The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

rockbeer

One of my favourites, pinksoir I've spent hours of my life staring at that etching.

It does seem to sum up this discussion quite nicely.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I promised myself not to get involved in this thread again ... but what Brian is referring to is known as the Omphalos Hypothesis (omphalos is Greek for 'navel', one of which Adam may or may not have possessed).

The Omphalos Hypothesis states that, if God created the world, then an appearance of age is logically inevitable. Otherwise newly created birds would have no feathers and newly created animals would have no bones or teeth (because they take longer than one day to form). Adam would have appeared to be older than one day old and, so some have argued, may have had a navel - hence the omphalos. Therefore, according to this hypothesis, everything that was created would have an appearence of age.

Now, as an impartial observer who feels no necessity to believe in either evolution or a young earth, I should point out that the Omphalos Hypothesis does not explain why God would also create fossils in the apparently aged rocks.

Or indeed, rocks that appeared aged, since rock does not 'mature' or grow the way living organisms do.

PDN wrote:

However, I will take the liberty of posting a quote by one of my favourite philosophers as it pertains to this hypothesis:

...

So, it's impossible to prove it one way or the other, which means that this entire thread is probably a waste of time (which I suspect most of you have realised already).

Indeed, it is likewise impossible to prove that we are not part of an enormously sophisticated simulation. However, in exactly the same way, it is pointless to consider.

PDN wrote:

The problem with this assertion is that none of us knows what a universe would look like without God in it, because none of us have ever seen such a universe, because no such universe exists.

Hmm, yes, well....that's a very strong statement, made in a complete absence of evidence, but I suppose you are a believer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

rockbeer wrote:

The point is that the rocks only need to be old to contain oil because the oil is formed by a natural process of compression which takes aeons of time. If god is going to sidestep that natural process entirely and whip up the oil supernaturally out of nothing then neither it nor the rocks that contain it would actually need to be nor look old now would they? Why in the name of all that is reasonable would he feel the need to create the illusion of a natural process having created something which he in fact achieved by magic? Did Jesus feel the need to serve up the wine in bottles labelled Rothschild 25 BC to add a nice touch of showmanship to his conjuring trick?

Honestly Brian, you can't really believe this stuff can you? Please tell me you're just winding us up.

Just asking the questions.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Brian seems to want science to consider the idea that God exists and has made everything appear differently to what it actually is. So while the Earth looks and always looks 4+ billion years old, we should consider the idea that it actually is 6,000 years old.

Just to clarify here wicknight, I have never made the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Please do no tput words in my mouth, again.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just asking the questions.

And there's no such thing as a stupid question, though there are stupid answers!

Seriously, all of these questions have, or should have, occurred to any beginning student of science, and it is by understanding the answers that the student begins to understand science.

The most important one is the question of why it is impossible for science to consider the Earth as having been formed only recently, but appearing in every respect to be much older.

Note that this is "impossible to consider", not "considered impossible". Science is solely practical. If the world appears to be in every respect old, then old is what science must consider it to be in order to do anything. The proviso that the appearance may be deceptive is understood, but irrelevant.

It is important for everyone to realise that while the individual may elevate this irrelevance-to-science to the level of a principle (it is not scientific, and therefore not true), that is a statement of faith, and not part of science. Science is a practical discipline only, and discards what it cannot use - which does not mean that it is not true, only that it is of no practical value.

And perhaps it is unsurprising to find the practical and the spiritual in opposition...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just to clarify here wicknight, I have never made the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Please do no tput words in my mouth, again.

Hmm. There's no real difference between 12,000 and 6,000 from our point of view - one is 0.00026% of the true age, and the other is 0.00013%. We don't really distinguish beyond 3 decimal places...

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. There's no real difference between 12,000 and 6,000 from our point of view - one is 0.00026% of the true age, and the other is 0.00013%. We don't really distinguish beyond 3 decimal places...

cordially,
Scofflaw

There may not be to your point of view, which is fine. But when there are archaeological digs showing civilisations older than 6,000 years that makes the age of the Earth at 6,000 years to be let's say.... silly.

I do not wish to be put in that camp.

On an Earth that is 12,000 years old, 6,000 is a lot more than 3 decimal places.

Thanks for the answers from all. I think that this has been a very good discussion.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Ah, the chatter has died down. I'll continue...

Yes, we did. The point here is that speciation has happened. New life forms which never existed before have been observed to evolve into existence without any intervention from anything other than the environment. That's what evolution is. Nothing strange or threatening.

