Observations on prayers and miracles?

[zolace]

Ill give you some examples :

1) The world is an amazing place that we cannot fully explain.

That's all fine and well but because we are stupid and cant explain everything is hardly evidence for anything other than we are stupid.

2)  There are writings that say people spoke to god.  There are writings of (insert anything here)

Heresay of heresay.  Not evidence of anything.  Not even indirect evidence twice removed.

3)  Unexplainable (miracles) happen.

If unexplainable and seemingly impossible events NEVER happened, that might constitute evidence of god.  Statistics says the unexplainable should happen with a certain regularity.


Your turn.
  Got anything?

That is twice now that you refused to answer to a specific example.  Simple question below: yes or no?

f you, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.

[Rigon]

Ill give you some examples :

1) The world is an amazing place that we cannot fully explain.

That's all fine and well but because we are stupid and cant explain everything is hardly evidence for anything other than we are stupid.

2)  There are writings that say people spoke to god.  There are writings of (insert anything here)

Heresay of heresay.  Not evidence of anything.  Not even indirect evidence twice removed.

3)  Unexplainable (miracles) happen.

If unexplainable and seemingly impossible events NEVER happened, that might constitute evidence of god.  Statistics says the unexplainable should happen with a certain regularity.


Your turn.
  Got anything?

That is twice now that you refused to answer to a specific example.  Simple question below: yes or no?

f you, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.

Seriously .....what purpose does it serve to imagine fantastic stories that would convince us of a god?  If a caped bearded guy floated down from space eating apples and shitting fruit cocktail I may also consider that as pretty good evidence of god.   But who gives a fuck?   I'm looking for actual evidence and not stories for which there is no evidence.

If you believe that there is evidence, you are free to present it.  Clearly you have none or you would have presented it long ago.

[Rigon]

I answered the question.  A body of facts supporting the existence of a supreme being.  That is the definition of evidence.  I require some facts that say God is real.  Our existence and the amazing world we live in is not evidence, direct or indirect.

What facts would be required?  A talk with God directly, some direct evidence, we need to see Moses part the sea, we need to see something for it to constitute evidence.  You creationists ought to be experts at this.  You don't count any of the evidence of evolution as valid....you call it historical and cast doubt on it.   Well guess what, this criteria that you created should also apply to evidence of your god not???....there is no factual evidence that I am aware.

You know exactly what a body of facts are and you know what evidence is. I told you what factual evidence is (and what I would require).   I only reiterated what you already know about evidence .

Now, can you be honest and tell me what they are?   What are the evidences (body of facts) of his existence?

[zolace]

 If being evasive is an answer, sure.

Ok, lets 'assume' you did.  Humor me.  "Answer" "again" the question below: simple yes or no to below:

If you, Skwanderer, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.  

[Rigon]

If being evasive is an answer, sure.

Ok, lets 'assume' you did.  Humor me.  "Answer" "again" the question below: simple yes or no to below:

If you, Skwanderer, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.  

I already answered yes.  I would first assume something more probable such as reanimation of tissue by cloning by an advanced civilization, which is far more logical than a supreme being waved his magic wand.

But pondering fairy tales is not my forte.  How about some evidence?   Got any?

[zolace]

If being evasive is an answer, sure.

Ok, lets 'assume' you did.  Humor me.  "Answer" "again" the question below: simple yes or no to below:

If you, Skwanderer, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.  

I already answered yes.  I would first assume something more probable such as reanimation of tissue by cloning by an advanced civilization, which is far more logical than a supreme being waved his magic wand.

But pondering fairy tales is not my forte.  How about some evidence?   Got any?

Your answer is yes, that it fits your criteria that it is both unexplainable, and direct evidence of a creator.

[Rigon]

If being evasive is an answer, sure.

Ok, lets 'assume' you did.  Humor me.  "Answer" "again" the question below: simple yes or no to below:

If you, Skwanderer, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.  

I already answered yes.  I would first assume something more probable such as reanimation of tissue by cloning by an advanced civilization, which is far more logical than a supreme being waved his magic wand.

But pondering fairy tales is not my forte.  How about some evidence?   Got any?

