Theists - How can you believe? Seriously ...

Perhaps it never will, but I am willing to bet there is at least one doctor that will spend his life trying to cure such diseases. Give it time.

 

Let me cut to the chase. If God healed people then there would be no sick theists... yet sadly there are many theists who suffer with horrible ailments. I believe that God gives strength to those who ask and I have drawn upon this strength many times during my life. But with that said, I also have to admit that it is possible that God does not answer prayers and that any strength I get is a placebo effect and comes from within me.

You know the difference between a Doctor and God? God does not think that he is a Doctor! (Insert laughter here)

 

God doesn't heal the sick. He brings absolution.

That begs the question, does it come from within you? And if it does couldn't God have made us that way?

I am scratching my head over this one, when did I say anything of the sort. I said God isn't a genie, but that doesn't mean he is a doctor.

 

To me absolution comes from admitting my transgression to those that I have harmed, making a sincere apology and reparation if warranted. When I do this I have absolution.

Sure, but that brings theology down to guessing, speculation and conjecture... which is the natural state of theology as there is no way to define a theological intangible to the satisfaction of all theists. Perhaps there is no God, perhaps we are all fooling ourselves and my prayers are just a placebo effect. As neither theory can be empirically proven, all theists are left to grapple with where their reason ends... and faith begins...

Sorry, its late and our discussion reminded me of the joke. Its only relevance to this thread is to get a chuckle and not aimed at any particular individual.

 

That isn't the kind of absolution I was talking about.

All theology is speculation and conjecture.

 

Sorry, by "follow" I just meant to align with, not as a synonym for faith.

Deism traditionally meant the belief that god created and then essentially abandoned the universe. I think what you have is the idea that god exist but is beyond exact understanding by a mere human. There have been secular studies on the effectiveness of prayer with some interesting results. Skeptics on the other hand have rabidly debunked them and attacked the methods and questioned the motives of the studies. I think prayer helps as long as the person doing it is not expecting a greater power to do it all; if we want change we have to be willing to change. I think praying for others is a wonderful habit, even if it causes no objective result it allows the person praying to put the needs of someone else in the center of their conscience. Sympathy for others is a necessary early step in being fully human (IMO).

For me (at the moment) when I contemplate the divine I find pantheism easiest to follow (align with). In pantheism god is nature in its totality, the supernatural is discarded and spirituality is simply another part of the natural universe to explore. It accepts that there is foolishness in human attempts within science and religion, but there is also beauty and truth in both.

 

You are on the right track, but need step up to Panentheism, which sees God as force behind the ever changing Reality which creates the Nature which you then observe.

Reality is different from the pantheism of taking Nature as a done deal.
The nature of Reality is Change, the only thing that is permanent.
What you see as Nature today, is History.

But to see the light into the Future, you need imagine what Reality is going to do next, by developing an image of it,... called Truth.

 

Dodgeball

 

But the universe also exists. So if the car is the handiwork of man, of which a cat does not understand, yet can see its evidence; how is it that the universe is not the handiwork of God, of which man does not understand, yet can see its evidence?

 

That is speculation not truth.

 

Such a childlike concept (because some things are built, everything must be). But since you feel that it must be so, who or what made your god?

 

I dare say that children stranded on a lonely Island and building a new civilization would eventually get concepts of both: God and maths. Somehow our brain seems to be so inclined. But, yes, learning certainly helps. What made our species so successful was that we don’t have to invent the wheel anew with every generation.

Yes nature is wonderful, so some think it actually is God. While I’m not really pantheist myself, I think He reveals Himself in every twig and every single atom. I’m sure, however, that there must be a mind beyond atoms and strings for atoms and strings to exist. But all in all I have an inkling that you and me may have the same awe and just give it different names.

 

My father died a couple of years ago and I believe that his love is still with me, in my memories but probably even more so in my personality. IMHO he did not cease to exist: I believe He exists with God now and that in God neither my father’s love is lost, nor the love of people who lived thousands of years ago and who are now long forgotten.