To summarize where we are now -- can I assume that you're now happy that small scale genetic change happens without producing new species, and also that genetic changes can occur, through the process of natural selection, which gives rise to new species that did not exist before? If so, then we can take another step backwards and get a bigger view of what's going on.

What you're looking for is the evolution of obvious physical differences between the shape of the ancestor organism and the later organism. The rate of genetic variation (which is known) doesn't allow large physical things like horns or whatever to appear overnight. Instead, these things evolve over long periods of time. Now, as humanity has only been observing speciation for 150 years or so, that's not believed to be enough time for something obvious to have evolved. (Though there is recent evidence that, in certain cases anyway, surprisingly prominent physical features can arise very quickly. A recent paper described a monkey which turned up with very long fingers -- as this monkeys diet was tree-grubs, this was good news to the monkey as he could get more out of the tree holes than his short-fingered brothers and sisters. The error which caused this was traced to a single "letter" difference in the genetic code which controls the monkey's finger growth -- ie, as small a change as you can get.)

Anyhow, since there are no human records which describe large physical features, biologists have to go looking for other kinds of evidence. And that's where the contents of the fossil record comes in. There is a good booklet which describes what the fossil record is, how it's been found, how it works and what it's all about. The book is only 36 pages long and it's available here:

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

One good example that they quote is of the evolution of whales which is well understood. The fossils in the oldest rocks (the deepest ones, generally), have fossilized remains of animals that walked on land. That was about 60 million years ago. As you go up through the layers of rock towards the younger surface, you see fossils with smaller and smaller back legs (which eventually disappear inside the whale''s body, where they remain), and stronger and stronger forelegs (which eventually become today's front steering flippers). But even today, you can still see how the whale's flipper is related to earlier organisms. Here's what the skeleton of a whale flipper looks like today:

And here's a human hand for comparison:

There are plenty of other similar cases of fossil records demonstrating slow changes over long periods of time. The whale is just one of them. Others include fossils of horses, birds, rats, monkeys, humans, dinosaurs, fish and many more.

That's enough for one posting. Have you understood what I've written here?

I have understood exactly what you have written and am in the process of printing off that wee booklet.

I have to agree with a later post on the whale fin. Just because it contains the bony finger like structures does not mean that it necessarily is the precursor to a hand.

What it does show is that in order for the whale fin to work properly for the function that is beneficial to the whale it must contain the bones in that configuration.

From my point of view it was God who designed it that way, because it works, not randomly formed through millions of trials over millions of years.

dan719

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have understood exactly what you have written and am in the process of printing off that wee booklet.

I have to agree with a later post on the whale fin. Just because it contains the bony finger like structures does not mean that it necessarily is the precursor to a hand.

What it does show is that in order for the whale fin to work properly for the function that is beneficial to the whale it must contain the bones in that configuration.

From my point of view it was God who designed it that way, because it works, not randomly formed through millions of trials over millions of years.

Natural selection is not random. Your opinion is wrong.

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have understood exactly what you have written and am in the process of printing off that wee booklet.

I have to agree with a later post on the whale fin. Just because it contains the bony finger like structures does not mean that it necessarily is the precursor to a hand.

What it does show is that in order for the whale fin to work properly for the function that is beneficial to the whale it must contain the bones in that configuration.

From my point of view it was God who designed it that way, because it works, not randomly formed through millions of trials over millions of years.

Okay Brian, we've presented evidence to you that is simple to understand and non-technical. The evidence suggests that the fin and the hand are similar structures but you're right it doesn't prove anything conclusively. But more importantly it doesn't suggest anything about god either or a designer.

Also the images shown are from contemporary animals, the whale fin is not a precursor to the primate hand. The have a shared history. In order to add to the evidence for this we need to look at genetics, specifically genetic taxonomy, the classification of organisms by their genetic relatedness.

This is similar to the map of the ocean floor's magnetism I previously posted. The continents look like they fit together and additional evidence reinforces the hypothesis. By looking at the DNA of different animals we can find out how closely related they are. As pointed out already this has upset old ideas in taxonomy of species as long held views on relatedness have been overthrown. For example we've found out that the Hippo is closer related to whales than pigs.

Are you comfortable to start looking at genetics?

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote:

Okay Brian, we've presented evidence to you that is simple to understand and non-technical. The evidence suggests that the fin and the hand are similar structures but you're right it doesn't prove anything conclusively. But more importantly it doesn't suggest anything about god either or a designer.

