1. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
Its both. (2)
(2) applies to those who do not believe
(1) applies to those who believe. The death of Christ does not save those who have no faith and do not trust in him. Simple.
As Jesus said "unless you repent, you will perish".
(Noah and his family are in this category in that instance).

Does that clear things up a little?

I am not saying its not your problem. What I am saying, is from a position where certain keys to understanding which you emphatically reject (death/resurrection), there is no answer that would deem satisfactory. As in the only way to have a proper understanding of why Jesus hasn't returned, is to understand why he came in the first place.

Let us ground it there first, and let me address why. The reason why is linked actually to the first thing. The reason why Jesus hasn't returned, is one because God has already set a date in the future when he will return. where the Gospel message will have finally reached its goal of being spread to the ends of the earth.

As it says "he is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance".
(All here, means all peoples, languages, tribes and nations, rather than individuals persay)
Let me propose a waaay better solution to mr.jesus

Instead of waiting around for the "message of the gospels to spread ", hurry up and help us out now.

So many people out there are suffering in such terrible ways, so why not come ASAP?

If I were god, I wouldn't give a damn about any gospel any message or any sin. I would help people in need, right now. Period.

Im not a 5 year old child who holds grudges against those who don't live up to my expectation. If I can easily help someone who is suffering , I will, and I will do it now .

But as for your first point, that makes sense to me now

So, aside to Noah, nobody else was righteous ? Everyone else in the world lost faith in God?

Another question - I know you don't like AIG, but the maths checks out. The Bible is horribly wrong about the age of the Earth ... Like 750,000 times off

2. ## Re: Does God exist?

checkmate athiests

3. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by sinophile

checkmate athiests
Lmfao I love these

4. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
that is very presumptuous. I personally think such posts on the internet are misleading and just grabbing for attention.
thats what i think, i wasnt trying to get attention

5. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by sinophile
thats what i think, i wasnt trying to get attention
I wasn't referring to your actual post. I was referring to the type of posts that say:
"Amen/like for this..."

6. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by SammyT123
Let me propose a waaay better solution to mr.jesus

Instead of waiting around for the "message of the gospels to spread ", hurry up and help us out now.

So many people out there are suffering in such terrible ways, so why not come ASAP?
If I were god, I wouldn't give a damn about any gospel any message or any sin. I would help people in need, right now. Period.
In Romans, it is written that
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved."

Im not a 5 year old child who holds grudges against those who don't live up to my expectation. If I can easily help someone who is suffering , I will, and I will do it now .
Typical comparison. God is not a 5 year old child. It is because of two things, that you probably emphatically hold to that lead to your false strawman of God:
- God is unjust in giving out his punishments.
- We are not that bad.

Suffering now acts as a warning of what is to come for those who don't trust & obey. What do you think would happen if God would come and clean up the mess, if he is truely to be just?

Jesus himself says “See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains. But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations"

But as for your first point, that makes sense to me now
So, aside to Noah, nobody else was righteous ? Everyone else in the world lost faith in God?
I would say "lost faith", I would say they didn't have faith.
Another question - I know you don't like AIG, but the maths checks out. The Bible is horribly wrong about the age of the Earth ... Like 750,000 times off
As I mentioned earlier, AIG takes the reading that is convenient to them. I would disagree with them.
I think the only difficulty that I have come across, is actually more to do with the origin/age of humanity, rather than the age of the Earth or the universe.

7. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by sinophile

checkmate athiests
aah, try again. pretty sure Jesus wasn't white, contra all the icons and paintings.

8. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by SammyT123
There is no concrete way to say either god exists or he doesn't

Therefore we must see which model best fits the data

Which is more plausible to you?

A: miracle happens once and laws of physics are broken to bring a man back to life
B: laws of physics hold true , just like they have the billions and billions of other times
You seem to be making a version of an argument that some Christians have made (although for different ends).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen

"Improbability" does not imply "Impossibility."

Or (A) and (B) are not necessarily mutually exclusive, (A) and (B)(*) can both concurrently hold.
[(*) although it depends on what your definition of laws of physics are]
That is the existence of (A) being true, does not affect (B).

But it is convenient, isn't it, to avoid "null/negation events". In this case, the "null/negation event" is actually the miracle, because by definition a miracle is
"an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws..."

9. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
You seem to be making a version of an argument that some Christians have made (although for different ends).
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen

"Improbability" does not imply "Impossibility."

Or (A) and (B) are not necessarily mutually exclusive, (A) and (B)(*) can both concurrently hold.
[(*) although it depends on what your definition of laws of physics are]
That is the existence of (A) being true, does not affect (B).

But it is convenient, isn't it, to avoid "null/negation events". In this case, the "null/negation event" is actually the miracle, because by definition a miracle is
"an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws..."
Another strawman . Let me try make it simple for you

I am not arguing A or B are true/false. We cannot prove either
I'm saying that one hypothesis fits the data a lot better than the other , basic statistics

Let's say hypothetically there was a magic fruit. 0.0000002% of all accounts show that it gives you superpowers , and the rest say it kills you

Now there's no real way to prove what's going to happen until you eat it, but your hypothesis should favour not eating it as this fits the data better

Side note
Imagine if we could democratically elect a god. I'm hoping people would choose me, because I will actually help those in need (as would anyone else with a bit of common sense)

Current god is not doing much for those in poverty lol

Another line of reasoning

P1: Animals are sentient beings
P2: it is cruel to needlessly harm a sentient beings
P3: Jesus permits such cruelty, even when he is able to stop it (see quote about pigs)
C1: Jesus is cruel

And if you don't think animals are sentient, have a read / google search

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...pretending?amp

https://www.livescience.com/39481-ti...sentience.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

11. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by SammyT123
Another strawman . Let me try make it simple for you

I am not arguing A or B are true/false. We cannot prove either
I'm saying that one hypothesis fits the data a lot better than the other , basic statistics

Let's say hypothetically there was a magic fruit. 0.0000002% of all accounts show that it gives you superpowers , and the rest say it kills you

Now there's no real way to prove what's going to happen until you eat it, but your hypothesis should favour not eating it as this fits the data better

Side note
Imagine if we could democratically elect a god. I'm hoping people would choose me, because I will actually help those in need (as would anyone else with a bit of common sense)

Current god is not doing much for those in poverty lol

Another line of reasoning

P1: Animals are sentient beings
P2: it is cruel to needlessly harm a sentient beings
P3: Jesus permits such cruelty, even when he is able to stop it (see quote about pigs)
C1: Jesus is cruel

And if you don't think animals are sentient, have a read / google search

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...pretending?amp

https://www.livescience.com/39481-ti...sentience.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
1. You have a round-the-bush way of saying exactly what I think you are trying to say. You are implying not arguing.