- - - Updated - - -

On the cross.

 

What I don't get it is how is that supposed to disprove Christianity? I assume lots of atheist/agnostic parents don't always live up to their standards, however they arrive at them. Does that invalidate their worldview?

- - - Updated - - -

.....and abortion. Those innocent babies are in heaven now, away from all suffering.

- - - Updated - - -

'Unlikely' is nothing but your opinion. Billions of people would call our being here by random chance incredibly unlikely.

Have an African Grey call me up on the phone, please.

You would expect man alone to communicate as we do if we are made in God's image.

 

Why don't you show us where archaeology has disproved the Bible, and where Nelson Glueck was wrong? I think it's just one of those things atheists spout without ever having looked into it.



Here are just a few examples of extra-Biblical confirmation of Biblical events:

Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.

Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls. Of course before this discovery the skeptics claimed Sargon never existed.

Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.

Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.

Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.

Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.

Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.

Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.

Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.

The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.

Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.


Those events above are historical facts, not myths.

 

No, but it does prove McDonald's exists.

From another site:

"These experiences often have very significant effects on people's lives, frequently inducing in them acts of extreme self-sacrifice well beyond what could be expected from evolutionary arguments.

These experiences often seem very real to the people involved, and are quite often reported as being shared by a number of people. Although mass delusions are not inconceivable, one needs compelling reasons for invoking this as an explanation."

Are you saying they are mass delusions, all with the same delusion?

 

I never meant it as a disproving of Christianity. One cannot just disprove Christianity as any reasonable person will understand that Christianity does exist. Now proving/disproving the God of Christianity is a another argument to which I have no interest in debating as I am in full support of Christians believing in their God.

 

I wasn't necessarily referring to you, it was a rhetorical question.

 

A simple cell has more information than the Encyclopedia Brittanica, in what other case do we find information that wasn't put there?

We've been over this before, you don't need an explanation for an explanation. In other words, if you came upon a dirt mound containing primitive tools and weapons, it would be reasonable to conclude men put them there, without knowing who they were or where they came from.

Besides, if atheists have no clue what set off the Big Bang (let alone where that matter came from) or how the first non-life became life, why should a fallen and finite person like myself be asked to explain an infinite, omniscient God?

 

that millions of people eat mcfatsos every day is not what proves the existence of mcfatsos. the TANGIBLE, ACTUAL existence of mcfatsos proves it exists. there are actual buildings, car parks, and burgers you can go and sniff and touch and eat. real burgers, not holy spirit burgers.

it's hard to conceive that you think a supernaturally implanted thought MORE likely than something as ordinary and really quite common as mass or group delusion. when you factor in the huge number of DIFFERENCES in said thought (religion), then even mass delusion as an explanation collapses. what you're talking about here is simply learned behaviours or ideas. if someone in authority tells you that liking icecream is a magical gift from god, then you go out into the world and find that ALMOST EVERYONE likes icecream, you're going to draw some pretty strange conclusions.

 

because you've already made the assertion that something can't come from nothing (or words to that effect). clearly, you're quite comfortable in describing precisely how the universe works, god-style. since this is apparently the case, and your own assertion means your god can't come from nothing, it's merely a small step to explaining where it came from. if you know enough to KNOW that the universe couldn't spontaneously come into existence, so must necessarily have all the reasons why such a thing could never be, then you must KNOW the same about your god.

 

as discussed, these are merely supporting evidence of the TIME AND PLACE in which the bible developed. there is nothing in archaeology to confirm any of the claimed miracles and supernatural events, and you know this full well. I have no idea why you think the mere confirmation of the setting of a story or myth somehow makes the myth real. again, Harry Potter is set in the UK. flying broomsticks?

 

Is there a sun in the sky? Does it light the earth?
Does it warm the earth?
Objectively speaking.

 

Thats a jackass, not a donkey.

 

Not what I believe. Everything that was created has a cause.