And therein lies the philosophical problem. Since I know that God exists and have experienced th ebenefits of a life lived with Him, I have to look and see the remarkable design of the world around me.

However, nature shows on TV come from a view that there is no designer.

Since asking this question I am getting the impression that none of the 'evolution' crowd are in a position to deny God based on scientific results. Am I correct in making thsi statement.

Not yet on the genetics BTW, I will be away for the next couple of weeks.

Ciaran500

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since asking this question I am getting the impression that none of the 'evolution' crowd are in a position to deny God based on scientific results. Am I correct in making thsi statement.

Of course. There is no scientific results to deny god because there is nothing to study. What possible results could we have that could prove the exsistance or non exsistance of god.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just to clarify here wicknight, I have never made the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Please do no tput words in my mouth, again.

What arbitrary number would you prefer science to consider is the "true" age of the universe?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

And therein lies the philosophical problem. Since I know that God exists and have experienced th ebenefits of a life lived with Him, I have to look and see the remarkable design of the world around me.

However, nature shows on TV come from a view that there is no designer.

Well the most likely reason for that is that the nature shows on TV are correct and you are mistaken. That what you think you "know" is God isn't actually, so your insistence that there must be a designer will therefore be flawed reasoning

Now I appreciate that you are completely closed off to that idea (that you are wrong/mistaken) and therefore we can argue till the cows (evolved or otherwise) come home to no avail. Until you are open to the idea that God might not exist, or at the very least it is not the god you think it is, you will not be open to science or the exploration of the truth of nature.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since asking this question I am getting the impression that none of the 'evolution' crowd are in a position to deny God based on scientific results.

Any time God has been demonstrated to not be the cause of something he is supposed to be the cause of theists simply move him some where else.

He was the cause of weather, the he wasn't actually. He was the cause of Earthquakes, then he wasn't actually. He was the cause of life on earth, then he wasn't actually. etc, etc

God as you define him is a set of moving goal posts. Any time a claim that he did something is demonstrated to be false he is simply moved somewhere else with another claim. God now lives outside of the universe (untestable), or in the after life (untestable) or in your mind (untestable). He used to appear to large groups of people as a physical occurrence, he used to visibly alter nature around him (and boast about it). But for some strange reason since people started looking properly he doesn't do this any more.

By this very nature it is impossible for science to verify or test his existence because what he is supposed to be, or what he is supposed to have done, is constantly shifted by theists any time they run into a problem.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

There may not be to your point of view, which is fine. But when there are archaeological digs showing civilisations older than 6,000 years that makes the age of the Earth at 6,000 years to be let's say.... silly.

I do not wish to be put in that camp.

Fair enough. I have to ask though - dated how? After all, we have plenty of archaeological digs dated at more than 12,000 years, too.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And therein lies the philosophical problem. Since I know that God exists and have experienced th ebenefits of a life lived with Him, I have to look and see the remarkable design of the world around me.

However, nature shows on TV come from a view that there is no designer.

Since asking this question I am getting the impression that none of the 'evolution' crowd are in a position to deny God based on scientific results. Am I correct in making thsi statement.

Hmm. You are correct that the existence of God is neither confirmed nor denied by science. One can, if one likes, extend that kindly doubt to the Earth being 12,000 years old, and directly created all at the one time.

However, to do so is again to entirely ignore how the world appears to be. Whether or not God created it 12,000 years ago, it remains the case that the world looks in every measurable respect as though it developed over the course of 4.6 billion years instead - the evidence is overwhelming, despite the little occasional holes people think they have found.

I appreciate that you need to factor your experience of God into the picture, and the idea that science is simply wrong is convenient and appealing, because it throws out an awful lot of hard-to-answer questions.

Now, there is definitely no evidence that God intended the world for your specific convenience, or intended it especially to be easy for you to understand - why then do you feel it is right to throw out all the other evidence he left us simply to avoid questions about the interpretation of the Bible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

And therein lies the philosophical problem. Since I know that God exists and have experienced th ebenefits of a life lived with Him, ...

We're back to the idea of different bits of evidence reinforcing a hypothesis.
There is good evidence to suggest what you feel is your brain playing tricks on you and nothing more. There is no evidence to suggest what you feel is the god depicted in the bible.

BrianCalgary wrote:

...I have to look and see the remarkable design of the world around me.