Unfortunately the way you construct the hypothesis is flawed. You are dealing with two different categories of events:
- one is meta-physical
- one are natural events.

The scientific method by its very design only is able to investigate the latter.
So your hypothesis is flawed, it cannot include/consider miracles as part of it.

However the fundamental conclusion is also flawed.

P1: Scientific method is the only way we study/prove things (postulate)
P2: Most things happen according to laws of nature. (undisputed fact)
C1: Miracles probably didn't happen or we shouldn't believe in them (to account for the unclarity on what you are actually trying to acheive)

P1 is presumptious, it presumes that all there is, is the laws of nature, which is the result; or uses the implausibility fallacy.

For instance, your example isn't great because it introduces factors, such as risk of death/consequence, which in the miracles/laws of nature logic of reasoning doesn't have.
It is inherently biased/skewed towards a particular outcome.

Lets use a more neutral example:
Lets suppose for some $\varepsilon >0$ cases, in a total population of $N$ where $N$ is massive, there exists a disease with two symptoms.
For 99.999999% of people, they have the symptom of X
For the remaining 0.000001% of people, they have the symptom of Y.

Now of course your hypothesis for a finite small sample of N, would favour symptom X.
But now let me demonstrate the inherit problem. What actually is your sample size? If N is sufficiently small, then yes you are going to have problems.

But what if N tends to infinity? When we consider the number of events since the inception of the universe, it would some really really large unimaginable number. And there lies the problem. The methology appears to be problematic.

We have two categories:
A - meta physical
B - physical
C - subset of physical $C \subset B$

====
(On your side note: actually you wouldn't. If you had the undiluted power to, you would use it for yourself. Why do you think the issue of poverty exists in the first place?
Because of humanity. But tangent of course.

Also God is doing more, in the sense that many have hope of eternal life to come, that is certain and sure; and a sense of happiness/purpose that giving them money cannot achieve.
)

=====
lets suppose P1 is well-defined.

So sentient: able to perceive or feel things.

P2 is the faulty premise.

How do you prove that something is needless? Ignorance about purpose or assertion that there is a purpose, is a poor justification, to claim "needless".
How do you define cruel?

Both of these are unscientific questions, these are subjective opinions. If you don't believe that God exists, obviously you will think that everything he does, that isn't what you would/wouldn't do is needless.

P3: Just to throw a question, in your ethics/line of reasoning.
Are pigs > humans?

The context of that quote, ironically Jesus has just freed a man from being enslaved/possessed by demonic spirits.
But widenning the context to see the underlying issue

Q: Why does God allow evil/suffering if he is able to stop it?

C2: If he doesn't stop it and he allows it, he must be cruel.
I summarise P3 & C1 with C2, and I reject C2. (that is the link between P3 to C1 needs further justification)

And this is where I think your side note, actually sheds some light.
We approach God, with a list of demands and expectations:

Q Line of reasoning
We expect God to work in X manner (miracles/dreams, speak to us directly, heal sick people, fix poverty - all in the one mega-category) for instance.
Or if I were God (I would do this, this and this).

And so when he doesn't operate in that way, we conclude he doesn't exist, or that he must be a jerk or not a very powerful God.

1. Why is God under any obligation to do anything extraordinary for his humans/animals?

2. What do you think the purpose of the miracles (I would include both sides of the 'demon-possessed man & the pigs story) is to demonstrate?
Why do you think he allowed it?

lets give the classic example
https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

"For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible."

So I have highlighted in red, what I think is the fundamental problem with the line of reasoning. Several issues:
1. Does God answer every prayer with yes? No, but they assume yes.
2. Does God work in miracles? Most of the time he actually doesn't; when there is a miracle it serves a particular purpose.

# (1) problematic rationalisation used by the theist
God's plan is not some much in the scope of healing. The emphasis in the Scriptures is on the preaching of the good news of the kingdom.

(1A): God's plan was ultimately to send Jesus, to die on a cross and rise again; so that we could actually be friends with God.
There is a sense which this plan was both accomplished then and there, but also is still being accomplished.

Miracles in the Bible weren't just random acts of kindness by God, or party-tricks (God just showing off), they were signs (even the demon-possessed man & pigs instance) were signs, to show, there were designed to point forward to the character of God, but especially the ones in the New Testament, to the character of Christ.
Also the miracles were very specific, related and linked to prophecies about, in this pattern: when X happens, then situation Y has begun.

aside: If God were to do as you wished, heal all people and heal poverty, then the end of the world indeed would come; and the time for all to give an account is then or as Christians call it "J-day or judgement day".

#(2) The rationalization quoted is over-simplied, see (1A)

#(3)-(5) I reject these rationalization as well, although for different reasons. I think they are inheritant misleading.

#(6) I would agree with the logic behind the original rationalization. I would question again, why such demands on God to work instantly by the respondant.

#(7) Rationalization is faulty

#(8) It is not just amputees. In fact in most of cases, a lot of particular diseases. To make that argument of the respondant work, you have to reject rationalization #(6) and (1A).
Jesus never promises healing in this life.

#(9) Scripture out of context.

# (10) Wouldn't use that one.

# (11) I get why the respondant feels that way. But if there really is no way of knowing the answer to that question, how can the respondant claim God is imaginary?

Yes, the Bible doesn't mention amputees, or cancer or a lot of diseases. Again what is the purpose of a healing in the Bible or a miraculous sign? (hint 'sign')

Side Note 1:
All will be given new bodies at the resurrection, and only Godly character will carry on.