Your answer is yes, that it fits your criteria that it is both unexplainable, and direct evidence of a creator.

LOL. Im sorry you misunderstood me.  I actually didn't say it would be direct evidence of a creator .   Read again.   I said my first inclination would be to accept cloning or reanimation of the life that I witnessed die.  God is a more far-fetched explanation even in your example.  I would also consider a winged fairy dancing on a pin and shitting elephants as possible evidence of god.  But why on earth do we consider stories without evidence such as your example and mine, as something that "could be evidence if it were true"?   There can be no greater waste of time than pondering whether god could be considered real if crazy shit without evidence were to start happening in front of us.

I have a better idea.  Lets talk about REAL things and not stories without evidence.  What real evidence do you have ?   Body of facts indicating God is real.    Can you name one?

[zolace]

If being evasive is an answer, sure.

Ok, lets 'assume' you did.  Humor me.  "Answer" "again" the question below: simple yes or no to below:

If you, Skwanderer, actually saw someone whom you had known personally, whom you knew to be dead 10 days - body was even decomposing and dismembered (arm 50 feet away for example), and while you are looking directly at the body, you see before your very eyes this person rise immediately, whole and live again, are you saying that there would be a naturalistic explanation for it, even if you did not know what that was?

Or would that fit your your criteria below? YES OR NO?

It would need to be both unexplainable by men and direct evidence of a creator.  

I already answered yes.  I would first assume something more probable such as reanimation of tissue by cloning by an advanced civilization, which is far more logical than a supreme being waved his magic wand.

But pondering fairy tales is not my forte.  How about some evidence?   Got any?

Your answer is yes, that it fits your criteria that it is both unexplainable, and direct evidence of a creator.

LOL. Im sorry you misunderstood me.  I actually didn't say it would be direct evidence of a creator .   Read again.   I said my first inclination would be to accept cloning or reanimation of the life that I witnessed die.  God is a more far-fetched explanation even in your example.  I would also consider a winged fairy dancing on a pin and shitting elephants as possible evidence of god.  But why on earth do we consider stories without evidence such as your example and mine, as something that "could be evidence if it were true"?   There can be no greater waste of time than pondering whether god could be considered real if crazy shit without evidence were to start happening in front of us.

I have a better idea.  Lets talk about REAL things and not stories without evidence.  What real evidence do you have ?   Body of facts indicating God is real.    Can you name one?

That is why I asked for confirmation.  Because, in your previous post, you first stated this:

" I already answered yes."

Followed then by the rest of your post which seemed to rather indicate the answer as no.

Now, regarding the rest of your post, was it you or someone else that noted in an older thread that there is no evidence currently of other intelligent life in the universe? 

By the way - in the example I gave, body was not just dead, but decomposing and even dismembered, so it is just reanimation going on.  But, it sounds like you would still assume an advanced civilization of which you have no evidence for, yes?

[Rigon]

As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man.  Is there something you don't understand about that answer?  It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for.  It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically.   We now grow organs and tissues all the time.   Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible.  Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining.   The most plausible answer is usually correct.   However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?

[zolace]

As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man.  Is there something you don't understand about that answer?  It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for.  It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically.   We now grow organs and tissues all the time.   Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible.  Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining.   The most plausible answer is usually correct.   However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?

Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.

And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes.  They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body.  Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.


In case that was not understood.  What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this.  Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.

[Rigon]

As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man.  Is there something you don't understand about that answer?  It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for.  It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically.   We now grow organs and tissues all the time.   Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible.  Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining.   The most plausible answer is usually correct.   However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?

Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.

And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes.  They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body.  Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.


In case that was not understood.  What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this.  Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.

Same answer. It remains more plausible that the cloning technology exists without our knowledge this very week as opposed to a supernatural man in the sky,  Sorry you don't like my answer . It is my answer and is far more logical to me.  Pondering how many fairies it would take to dance on the head of a pin for me to believe in god is a complete waste of time. Since no fairies will ever dance on the head of a head, why the fuck are we pondering it?   What you need to do and you have not....is present the evidence of god that you believe exists.