However, nature shows on TV come from a view that there is no designer.

Since asking this question I am getting the impression that none of the 'evolution' crowd are in a position to deny God based on scientific results. Am I correct in making thsi statement.

It is a misconception that atheists deny the existence of God as a matter of faith, (no doubt some do). Most would be of the opinion that the idea is unimportant, unlikely and unfounded. Its a step beyond agnosticism where the possibility is accepted. As an atheist there is an infinite amount of things that are possibilities so they're ignored in favour of evidence backed science. You are an atheist regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster I imagine?

We don't deny god based on science, we just add it to the long list of fantasies that cannot be tested and explains nothing anyway.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not yet on the genetics BTW, I will be away for the next couple of weeks.

No hassle, I know you're a busy person so I'm glad you're taking the time to listen to what we have to say.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Fair enough. I have to ask though - dated how? After all, we have plenty of archaeological digs dated at more than 12,000 years, too.



Hmm. You are correct that the existence of God is neither confirmed nor denied by science. One can, if one likes, extend that kindly doubt to the Earth being 12,000 years old, and directly created all at the one time.

However, to do so is again to entirely ignore how the world appears to be. Whether or not God created it 12,000 years ago, it remains the case that the world looks in every measurable respect as though it developed over the course of 4.6 billion years instead - the evidence is overwhelming, despite the little occasional holes people think they have found.

I appreciate that you need to factor your experience of God into the picture, and the idea that science is simply wrong is convenient and appealing, because it throws out an awful lot of hard-to-answer questions.

Now, there is definitely no evidence that God intended the world for your specific convenience, or intended it especially to be easy for you to understand - why then do you feel it is right to throw out all the other evidence he left us simply to avoid questions about the interpretation of the Bible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just to reiterate where I am coming from. I do concede that I could be wrong on the age of the Earth. In having said that the definite answer will only come from God when I arrive in Heaven.

I do enjoy this discussion and I don't sit here in my chair getting all hot under the collar during the reading or typing.

Nor do I think any of you are.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Any time God has been demonstrated to not be the cause of something he is supposed to be the cause of theists simply move him some where else..

Wrong here. God has always been. Man's interpretation of Him and His involvement has changed.

Wicknight wrote:

He was the cause of weather, the he wasn't actually. He was the cause of Earthquakes, then he wasn't actually. He was the cause of life on earth, then he wasn't actually. etc, etc..

He still is in control of all of the above. His involvement has changed over the yeras though.

Wicknight wrote:

God as you define him is a set of moving goal posts. Any time a claim that he did something is demonstrated to be false he is simply moved somewhere else with another claim. God now lives outside of the universe (untestable), or in the after life (untestable) or in your mind (untestable). He used to appear to large groups of people as a physical occurrence, he used to visibly alter nature around him (and boast about it). But for some strange reason since people started looking properly he doesn't do this any more.

By this very nature it is impossible for science to verify or test his existence because what he is supposed to be, or what he is supposed to have done, is constantly shifted by theists any time they run into a problem.

God is not the set of moving goal posts. We move Him either by inviting Him or rejecting Him.

If we reject Him His involvement in the affiars of mankind lessen. If we invite Him, His involvement increases.

We thsists do not shift God. You are imagining it.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just to reiterate where I am coming from. I do concede that I could be wrong on the age of the Earth. In having said that the definite answer will only come from God when I arrive in Heaven.

I do enjoy this discussion and I don't sit here in my chair getting all hot under the collar during the reading or typing.

Nor do I think any of you are.

I think I can safely say I am moved more often to laughter than to tears - although I have also occasionally been moved to muttering and eyeball rolling...

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

5uspect wrote:

We're back to the idea of different bits of evidence reinforcing a hypothesis.
There is good evidence to suggest what you feel is your brain playing tricks on you and nothing more. There is no evidence to suggest what you feel is the god depicted in the bible.
.

This sentence struck me, wicknight made a similar inference regarding chemical reactions in the brain that leads to the impression of the spiritual.

I see two possibilities (notwithstanding TR's added conclusions ).

1) Reaction leading to a euphoria that is attributed to God.
or
2) The euphoria of meeting God that causes the chemical reaction.

Comments?

Galvasean

BrianCalgary wrote:

Comments?

Are you on drugs? But in all seriousness no one here can disprove your meeting with God. We can however offer alternatives as to what may have happened. whether you prefer them or not is entirely up to you.