Side note 2:
When Jesus teaches about prayer, the gifts he focuses on, aren't material gifts (contra prosperity preaching), miracles; but actually the Holy Spirit.
Our Father in Heaven ==> A statement of faith to be adopted into God's family, only possible by the Spirit.
hallowed be your name ==> let God's name be honoured. Only God's name be honoured by his Spirit.
your will be done ==> Christ to suffer and die, only possible by God.
on earth as in heaven ==> Already done in heaven
give us today our daily bread ==> Provide for our needs, but in Luke's account, seems to refer more closely to the Holy Spirit
forgive us our sins...

Side note 3:
When James teaches about prayer. Praying for the sick person, that would be saved and raised up (at the last day).

12. ## Re: Does God exist?

typically changes train of though halfway through
C = category of things we can study in science. which is only a small subset of the total n in B, where n is an event.
Science cannot study 'n' that exist outside of B.

where B is the set of all events explainable by laws of nature.

Regardless of how you look at it, the real question I am concerned with in responding, is whether ~B exists. Because if it does, why should its size matter?

13. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
1. You have a round-the-bush way of saying exactly what I think you are trying to say. You are implying not arguing.

Unfortunately the way you construct the hypothesis is flawed. You are dealing with two different categories of events:
- one is meta-physical
- one are natural events.

The scientific method by its very design only is able to investigate the latter.
So your hypothesis is flawed, it cannot include/consider miracles as part of it.
tldr; don't apply laws of physics to metaphysics

Originally Posted by dan964
However the fundamental conclusion is also flawed.
P1: Scientific method is the only way we study/prove things (postulate)
P2: Most things happen according to laws of nature. (undisputed fact)
C1: Miracles probably didn't happen or we shouldn't believe in them (to account for the unclarity on what you are actually trying to acheive)

P1 is presumptious, it presumes that all there is, is the laws of nature, which is the result; or uses the implausibility fallacy
No debate here
Imho, empirical evidence or what you call "the scientific method" is an excellent way to look at hypothesis
If I am being presumptious, give me a more applicable method to test hypothesis in the 'metaphysical' scope

Originally Posted by dan964
For instance, your example isn't great because it introduces factors, such as risk of death/consequence, which in the miracles/laws of nature logic of reasoning doesn't have.
My example is fine. Probability is well accounted for in nature and logic.
Fruit X causes 99.999999999999% of people to die
Fruit X causes 0.00000000001% of people to gain superpowers
My advice: How about we forget the 0.0000001% of accounts and just not eat the fruit

Originally Posted by dan964

Lets use a more neutral example:
Lets suppose for some $\varepsilon >0$ cases, in a total population of $N$ where $N$ is massive, there exists a disease with two symptoms.
For 99.999999% of people, they have the symptom of X
For the remaining 0.000001% of people, they have the symptom of Y.
Now of course your hypothesis for a finite small sample of N, would favour symptom X.
But now let me demonstrate the inherit problem. What actually is your sample size? If N is sufficiently small, then yes you are going to have problems.
But what if N tends to infinity? When we consider the number of events since the inception of the universe, it would some really really large unimaginable number. And there lies the problem. The methology appears to be problematic.
Nice try
http://lesswrong.com/lw/p3x/argument_from_infinity/

Why are you even using infinity? The number is in the trillions, but that is not very unimaginable at all?
Secondly, let me assume you are correct. Somehow we can use your terrible approxmiation that the number of observable deaths approaches infinity , and this ofc will cause problems with the sample size.

And that is where you stop
SammyTs hypothesis become problematic if we use infinity is the best you can do
You cannot then say "therefore a ressurection may have occured because things behave oddly when the sample size approches infinity

Originally Posted by dan964
We have two categories:
A - meta physical
B - physical
C - subset of physical $C \subset B$
Sigh

I am going to create my own laws, calling it "Bullphysical"
You cannot apply science to it
In fact, nothing exists in this world that is applicable
My statement: In my bullphysical sphere, Sam is actually a god who can resurrect at will

If you are going to say, dont apply empircal evidence/science to this so called metaphysical scope, then there is no debate. We simply agree to disagree

Originally Posted by dan964
====
(On your side note: actually you wouldn't. If you had the undiluted power to, you would use it for yourself. Why do you think the issue of poverty exists in the first place?
Because of humanity. But tangent of course.
This has got to be the worst reasoning I have ever encountered in this entire thread

Sam : If I had the power to , I would end poverty
Dan: No you wouldn't
Sam: ????
Dan: Poverty exists because of humanity! You would just use the powers on yourself!

Sorry mate. I know if I had unlimited power I would help people. So would many, many others.
Many people donate to charity and do plenty of other good things, and there are plenty of very, very powerful people who do great things for the world.

I think I know myself better than you do

Originally Posted by dan964
P2 is the faulty premise.
How do you prove that something is needless? Ignorance about purpose or assertion that there is a purpose, is a poor justification, to claim "needless".
Needless: (of something undesirable) not necessary because avoidable.
took 0.2 seconds to googl

Originally Posted by dan964
How do you define cruel?
Took another few seconds of googling
Cruel = Behaviour which causes physical or mental harm to another, whether intentionally or not.
stop trying to play word games

Originally Posted by dan964
Both of these are unscientific questions, these are subjective opinions. If you don't believe that God exists, obviously you will think that everything he does, that isn't what you would/wouldn't do is needless.
Most people would agree that sending a dog to its death because it is ‘unclean’ (not actually dirty, it’s just that someone has a grudge on it) is cruel

I however, am going to assume you are a robot. Let us use the definitions of the words mentioned above 
Originally Posted by dan964
P3: Just to throw a question, in your ethics/line of reasoning.
Are pigs > humans?
Nice try again
This is not what I am saying
I hate to resort to such crude examples, but you just won’t get it

Lets assume that humans > dogs
Does this mean I can go ahead and slaughter dogs because I have a grudge against them? (I.e Jews thinking pigs are unclean)

Originally Posted by dan964
But widening the context to see the underlying issue
Q: Why does God allow evil/suffering if he is able to stop it?
C2: If he doesn't stop it and he allows it, he must be cruel.
Exactly 

Originally Posted by dan964
I summaryse P3 & C1 with C2, and I reject C2. (that is the link between P3 to C1 needs further justification)
And this is where I think your side note, actually sheds some light.
We approach God, with a list of demands and expectations:
No. We ASSUME that god is kind and will help us. Probably a false assumption because he does not help us. Think about it like this. There are millions of devoted, faithful Christians whose prayers will not be answered by god today.