[zolace]

As I gave this some more thought, I started wondering how you could miss some of the details of the example I gave - may not be intentional.  But, is it habitual?

Anyway, here a similar question to what I asked earlier was asked of an atheist, and his answer:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/proving-god/would-you-believe

In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.”

[zolace]

As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man.  Is there something you don't understand about that answer?  It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for.  It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically.   We now grow organs and tissues all the time.   Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible.  Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining.   The most plausible answer is usually correct.   However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?

Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.

And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes.  They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body.  Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.


In case that was not understood.  What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this.  Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.

Same answer. It remains more plausible that the cloning technology exists without our knowledge this very week as opposed to a supernatural man in the sky,  Sorry you don't like my answer . It is my answer and is far more logical to me.  Pondering how many fairies it would take to dance on the head of a pin for me to believe in god is a complete waste of time. Since no fairies will ever dance on the head of a head, why the fuck are we pondering it?   What you need to do and you have not....is present the evidence of god that you believe exists.

Basically - and it was pretty much a given that this has been your position - no matter what occurs, no matter what evidence is presented, you are committed to a naturalistic explanation, regardless of how far out or irrational it is.

Your choice - but, given that, you should own that up front, rather than ask for evidence, as given your commitment to naturalism (a faith position), any such evidence would be conformed to that belief system anyway (regardless of what contortions are needed to do that).

Not unlike, really, the group of folk in Revelation chapter 6 (15-17)

[Rigon]

As I gave this some more thought, I started wondering how you could miss some of the details of the example I gave - may not be intentional.  But, is it habitual?

Anyway, here a similar question to what I asked earlier was asked of an atheist, and his answer:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/proving-god/would-you-believe

In 1985 a popular debate on this subject was held between Reformed theologian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein. Stein was asked what would “constitute adequate evidence for God's existence?” He answered, “If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.”

NO, that is NOT what I said. Please try to pay attention. 

 Lots of things could occur that would make me believe in God.  I clearly stated that factual evidence of God's existence is what I require.  I clearly defined factual evidence.  Just because none has ever been presented does not mean it cannot yet someday exist. 

[Rigon]

As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man.  Is there something you don't understand about that answer?  It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for.  It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically.   We now grow organs and tissues all the time.   Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible.  Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining.   The most plausible answer is usually correct.   However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?

Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.

And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes.  They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body.  Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.


In case that was not understood.  What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this.  Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.

Same answer. It remains more plausible that the cloning technology exists without our knowledge this very week as opposed to a supernatural man in the sky,  Sorry you don't like my answer . It is my answer and is far more logical to me.  Pondering how many fairies it would take to dance on the head of a pin for me to believe in god is a complete waste of time. Since no fairies will ever dance on the head of a head, why the fuck are we pondering it?   What you need to do and you have not....is present the evidence of god that you believe exists.

Basically - and it was pretty much a given that this has been your position - no matter what occurs, no matter what evidence is presented, you are committed to a naturalistic explanation, regardless of how far out or irrational it is.

Your choice - but, given that, you should own that up front, rather than ask for evidence, as given your commitment to naturalism (a faith position), any such evidence would be conformed to that belief system anyway (regardless of what contortions are needed to do that).

Not unlike, really, the group of folk in Revelation chapter 6 (15-17)

Now....when it comes to your example of seeing someone who was dead and rotting......then seeing them alive....even in today's world a more logical explanation than magic is tissue reanimation or cloning.   2000 years ago I would have believed it to be god.  But MY POINT was that debating how many elves are required to dance on the head of a pin in order to believe in god is absurd, since no elf ever existed and certainly none that could dance on the head of a pin.  Get it?   Arguing how many days post mortem rotting body would I accept God if I saw said body again in good condition  is a silly exercise .  Since no evidence exists that any rotting dead body has ever come to life for any reason.....discussing its merit as possible evidence of a god makes no sense...like you.