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote:

Since asking this question I am getting the impression that none of the 'evolution' crowd are in a position to deny God based on scientific results.

Actually it's not quite that simple.

Science certainly can't answer the raw question of whether a supernatural deity exists, for all the reasons outlined by others.

However, in a number of respects it shows that the christian god as depicted in the bible doesn't exist.

Firstly we've already demonstrated that a literal reading of the biblical creation myth is proven to be untrue beyond reasonable doubt by the cumulative weight of evidence.

This leaves christians with a problem they can resolve in one of three ways:
- re-interpret the bible (cf PDN, Excelsior), thereby opening the whole once-you-start-where-do-you-stop can of worms
- insist on a literal interpretation of the bible & simply pretend the accumulated evidence doesn't exist (cf J C, Wolfsbane) . This amounts to wearing a badge marked 'inquisition'. Such people show exactly the same fear of knowledge as the medieval/renaissance church.
- resort to some untestable sleight of hand, like claiming that god made the world to look older than it is for reasons known only to himself. This amounts to self-deception.

There is of course a fourth way: don't think about it too much, but I'm sure that doesn't apply to anybody here

Secondly, research has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the christian god doesn't behave as scripture claims.

For example, study after study has shown that intercessory prayer doesn't work, despite various bald statements in the bible that god will answer such prayers. Of course, christians will once again resort to sleight of hand, like claiming that when he knows he is the subject of a study, god will refuse to intervene in such cases. But the fact remains that statistically speaking intercessory prayer is no more effective than doing nothing, and it would appear in some cases less so.

There also remains the vexing question of why god never heals amputees.

There is not a single documented instance of an amputated limb spontaneously regenerating. Scripture declares that god will provide in response to prayer, e.g. Matthew 21:21 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" - except the regeneration of a missing limb, apparently. So why does god single out amputees to never benefit from his miraculous healing powers? For all their faith, no christian has been able to satisfactorily answer the question of why in this respect god would appear to be eternally constrained by immutable biological laws.

I could go on...

Science has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the christian god as depicted in the bible doesn't exist. If you still choose to believe in him you're obviously quite at liberty to do so, but please don't deceive yourself that science is somehow ambivalent or on your side. It isn't.

Sangre

I see two possibilities (notwithstanding TR's added conclusions ).

1) Reaction leading to a euphoria that is attributed to God.
or
2) The euphoria of meeting God that causes the chemical reaction.

Comments?

Again, nothing anyone can prove it either way but I would think most non-religious people would attributed it to the first category because this God experience of euphoria isn't limited to any one denomination or creed. How do we know you God experience is real whereas a pagan's or a Hindu's is just a chemical reaction? You all claim the exact same experience is caused by your own God's so one assumes what you are all experiencing isn't in fact any God but in your own head.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Wrong here. God has always been. Man's interpretation of Him and His involvement has changed.

Well they seemed pretty sure he was doing the thunder and lightening. Then they seemed pretty sure that he was the cause of Earthquakes. Then they seemed pretty sure he was the reason the crops failed. Of course now we know that he wasn't behind any of that, that all these things had natural processes behind them. And we are amused at how anyone would believe something like Thor throwing a lightening bolt out of the sky.

Of course today you seem pretty sure of the supernatural things you believe in.

So are people going to look back in a few hundred years and go "How did they ever believe that stuff?"

BrianCalgary wrote:

He still is in control of all of the above. His involvement has changed over the yeras though.

As I said, God hates science, since as soon as we start looking at where he is supposed to be, he runs off and hides some where else. Rather bizarre.

BrianCalgary wrote:

God is not the set of moving goal posts. We move Him either by inviting Him or rejecting Him.

No, that is how you explain away why the goal posts shift in the first place. Scientists cannot see or observe him because we don't believe in him. He is the fairy out of Peter Pan.

BrianCalgary wrote:

If we reject Him His involvement in the affiars of mankind lessen. If we invite Him, His involvement increases.

Well I'm still waiting for someone who has "invited him in" to scientifically demonstrate that he actually does, or has done, anything at all, ever ... and I imagine I will be waiting for quite some time.

BrianCalgary wrote:

You are imagining it.

It is quite simple to see from human history how God has been slowly moved out of the reaches of science as the beliefs of theists have increasingly been challenged and contradicted by human discovery.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

This sentence struck me, wicknight made a similar inference regarding chemical reactions in the brain that leads to the impression of the spiritual.