Also, I think it is perfectly fine to request a bit of food when you are starving to death from an all-powerful all loving god who created a world with the suffering you feel in the first place
Originally Posted by dan964
Q Line of reasoning
We expect God to work in X manner (miracles/dreams, speak to us directly, heal sick people, fix poverty - all in the one mega-category) for instance.
Or if I were God (I would do this, this and this).
And so when he doesn't operate in that way, we conclude he doesn't exist, or that he must be a jerk or not a very powerful God.
Correct

Originally Posted by dan964
1. Why is God under any obligation to do anything extraordinary for his humans/animals?
He is not. But if He can stop being a dick and end the brutal suffering felt by some , that would be nice
Not too much to ask for, considering he is all powerful and can do this with 0 effort!

Originally Posted by dan964
2. What do you think the purpose of the miracles (I would include both sides of the 'demon-possessed man & the pigs story) is to demonstrate?
Why do you think he allowed it?
You know what would be nice?
If he stopped performing such useless miracles and started helping the billions in need
After all, that’s what an all loving and caring person would do, right?
Originally Posted by dan964
"For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated.”
Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight.
Lmao what
Invite me over to one of these circles, I wanna grab some video footage of magically restoring legs
Originally Posted by dan964
If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.
This is exactly my point. He can help children suffering right now, but for some sick reason he wants to let them suffer until they form a massive prayer circle or do some other fancy stuff. (And may still not help them, because as you said, god does not answer every prayer)

I mean, I am not the nicest person out there but if I were a god I really would not expect this shit. Just heal the poor guy :/
It’s also odd that conveniently no such miracles have occurred on camera , It would be pretty cool seeing a guy magically regrow his legs in the middle of a prayer circle

Originally Posted by dan964
What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible."
Really? Ima ask my mate, who is a devout Christian and a very very nice person to go and pray for a lambo asap
I’ll let you know when he gets it
Originally Posted by dan964
So I have highlighted in red, what I think is the fundamental problem with the line of reasoning. Several issues:
1. Does God answer every prayer with yes? No, but they assume yes.
2. Does God work in miracles? Most of the time he actually doesn't; when there is a miracle it serves a particular purpose.
How do you always miss the point completely , it amazes me
1. Does god answer the prayers of the millions of starving, faithful people in the world?
Nup
Also, I would assume that god could just magically help everyone in poverty with a click of the fingers, but instead he will let all of them suffer for some sick reason

2. Yet Christians seem to focus on the miracles A LOT, which is why it is being discussed. Heck, most of their beliefs stem from the miracle of resurrection.

Originally Posted by dan964
Not sure what you are referring to from this point, and almost all of these are just “I reject it”
“Rationalization is faulty” , “out of context”

Some more food for thought
Why are some christians so opposed to homosexuality? Are you? (Now, this is true for a lot of religions, but I picked christianity just because the thread is focused that way)

Also, I can use all the proof you have stated, but replace Jesus with Buddha
Can you give me an example which can only be applied for the chrisitan god?

14. ## Re: Does God exist?

1. Science doesn't study the miraculous. It never has.

2. I don't dispute the scientific method as being a good way of looking at evidence. What I am suggesting is the scope of the scientific method is limited.
You are making a hypothesis to try to claim the miracles do not occur or that we shouldn't believe them because science. (Again isn't clear what exactly your hypothesis is acheiving but I disgress). You yourself, said you aren't trying to make a truth claim, so lets continue.

let me phrase your example the other way to highlight the problem:
99.999998% of cases, eating said fruit will NOT kill you.
0.000002% of cases, eating said fruit will kill you.
Still would you eat it? It is still possible to die from eating the fruit.

Does that make the issue I have with your example clearer?

Either example (positive/negative variant) displays an inherit bias in its composition, but together reveals that it is a matter of confidence (ergo faith) that usually informs decisions. We put faith in the fact that. This reveals that you are presuming that the holding the two events to be true are contradictory, which was my original observation.

In a large enough sample size (N doesn't have to be infinite), you are correct there are going to be problems, and that is my point.
Which is why you need to answer? What sample size is sufficient large for you to base the decision of whether to eat the fruit in your example or not? Your basis for choice, seems to be dependence on probability and confidence. Do you consider only a small handful of cases?

In this kind of case study/scenario, that is miracles and non-miracles, because the norm is expected, we expect the norm, Christians expect the norm, miracles are exceptions not the pattern, even with the way that God works. No one is disputing that, the question is whether abberations to the norm are possible, that is a claim that is only possible to even consider, if we remove the assumption that science is the only means to explain and it explains everything.

But it is not a case of in a larger sample, a miracle would be considered, but what are making your judgements on?

To assert the 0.000002% is there requires accounts of such. Obviously these accounts need to be tested, as it is eyewitness testimony.
There would need to be some way to verify that.

But here is the problem, we have to use tools, that cover that. If we use the standard version of the scientific method, with the assumption, all things can be explained by laws of nature, then of course we are going to look for a natural explanation for the supposed occurence or dismiss the account as bogus.

Lets give a practical example, lets say I have a particular set of cards, some large (but not infinite number)

You are going to ignore single bits of evidence and so clearly I am asking how many events do you need to consider. And then what matters, (and you will probs disagree), is the existence rather than the o

But to what ends? You appear to presume that those accept miracles, reject the natural laws of physics. No we don't (AIG might), we hold that those are the normal patterns, that is by definition a miracle is something outside of the pattern. No one is disputing laws of physics here, but naturalism (everything that happens can be attributed solely to natural causes only).
You are going to ignore single bits of evidence and so clearly I am asking how many events do you need to consider. And then what matters, (and you will probs disagree), is the existence rather than the occurance.

And that is the contention.

...

15. ## Re: Does God exist?

