geo wrote:

stahrwe wrote:That Stah insists God to be the anthropomorphic maniac depicted in the Old Testament shows an utter lack of imagination, but if such a being showed and performed parlour tricks for a very large audience it would possibly demonstrate only that there might be some previously unknown property of the universe that has not been discovered yet. See No. 3 above. Scientists would then formulate theories based on the event which I gather would have been captured on film or something. If not, a likely explanation I'd think would be mass hallucination. Science needs real, observable data. An eyewitness account is not going to be considered very strong evidence. If a couple of million people saw the same thing, I'd think that would be considered strong evidence of something, but what? Without confirming or repeatable data, it would not be much to go on. Evidence of "God"? Well, you would first have to define what "God" is. And how would you distinguish between God and the very advanced technology of an alien species?

Once again, this is an area Stah proves to simply incapable of grasping, that science is a discipline which studies real world phenomenon. A supernatural event, by its very definition, cannot be studied using the scientific method. This is why there's no evidence for ghosts. Many people believe in ghosts, and some even purport to use scientific methods to study "ghostly" phenomenon, but the truth is, there is no scientific data for ghosts. Belief in them must rely on faith. The most likely explanation, of course, is that ghosts don't really exist. But hey, it's a free country. People can believe whatever they want. Leprechauns, flying saucers, god, etc.

The sad thing is not that you utterly miss the point, but that you make my point for me. The story I made up was designed to stipulate that God did in fact appear. He proved that He was who He claimed to be by fultilling everyting man has demanded that He do to prove He Is. And here you are flopping about like a fish out of water saying science would have to come up with theories to explain it away. You demonstrate the bankruptcy of science when you show that something proved to be true must be rejected.

The point was, is, and remains that the demand that God perform a miracle as a basis for belief is a red herring.

Ha! Way to fail making a point. My beliefs are fluid. All you would have to do is provide sufficient evidence and/or reasoning to persuade me of your worldview. I have never seen a good reason nor one single shred of evidence.

The point was, is, and remains that the demand that God perform a miracle as a basis for belief is a red herring.

He could performa miracle, or at least meet SOME bottom barrel metric to prove his existence.

If someone shows up and says they are god, there is no reason to believe them. That is the problem the Raelians face currently. To really be convincing as a supernatural entity, you ought to pull off a feat that no human could do.

Don't blame us Star, you are the one backing the magic man. If his magic doesn't show and prove, then that is on him, not us.

God's domain is magic. If you claim god exists then he had better be able to do some magic, otherwise it's a busted claim.

johnson1010 wrote:

The point was, is, and remains that the demand that God perform a miracle as a basis for belief is a red herring.

He could performa miracle, or at least meet SOME bottom barrel metric to prove his existence.

If someone shows up and says they are god, there is no reason to believe them. That is the problem the Raelians face currently. To really be convincing as a supernatural entity, you ought to pull off a feat that no human could do.

Don't blame us Star, you are the one backing the magic man. If his magic doesn't show and prove, then that is on him, not us.

God's domain is magic. If you claim god exists then he had better be able to do some magic, otherwise it's a busted claim.

I'm not blaming you, I'm merely demonstrating the fallacy of your reasoning. In order for YOU to believe, God must perform a miracle for YOU. If He performs a miracle for someone else, especially if YOU don't witness it firsthand, then YOU are justified in rejecting God. So, in reality it isn't about whether God exists or not, it's all about YOU. And that's the Gospel in a nutshell. God says that it isn't about YOU, it's about Him. He sent His Son. He lived a sinless life. He died on the cross. He rose again. He sent the Holy Spirit. YOU didn't do any of that. In fact, YOU could not do any of that.

stahrwe wrote: The sad thing is not that you utterly miss the point, but that you make my point for me. The story I made up was designed to stipulate that God did in fact appear. He proved that He was who He claimed to be by fultilling everyting man has demanded that He do to prove He Is. And here you are flopping about like a fish out of water saying science would have to come up with theories to explain it away. You demonstrate the bankruptcy of science when you show that something proved to be true must be rejected.

Hey, if I saw some dude going around healing people, making missing limbs reappear, etc. I'd be inclined to toss aside the science book too. But the point is that your story is so highly improbable it just wouldn't mesh with our current scientific understanding of the universe. Point in fact, it didn't happen and never will. Who's flopping around like a fish is you and your brethren who insist as true something that is purported to have taken place thousands of years ago and all you've got to go on is a book written at the same time by people who were clearly pushing an agenda. A magic man who heals people. It's not even original. There are thousands of myths about gods, demons, fairies, and, yes, leprechauns. Your fiction of choice is the Christian god.

Religion is a belief system with no actual evidence to support it's claims (thus the emphasis on faith). In that respect, it is no different than a belief in leprechauns. Yes, some people believe leprechauns are real magical creatures. And they have the same factual evidence to support their beliefs as you do. None.

The only real difference is that Christianity has proved to be so appealing to the masses that it is caught up in its own feedback loop of belief—augmented and embellished over the centuries with "holy" texts and convoluted Christian theology which exists only to lend support to itself and bring an appearance of legitimacy. Bottom line, where is this "god" you swear is real? Where does it exist? Can we see it through a telescope? Can we run gamma rays through it? No. Because said deity doesn't exist, at least not in the real world, and so by its very nature must forever remain outside the realm of science.

He sent His Son. He lived a sinless life. He died on the cross. He rose again. He sent the Holy Spirit. YOU didn't do any of that. In fact, YOU could not do any of that.

I never claimed i was a magic man.

Your magic man, on the other hand, has a lot to live up to if he is to prove that he exists.

So far that has not happened, and it seems entirely likely to never happen. All the proof for your magic man stems from a book of myths. Myths that include the feats you mention in your post.

It's pretty simple, really. We see no magic that is not the everyday workings of the universe. (sunrise, babies, butterflies, whatever) you say that there is a magic man. This does not jive with reality. I say until i see some magic, there i am entirely justified in rejecting your magic man.

If your magic man can't come up with some magic, then he is not, in fact, a magic man. He is more like a made up man. With a whole book of made up adventures and doings. Not unlike spiderman, or santa.

I'm not blaming you, I'm merely demonstrating the fallacy of your reasoning. In order for YOU to believe, God must perform a miracle for YOU.

There's no fallacy. All it would take is for him to perform a miracle for anyone. Most times people claim a miracle has happened, it's a misunderstanding of probability. Would it be a miracle if someone who needs money hits a jackpot in Las Vegas? No, it's statistically inevitable, yet that person would claim it's a miracle. It's superfluous and simply bad reasoning to assume there is a 'reason' the jackpot happened other than plain old probability.