I see two possibilities (notwithstanding TR's added conclusions ).

1) Reaction leading to a euphoria that is attributed to God.
or
2) The euphoria of meeting God that causes the chemical reaction.

Comments?

My 2 cents -

Most religious persons experience, or claims to experience, this phenomena. It does not matter which religion or what they claim to be experiencing. It holds for Christians and Muslims who believe they are talking to God as much as it holds for UFO cults who think they communicate with super powerful space being.

Since not every god or religion or intergalactic being can be correct or exist (since many contradict each other), but every human brain works on pretty much a similar design and pattern, it is safe and logical to conclude that the similarity of the effect is a result of the way the human brain function, and not the product of actually meeting or communicating with a particular deity or alien intelligence.

Some have suggested that this is related to a form of mental detachment from the inner monologue that each person has going on in their head, that people who believe they are talking to God or Xenu or whoever simply don't realise that the voice in their head is actually their own brain, the same voice people use when thinking or reading in their mind.

Others have suggested that it is a hold over from the natural childhood process of imagination that is used to process information about the world as we grow up, such as imaginary friends or fantasy world. In some people this process of learning isn't shut of fully when we enter adolescence and adulthood so parts of the brain are still open to processing the world in this manner.

A simple way to test this is to ask the voice in your head something that you do not, and couldn't possibly, know, such as a complex mathematical problem or the result of the next world cup. Unfortunately though a lot of religions build in safety clauses to stop followers doing just that along the lines of "One should not test God", which is code for "Don't do this because you might accidentally demonstrate that you aren't talking to God"

Using a more extreme example (and I hasten to I am not saying religion is a form of mental illness), if you met a 55 year old American woman who believed that her toaster was talking to her, and then you met a 21 year old Chinese man who believed the his car was trying to kill him, would you conclude that it is possible that the toaster was talking to the person, or the car was trying to kill the man, or that they are both suffering from a similar form of mental illness that produces these effects in the brain of the suffers?

Now one could argue that just because the woman was schizophrenic doesn't mean the car is not trying to kill the Chinese man, and vice versa

A similar argument has been used with relation to religion, I think by Jakkass. That just because all other religions are mistaken when the believe they know or communicate with a deity or powerful being, doesn't mean that Christians aren't actually talking to God.

And this is quite true. But really when one looks at it that is not he obvious conclusion to draw, just like a person wouldn't say "I'm not going to rule out that the car is trying to kill that Chinese man"

The most likely conclusion is that the thing that is happening in one follower is the same brain process that is happening in the other.

Sangre

lol, reminds me of my post but...longer.

anyone ever tell you brevity is a virtue wicknight?

Zombrex

Sangre wrote:

lol, reminds me of my post but...longer.

anyone ever tell you brevity is a virtue wicknight?

I have couple of books on the subject ...

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I have couple of books on the subject ...

Including, presumably, such gems as "Why It Is Important to Be Reasonably Brief and Concise When Discussing Subjects in Forums on the Internet"...

rockbeer wrote:

Science has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the christian god as depicted in the bible doesn't exist. If you still choose to believe in him you're obviously quite at liberty to do so, but please don't deceive yourself that science is somehow ambivalent or on your side. It isn't.

Well put.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

rockbeer wrote:

There is not a single documented instance of an amputated limb spontaneously regenerating. Scripture declares that god will provide in response to prayer, e.g. Matthew 21:21 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" - except the regeneration of a missing limb, apparently. So why does god single out amputees to never benefit from his miraculous healing powers? For all their faith, no christian has been able to satisfactorily answer the question of why in this respect god would appear to be eternally constrained by immutable biological laws.

Thats a pretty powerfull point, can any Christian explain this, just by itself this fact proves the God you think Loves you actually does not care a whit.

BrianCalgary

MooseJam wrote:

Thats a pretty powerfull point, can any Christian explain this, just by itself this fact proves the God you think Loves you actually does not care a whit.

On a quick response, God is not held by the physical laws of our universe, see the raising of Lazarus from the dead, healings, etc.

I know that all my little aches and pains will be cured once I arrive in Heaven, so I tend not to be overly concerned with any of them

A good read on this topic is Joni-Erickson Tada who is a quadraplegic and has a great ministry.

Besides I am too busy asking God to help others, because when you get right down to it, we look to eternity more than anything.

My pains cured when I get there, so I don't care about them now. My care is praying for those in real need of God in their lives.

It is a matter of priorities.