This has got to be the worst reasoning I have ever encountered in this entire thread

Sam : If I had the power to , I would end poverty
Dan: No you wouldn't
Sam: ????
Dan: Poverty exists because of humanity! You would just use the powers on yourself!

Sorry mate. I know if I had unlimited power I would help people. So would many, many others.
Many people donate to charity and do plenty of other good things, and there are plenty of very, very powerful people who do great things for the world.

I think I know myself better than you do
Slight misrepresentation. Its a very hypothetical for any human to be entrusted with ultimate power.

In the same way we can see examples of world leaders, we can also examples of world leaders committing great evils.

Is there not a fundamental problem often with power & corruption? You may well know yourself, but you are not a position of ultimate power.

...

16. ## Re: Does God exist?

Took another few seconds of googling
Cruel = Behaviour which causes physical or mental harm to another, whether intentionally or not.
stop trying to play word games
No need to be nasty. Simply checking where you are coming from. Often a good thing to do.
I can google. But understand this, people of different worldviews mean different things by different worlds, and I thought it was sensible to double check

17. ## Re: Does God exist?

D:
Q Line of reasoning
We expect God to work in X manner (miracles/dreams, speak to us directly, heal sick people, fix poverty - all in the one mega-category) for instance.
Or if I were God (I would do this, this and this).
And so when he doesn't operate in that way, we conclude he doesn't exist, or that he must be a jerk or not a very powerful God.
S:
Correct
And so the problem is in the expectations. Your very definition of whether God is a jerk or not, is depending on whether he meets your expectations iin your timing.
So God is subservient to the whims of a human?

Also, I think it is perfectly fine to request a bit of food when you are starving to death from an all-powerful all loving god who created a world with the suffering you feel in the first place
And who do you think ultimately allows for the crops to grow and rain over the land?
Do you really think God is to blame for the suffering in the world, yet you do not even believe in God? That does not make sense.

Lmao what
Invite me over to one of these circles, I wanna grab some video footage of magically restoring legs

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

This is exactly my point. He can help children suffering right now, but for some sick reason he wants to let them suffer until they form a massive prayer circle or do some other fancy stuff. (And may still not help them, because as you said, god does not answer every prayer)

I mean, I am not the nicest person out there but if I were a god I really would not expect this shit. Just heal the poor guy :/
It’s also odd that conveniently no such miracles have occurred on camera , It would be pretty cool seeing a guy magically regrow his legs in the middle of a prayer circle

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible."

Really? Ima ask my mate, who is a devout Christian and a very very nice person to go and pray for a lambo asap
I’ll let you know when he gets it
Umm, you attacked the strawman. I quoted from an atheistic website who presents a very inaccurate broad-brush of Christians.

I then also rejected most of the counter-arguments attributed by said site to Christians that is what I was referring to. I wasn't solely addressing you.

1. Does god answer the prayers of the millions of starving, faithful people in the world?
No, in what sense?
Yes, in what sense?

Also, I would assume that god could just magically help everyone in poverty with a click of the fingers, but instead he will let all of them suffer for some sick reason
Why doesn't he?
2. Yet Christians seem to focus on the miracles A LOT, which is why it is being discussed. Heck, most of their beliefs stem from the miracle of resurrection.
Some fringe Christians. Please don't generalise.

...

18. ## Re: Does God exist?

(1) Jesus told a parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had many good things, and Lazarus was impoverished and had many sores.
Now they both died, and Lazarus was taken to heaven, where Abraham was, and the rich man to Hades. The rich man was in torment and so he said to Abraham,
please I wish a cup of water to cool my tongue. But Abraham replied in your life you received your good things while Lazarus received suffering, besides there has been a great chasm fixed. Then the rich man, please send someone back to warn my brothers.

Jesus told this and other things like it, to teach that is difficult for a rich man to depend on God and be saved from final judgement. He also teaches that those who are faithful in depending on God and giving up all to follow Christ, will receive in this life spiritual blessings of family, spiritual sustinence and eternal life.

(2) God's plan was ultimately to send Jesus, to die on a cross and rise again; so that we could actually be friends with God.
There is a sense which this plan was both accomplished then and there, but also is still being accomplished.
The fact that God allows for the killing of his son, indeed appears to be the most unjust thing. What do you think about that?

(3) Miracles in the Bible weren't just random acts of kindness by God, or party-tricks (God just showing off), they were signs (even the demon-possessed man & pigs instance) were signs, to show, there were designed to point forward to the character of God, but especially the ones in the New Testament, to the character of Christ.
Also the miracles were very specific, related and linked to prophecies about, in this pattern: when X happens, then situation Y has begun.

Christians who focus only on the miracles of today (except resurrection), miss the point, of what Jesus was doing in his teachings. The authority of Jesus was demonstrated in his teachings more than his miracle. His miracles were to point towards what was happening, in fulfillment of prophecy.

(4)The lack of notion of justice: If God were to do as you wished, heal all people and heal poverty, then the end of the world indeed would have come; and the time for all to give an account is then or as Christians call it "J-day or judgement day". There is a small thing called justice.

God's way is to test people in this life, to see whether they will seek him and find him even despite all the other trials and distractions; whether they will persevere. Or whether they will curse God instead. Prayers are not always answered yes nor find their answer in material/physical ways; but there is a sense in which you cannot expect anything from God.

Jesus taught that a farmer sows seed, and then the enemy comes and sows thorns, they grow up together. The time for the harvest has come. The wheat are gathered into the barn, and the weeds thrown into the fire. He taught this, to show that there will come a day when God will fix the world, by doing away with evil/suffering and all that. But how, by judgement, the righteous are saved and the wicked (everyone else) are thrown in the blazing furnace.

The harvest is soon, but not yet. There is still time for people to chat/discuss and turn and listen to God. When we get to that final day, we cannot complain they he hasn't give us all (as a humanity unit) enough time.

So how do you propose that God clean up the world, while still being just punishing those who do wrong and evil people?

(numbered so that you address them with ease)

19. ## Re: Does God exist?

Some more food for thought
Why are some christians so opposed to homosexuality? Are you? (Now, this is true for a lot of religions, but I picked christianity just because the thread is focused that way)
It would happen to be somewhere in here:
Same Sex Marriage Debate
which I can see that you have commented on.