[zolace]

As yet incomplete existing technology of growing tissue from genetic material is a far more plausible explanation than a magic man.  Is there something you don't understand about that answer?  It doesn't assume an advanced civilization that there is no evidence for.  It assumes we have merely gone a bit farther technologically.   We now grow organs and tissues all the time.   Your example of a dead rotting tissue of man being turned back into a man is just an extension of existing technology that theoretically is very possible.  Not a race of advanced people (or a magical god) that I am imagining.   The most plausible answer is usually correct.   However, there is no real situation to back up your story so why are we even wasting our time thinking of plausible reasons for a story that has no evidence?

Ok, we are talking this week, if you were to see this (knowing where we are currently in technology) and see this happen within seconds, in the above example.

And the example is not talking about growing tissue - the dismembered parts are coming together before your very eyes.  They are not growing back their missing limbs - the missing limb 50 feet away is rejoined to the body.  Aad again, we are talking before you very eyes, within seconds.


In case that was not understood.  What I did not make clear was that - you are the only one around to see this.  Think of yourself as having come across this body out in the wilderness while hiking.

Same answer. It remains more plausible that the cloning technology exists without our knowledge this very week as opposed to a supernatural man in the sky,  Sorry you don't like my answer . It is my answer and is far more logical to me.  Pondering how many fairies it would take to dance on the head of a pin for me to believe in god is a complete waste of time. Since no fairies will ever dance on the head of a head, why the fuck are we pondering it?   What you need to do and you have not....is present the evidence of god that you believe exists.

Basically - and it was pretty much a given that this has been your position - no matter what occurs, no matter what evidence is presented, you are committed to a naturalistic explanation, regardless of how far out or irrational it is.

Your choice - but, given that, you should own that up front, rather than ask for evidence, as given your commitment to naturalism (a faith position), any such evidence would be conformed to that belief system anyway (regardless of what contortions are needed to do that).

Not unlike, really, the group of folk in Revelation chapter 6 (15-17)

Now....when it comes to your example of seeing someone who was dead and rotting......then seeing them alive....even in today's world a more logical explanation than magic is tissue reanimation or cloning.   2000 years ago I would have believed it to be god.  But MY POINT was that debating how many elves are required to dance on the head of a pin in order to believe in god is absurd, since no elf ever existed and certainly none that could dance on the head of a pin.  Get it?   Arguing how many days post mortem rotting body would I accept God if I saw said body again in good condition  is a silly exercise .  Since no evidence exists that any rotting dead body has ever come to life for any reason.....discussing its merit as possible evidence of a god makes no sense...like you.

I don't think you really paid attention to the example I gave - but, I only gave such since you have yet to give an example of what is one of those 'lots of things'.  Surely you have some in mind then.  Like what?

[Rigon]

let me try to explain this one last time to a man who is clearly among the world's dumbest.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean:

1) I just didn't understand you
2) I wasn't paying attention
3) I just need to read it again,
4) etc etc.


I disagree with you because I have a valid reason for me to do so.  It is FAR more logical that a dead person would be alive through some cloning or reanimation process rather than from a magic wand.  However, since there is zero evidence and zero reason to believe that a dead rotten person has ever come back to life, talking about it is absurd.

[Rigon]

Talking about fantastical examples of magic that have never happened and will never happen when discussing evidence of god is about as pointless an exercise as you can imagine....and ....you can imagine a whole slew of pointless exercises. Rather than discussing imaginary made up crazy shit that might make us think god is real....I have a novel idea. Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?

[RodeoX]

... Why not discuss actual evidence that indicates God is real?

Because there isn't any?

[Daniel91]

It's very hard to discuss about spiritual things, prayers and miracles and God because such things it's almost impossible to prove.
But, in other way, can anybody show love?
No, because love is also invisible thing.
...but we believe in love because we can feel and sometimes we can see expression of love around us.
It's the same thing with God.
You either feel God around you, his presence, feel that through prayers you can communicate with him and receive answer (miracle) but you can't prove this.
but, in fact, it doesn't matter really because faith is personal, individual thing, just between you and God, so why loose unnecessary energy and time on useless discussions and try to prove God?
It's just wasting of time.
What is important is your personal relationship with God, and this is just between each of us and God.
Back to the question yes i believe that prayers can help in special ways based on own experience.