42 PM

"Amongst the 70,000 who saw the Fatima miracle, thousands were curiosity seekers or masons and anti-clerics who purposely came to dispute the occurences until they saw it for themselves."

Curious that there are no photographs of the Sun dancing or some of the other things that those who stared at it claimed happened. There are photographs of the people staring at the sun, but no photographs of the peculiar evenets. And the events they described are not unusual things for people who have stared at the sun for a long time to see.

malorum · #**103** 10-23-2005, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So seriously, why doesn't God SHOW himself through something believable to a skeptic? He did it in the old days, why not now?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's probably muli-tabling, and how would you like a mistyped miracle.

NotReady · #**104** 10-23-2005, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Fine? Then why not advocate this position instead of making yourself look silly in the yes of experts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you remember what I said about chance relative to God?

NotReady · #**105** 10-23-2005, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This 'implication' is outside the syllogism

[/ QUOTE ]

It's virtually a restatement of premise 1.

[ QUOTE ]

I think this assumes a single timeline - a begining - the 'ultimate source' and usually an ending, or some ultimate destination point, though I suppose that is not really necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but the same idea can be restated to include the eternality of the universe.

[ QUOTE ]

How about this:

Quote:
1. The ultimate source of the universe is either Gods or not-Gods.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a polytheist. You are basically quibbling over the definition of God.

Peter666 · #**106** 10-23-2005, 09:29 PM

It would have been nice if they all pulled out their digitals and called their friends on cell phones, but there were no Japanese there. This is 1917 Portugal. Besides, everybody experiencing the miracle was absorbed by an invisible force that put them prostrate on the ground. This lasted for 10 minutes. And despite the puddles of water and mud from the rain pouring all day, after the 10 minute phenomena, the ground and clothes were miraculously dry.

Those photos you mention were just preliminaries to the main event. And people from 25 miles away who were not direct participants in the event saw the phenomena too.

#**107** 10-24-2005, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
what you are stating is that these things are just hoaxes being perpetrated by Catholics....for what motive?

[/ QUOTE ] The same motive that they had when they condemned Gallileo. If scientific evidence conflicts with their idealized story, then their first inclination will be to blast all scientific explanations in order to bend over backward for their own. Defending this story is one of the highest psychological imperitives for them. This story is the basis for their identity, ego, worldview, sense of self, sense of justice, comfort in the face of inevitable death, etc. So they will often go to extreme measures to defend this story. If that means burning heritics in the public square, they might do it. If that means going to war with infidels during certain times in history, they might do it. And if that means dismissing on a poker forum any and all possible explanations and arguments that maybe miracles never happen, then they just might do that too.

Here's a question again that is very difficult for you to see the logic of if you have your Christ colored glasses on. It's the same one as the original poster. If there is a Christian god who is willing to perform miracles in the form of boiling blood and incorruptible bodies, why is he so half-arsed about it? He's omnipotent yet the best he can do is some minor highly questionable miracles. I've already admitted that a better miracle would instantly do it for me. Just about everyone else has admitted this too. If your god was never willing to do miracles then it could explain why he wouldn't do so now. But according to you he is very willing. We're just too stubborn to face the truth. So why is he so lame with them? Is he in need of some celestial viagra or something? I just don't get it.

#**108** 10-24-2005, 01:02 AM

I haven't read more than the first page of this thread, nor do I plan to. It's not close-minded, I've just heard both sides of the argument x1000000.

My question is this:

If you are a believer, and God doesn't exist, what do you lose?
If you are a non-believer, and God DOES exist, now what do you lose?

Zeno · #**109** 10-24-2005, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is 1917 Portugal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, say, first century Galilee, or second century Rome, or thirteenth century Italy, or 1300 B.C.E Egypt or......., well the list goes on and on just like the subterfuge.

-Zeno

Aytumious · #**110** 10-24-2005, 01:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read more than the first page of this thread, nor do I plan to. It's not close-minded, I've just heard both sides of the argument x1000000.

My question is this:

If you are a believer, and God doesn't exist, what do you lose?
If you are a non-believer, and God DOES exist, now what do you lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, this is a new argument.