Considering today's political debate, I really don't feel the need to state more than what I have already said above in that thread.

Also, I can use all the proof you have stated, but replace Jesus with Buddha
Depends what you are proving/asking. Ultimately I wouldn't know Buddhism to a great depth but...

(1) No, firstly New Testament is far more preserved than Buddhist texts. We have greater confidence that there weren't changes made.

(2) Technically Buddha was venerated as divine afterwards but he never implied in his teachings was define. In fact Buddhism in its earliest form, was atheistic in a sense. While Jesus specifically does.

That and the "God" that both Hindus. and some Buddhist believe in, is very different to the God of Christianity which is different again to the God of Islam.
different in nature, different in the way they operate, different in character, different in terms of how their existence affects people's iives.

(3) Jesus' resurrection account is fair poignant. It has, depending on how the evidence is viewed, can have significant historical grounding.

(4) Events of Jesus attested to in non-Christian sources.

Ultimately, and this thread serves as evidence, is rationalism only gets us so far in "proving God".

20. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964

1. Science doesn't study the miraculous. It never has.
Just finished watching a segment on doctors studying a new unseen disease found in a man in Taiwan . Want a link?

Bold statement with no evidence. Are you sure "science doesn't study" the miraculous? I can give you a long list of examples of you wish, ranging from agriculture to genetics

Originally Posted by dan964
2. I don't dispute the scientific method as being a good way of looking at evidence. What I am suggesting is the scope of the scientific method is limited.

You are making a hypothesis to try to claim the miracles do not occur or that we shouldn't believe them because science. (Again isn't clear what exactly your hypothesis is acheiving but I disgress). You yourself, said you aren't trying to make a truth claim, so lets continue.
I'll spell it out
Null hypothesis: Jesus Christ ressurected from the dead

Provide evidence for your claims. Tell me clearly what proof you have to make the bold statement that the scientific method is limited.

Originally Posted by dan964

let me phrase your example the other way to highlight the problem:
99.999998% of cases, eating said fruit will NOT kill you.
0.000002% of cases, eating said fruit will kill you.
Still would you eat it? It is still possible to die from eating the fruit.

Does that make the issue I have with your example clearer?

Either example (positive/negative variant) displays an inherit bias in its composition, but together reveals that it is a matter of confidence (ergo faith) that usually informs decisions. We put faith in the fact that. This reveals that you are presuming that the holding the two events to be true are contradictory, which was my original observation.
Sure thing. Let's use a neutral example

According to accounts ,
99.9999999999% of times, the light turns blue
0.00000000001% of times , the light turns red

Need way more zeroes but you get the point
I'd say it's safer to assume that the very, very small number of accounts (relatively speaking) are incorrect

At the very least, we would need better evidence

Originally Posted by dan964
In a large enough sample size (N doesn't have to be infinite), you are correct there are going to be problems, and that is my point.
Which is why you need to answer? What sample size is sufficient large for you to base the decision of whether to eat the fruit in your example or not? Your basis for choice, seems to be dependence on probability and confidence. Do you consider only a small handful of cases?
There will be problems at a extremely large sample sizes. Yet you cannot argue this against my point. Read here
http://lesswrong.com/lw/p3x/argument_from_infinity/

We have a very sufficient sample size for all alpha levels - look into beginners study design
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Yes, I am taking into account probability and confidence. You cannot perform hypothesis testing otherwise

No, I am open to considering any case you present me

Originally Posted by dan964
In this kind of case study/scenario, that is miracles and non-miracles, because the norm is expected, we expect the norm, Christians expect the norm, miracles are exceptions not the pattern, even with the way that God works.
We can perform the study by switching the null and alternate hypothesis, the end result is the same. The study does not 'expect' anything

Originally Posted by dan964
No one is disputing that, the question is whether abberations to the norm are possible, that is a claim that is only possible to even consider, if we remove the assumption that science is the only means to explain and it explains everything.
Sure thing, if you don't want a scientific explanation then provide me another one?

By the way, Sai baba has a lot more witness accounts of miracles than the bible, do you think he is a god too?

Originally Posted by dan964
But it is not a case of in a larger sample, a miracle would be considered, but what are making your judgements on?
I cannot comprehend this sentence. I am making my judgements on data from the bible against recorded deaths without ressurections

Originally Posted by dan964
To assert the 0.000002% is there requires accounts of such. Obviously these accounts need to be tested, as it is eyewitness testimony.
There would need to be some way to verify that.
correct . We need to verify these accounts of miracles

Originally Posted by dan964
But here is the problem, we have to use tools, that cover that. If we use the standard version of the scientific method, with the assumption, all things can be explained by laws of nature, then of course we are going to look for a natural explanation for the supposed occurence or dismiss the account as bogus.
You don't like to apply the scientific method in this context, I get it

For the sake of argument, I will concede that the scientific method is limited in its scope and cannot study the so called metaphysical (I hate to do this, and I'm sure you can tell haha)

Give me another method or objective test, let's see how that goes

Originally Posted by dan964
Lets give a practical example, lets say I have a particular set of cards, some large (but not infinite number)
You are going to ignore single bits of evidence and so clearly I am asking how many events do you need to consider. And then what matters, (and you will probs disagree), is the existence rather than the o
Genuinely do not understand what you are saying. You have a set of cards ... what am I ignoring again?

Originally Posted by dan964
But to what ends? You appear to presume that those accept miracles, reject the natural laws of physics. No we don't (AIG might), we hold that those are the normal patterns, that is by definition a miracle is something outside of the pattern. No one is disputing laws of physics here, but naturalism (everything that happens can be attributed solely to natural causes only).
Explain to me how someone can suffer the brutal injuries Jesus did, die, come back to life and heal a few days later
Whilst staying consistent with he laws of physics

Originally Posted by dan964
You are going to ignore single bits of evidence and so clearly I am asking how many events do you need to consider. And then what matters, (and you will probs disagree), is the existence rather than the occurance.
And that is the contention.
...
I am not ignoring the accounts in the bible. I included them as part of my test. See above.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

21. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
Slight misrepresentation. Its a very hypothetical for any human to be entrusted with ultimate power.

In the same way we can see examples of world leaders, we can also examples of world leaders committing great evils.

Is there not a fundamental problem often with power & corruption? You may well know yourself, but you are not a position of ultimate power.

...
'World leaders commit great evils, so Sam when you gain ultimate power you will use it all for your own benefit'

Sure

'World leaders often do great deeds, so I think, at least one person in the world would use ultimate power to help others'

Let me pull you back to my point
God could help those in poverty right now, and could've for hundreds of years, but he didn't

I think it's safe to assume that if god is loving, he wouldn't let his children suffer so much

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

22. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
D:
S:

And so the problem is in the expectations. Your very definition of whether God is a jerk or not, is depending on whether he meets your expectations iin your timing.
So God is subservient to the whims of a human?
Silly me for expecting an all loving God to maybe help starving dying children for a few centuries

My expectations are wild! Sorry god

Originally Posted by dan964
And who do you think ultimately allows for the crops to grow and rain over the land?
Do you really think God is to blame for the suffering in the world, yet you do not even believe in God? That does not make sense.
I'm assuming you think god allows crops to grow
It'd be nice if he let some more grow for those in poverty.

Holy cow............
This entire time, out of my many ,many posts you did not understand that I am accepting god exists for the sake of argument?

I'll make it clear

No I do not believe he exists

I will assume he exists to argue some of your points about the nature of god

It's pretty sad you just realised that.

Originally Posted by dan964
Umm, you attacked the strawman. I quoted from an atheistic website who presents a very inaccurate broad-brush of Christians.
I then also rejected most of the counter-arguments attributed by said site to Christians that is what I was referring to. I wasn't solely addressing you.
Cool.

Tbh I would disagree too,but I was a little confused why you started attacking random points that I did not make all of the sudden

I was even more confused because you didn't actually provide any real reasons for most of them, just said 'i reject it' or 'out of context' , but I digress . I don't care about that website lol

Originally Posted by dan964
No, in what sense?
Yes, in what sense?
Why doesn't he?
...
1. Does god answer the prayers of the millions of starving, faithful people in the world?

No. They ask him specifically for food and basic necessities. They have not got them.

Also, I would assume that god could just magically help everyone in poverty with a click of the fingers, but instead he will let all of them suffer for some sick reason

No idea why he doesn't

Originally Posted by dan964
Some fringe Christians. Please don't generalise
But you yourself said that " the Christian faith stands on that one "

And you went into a very lengthy explanation on the miracle of resurrection

Not generalising, just quoting you

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

23. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by dan964
(1) Jesus told a parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had many good things, and Lazarus was impoverished and had many sores.
Now they both died, and Lazarus was taken to heaven, where Abraham was, and the rich man to Hades. The rich man was in torment and so he said to Abraham,
please I wish a cup of water to cool my tongue. But Abraham replied in your life you received your good things while Lazarus received suffering, besides there has been a great chasm fixed. Then the rich man, please send someone back to warn my brothers.

Jesus told this and other things like it, to teach that is difficult for a rich man to depend on God and be saved from final judgement. He also teaches that those who are faithful in depending on God and giving up all to follow Christ, will receive in this life spiritual blessings of family, spiritual sustinence and eternal life.
No idea what you are trying to argue here. Existence of God? The need for God to torture those who don't follow him?

Originally Posted by dan964
(2) God's plan was ultimately to send Jesus, to die on a cross and rise again; so that we could actually be friends with God.
There is a sense which this plan was both accomplished then and there, but also is still being accomplished.
The fact that God allows for the killing of his son, indeed appears to be the most unjust thing. What do you think about that?
I'm sure I can make friends with you, without having you sent to death
I'm sure there are other ways to do things, especially if, you know..

You are an all powerful god :/

Oh and yes, I still think it's unjust that person A suffers for the crimes of person B, when person A has not done anything wrong .

Originally Posted by dan964
(3) Miracles in the Bible weren't just random acts of kindness by God, or party-tricks (God just showing off), they were signs (even the demon-possessed man & pigs instance) were signs, to show, there were designed to point forward to the character of God, but especially the ones in the New Testament, to the character of Christ.
Also the miracles were very specific, related and linked to prophecies about, in this pattern: when X happens, then situation Y has begun.
Miracles have a purpose , such as to point forward to the character of god

Sadly God won't perform a miracle with me to point me towards his character.

Originally Posted by dan964
Christians who focus on the miracles today, miss the point, of what Jesus. The authority of Jesus was demonstrated in his teachings more than his miracle. His miracles were to point towards what was happening, in fulfillment of prophecy.
I consider the resurrection a miracle, as do you
Almost all Christians do focus on that one
Just to quote you : "the Christian faith stands on that one"

Originally Posted by dan964
(4)The lack of notion of justice: If God were to do as you wished, heal all people and heal poverty, then the end of the world indeed would have come; and the time for all to give an account is then or as Christians call it "J-day or judgement day". There is a small thing called justice.
I see nothing wrong with healing all poverty and not ending the world at the same time

Like is it really that hard to remove poverty without some judgement day end of the world scenario lol

Originally Posted by dan964
God's way is to test people in this life, to see whether they will seek him and find him even despite all the other trials and distractions; whether they will persevere. Or whether they will curse God instead. Prayers are not always answered yes nor find their answer in material/physical ways; but there is a sense in which you cannot expect anything from God.
Which is fine. But the thing is, millions seek him, love him, and pray
And then die of poor conditions and starvation

Is there a reason honest and good prayers aren't answered? Seems pretty cruel to ignore them, especially if it's for some food.

Originally Posted by dan964
Jesus taught that a farmer sows seed, and then the enemy comes and sows thorns, they grow up together. The time for the harvest has come. The wheat are gathered into the barn, and the weeds thrown into the fire. He taught this, to show that there will come a day when God will fix the world, by doing away with evil/suffering and all that. But how, by judgement, the righteous are saved and the wicked (everyone else) are thrown in the blazing furnace.
One day he will, just hasn't for centuries where good people have suffered and died. Does God not care about them?

Secondly, 'Wicked' who are thrown into the blazing furnace are only like that because God created a 'broken world', he created sin and the bias against god we all have at birth (according to you). This is so horrid.

Originally Posted by dan964
The harvest is soon, but not yet. There is still time for people to chat/discuss and turn and listen to God. When we get to that final day, we cannot complain they he hasn't give us all (as a humanity unit)...
Sadly, it doesn't make any sense when we discuss individuals. Those suffering and dying from poverty, who love God and are devout Christians

Feelsbad, god won't help millions starving to death because 'humanity as a unit' needs more time to chat

Shitty reasoning

Originally Posted by dan964
So how do you propose that God clean up the world, while still being just punishing those who do wrong and evil people?
Instead of "cleaning up" the entire world in a massacre

Punish individuals who do wrong

Help those who do good

God clearly isn't too bright if he couldn't think of that one lmao

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

24. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by SammyT123
Just finished watching a segment on doctors studying a new unseen disease found in a man in Taiwan . Want a link?
Bold statement with no evidence. Are you sure "science doesn't study" the miraculous? I can give you a long list of examples of you wish, ranging from agriculture to genetics
By miracle I am referring to abberations of the laws of nature. Maybe you are meaning something different here.

I'll spell it out
Null hypothesis: Jesus Christ ressurected from the dead
Provide evidence for your claims. Tell me clearly what proof you have to make the bold statement that the scientific method is limited.
The scientific method works on the assumption that there are predictable pattern and order to the universe. It is a form of inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is also used in some fields, such as in the law court.

[quote]Sure thing. Let's use a neutral example

According to accounts ,
99.9999999999% of times, the light turns blue
0.00000000001% of times , the light turns red

Need way more zeroes but you get the point
I'd say it's safer to assume that the very, very small number of accounts (relatively speaking) are incorrect
That is a fallacy, low probability does not imply impossibility.
It is only an assumption made based on whether we can take confidence in the data that suggests only one or a few exception to the case.
At the very least, we would need better evidence
The interesting question is how would we get to these percentages?
There will be problems at a extremely large sample sizes. Yet you cannot argue this against my point. Read here
http://lesswrong.com/lw/p3x/argument_from_infinity/
Of course, that link shows why there will be issues. What is a sufficient large/small sample size to draw conclusions on?
That is really what I am asking. Is there a small enough set to avoid the argument to infinity problems, to probably make conclusions?

Lets say hypothetically there were 0 miracles, then the percentage in your example should be 0.
Lets say hypothetically there was e miracles where e is some small integer greater than 0.
How many events are required in consideration to get the percentages/results in question.

Clearly a too small sample size will have issues.
How do you determine the sample size?

We have a very sufficient sample size for all alpha levels - look into beginners study design
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Yes, I am taking into account probability and confidence. You cannot perform hypothesis testing otherwise
Thought so.

No, I am open to considering any case you present me
fair enough. I'll get back to you on that.

We can perform the study by switching the null and alternate hypothesis, the end result is the same. The study does not 'expect' anything
.
Sure thing, if you don't want a scientific explanation then provide me another one?
Unfortunately this whole study, isn't going to be inductive.
We start with a premise, and then we set out to prove/disprove it by evidence. That is deductive reasoning, we already have the end goal in mind.
This is how people reason.

By the way, Sai baba has a lot more witness accounts of miracles than the bible, do you think he is a god too?
I think it was posted on the first page of this forum, that "miracles" may not necessary have their original in God.
Interesting Jesus is viewed in a negative way as a practicer of sorcery by the Jewish Talmud for instance.
Much scholarship has been done on that.

I cannot comprehend this sentence. I am making my judgements on data from the bible against recorded deaths without ressurections
You do realise that is a pretty large sample.

No Christian disputes the fact that most people do not rise again from the dead. But if it happened today, it would explode, but people would still be in disbelief. The question is did it really happen in this one instance about 2000 years ago. In that case we have to assess the material from people who claimed to have saw the events.

Some suggest various different criteria on studying a historical text, and working out the truth value. Some use the criteria of embarrassment for instance, applying various methods to sources.

correct . We need to verify these accounts of miracles
You don't like to apply the scientific method in this context, I get it

For the sake of argument, I will concede that the scientific method is limited in its scope and cannot study the so called metaphysical (I hate to do this, and I'm sure you can tell haha).
Give me another method or objective test, let's see how that goes
I wouldn't call it the scientific method in a lot of fields and also this whole question extends beyond science.

"Objective". Scientific method is far from "objective". That is the problem. Your fundamental assumption is everything can be explained by the methodology of the scientific method.

Well firstly, there is inductive reasoning which the scientific method, historical source criticism, works with evidence to draw conclusions. Now we scrutinize their conclusions with known standards, but how do we determine these standards?? With science, it is probably fairly straightforward, generally we say anything against the laws of nature is impossible/not considered, but in this study, that would be concluding the results or neglecting data before the analysis has been conducted.

Then there is deductive reasoning, where we start with a premise e.g. "Does God Exist?" "Yes/No" and then proceed to present evidence.
For instance in a court of law, the premise is "innocent until proven guilty". The problem is our original premise needs to be established as true.

The problem with the study, is miracles generally are events that do not repeat themselves in a predictable fashion, this means that the regular assumptions lying behind the scientific method cannot hold, if we are to consider the claims of miracles, without jumping to the dismissal of them.

Genuinely do not understand what you are saying. You have a set of cards ... what am I ignoring again?

Explain to me how someone can suffer the brutal injuries Jesus did, die, come back to life and heal a few days later
Whilst staying consistent with he laws of physics
What do you think?
Why does every event have to be in line with the laws of physics?

I am not ignoring the accounts in the bible. I included them as part of my test. See above.
ok sure.

25. ## Re: Does God exist?

Originally Posted by SammyT123
'World leaders commit great evils, so Sam when you gain ultimate power you will use it all for your own benefit'

Sure

'World leaders often do great deeds, so I think, at least one person in the world would use ultimate power to help others'

Let me pull you back to my point
God could help those in poverty right now, and could've for hundreds of years, but he didn't

I think it's safe to assume that if god is loving, he wouldn't let his children suffer so much

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
And where do you get those conclusions from?

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•