Sean Hannity Proves the Danger of believing in the Bible.

[DRMIZER]

Recently FOX talk show host Sean Hannity made the point that actual belief in Jesus and the Bible demand that we also buy into the Devil, demons and exorcisms.

Two Roman Catholic priests were guests on the FOX talk show Hannity & Colmes discussing the recent deadly exorcism. During the interview Hannity said, "I mean Christ, if we believe the Bible and I do, um, he exorcised demons with regularity. I mean often."

The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible told about Christ exorcising demons. If rationality had replaced the ignorance and superstition of the "revealed" religions, the little girl never would have gone through this terrible experience and her grandfather would still be alive.

Further preying on and reinforcing the credulity of the people, one of the Catholic priests told a far-fetched story about the Church's chief exorcist in Spain talking to the Devil, who had possessed one of his parishioners, about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. He said when he mentioned the movie to the Devil the person who was possessed went nuts, which made the chief exorcist know that the movie was a good movie since the Devil hates all good things!

With ancient superstitions like these still being taken seriously, real progress is next to impossible. And not only is true progress next to impossible, but these ideas and beliefs bring about real tragedy and, as in the case of this exorcism, death.

[Lumpen Prole]

Oh boy.

[DRMIZER]

I know. . .Here we go again. Sorry.

[Ethos]

Is there a link for this one?

[green lantern]

Recently FOX talk show host Sean Hannity made the point that actual belief in Jesus and the Bible demand that we also buy into the Devil, demons and exorcisms.

Two Roman Catholic priests were guests on the FOX talk show Hannity & Colmes discussing the recent deadly exorcism. During the interview Hannity said, "I mean Christ, if we believe the Bible and I do, um, he exorcised demons with regularity. I mean often."

The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible told about Christ exorcising demons. If rationality had replaced the ignorance and superstition of the "revealed" religions, the little girl never would have gone through this terrible experience and her grandfather would still be alive.

Further preying on and reinforcing the credulity of the people, one of the Catholic priests told a far-fetched story about the Church's chief exorcist in Spain talking to the Devil, who had possessed one of his parishioners, about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. He said when he mentioned the movie to the Devil the person who was possessed went nuts, which made the chief exorcist know that the movie was a good movie since the Devil hates all good things!

With ancient superstitions like these still being taken seriously, real progress is next to impossible. And not only is true progress next to impossible, but these ideas and beliefs bring about real tragedy and, as in the case of this exorcism, death.what is the point of this thread??

[prst31]

Recently FOX talk show host Sean Hannity made the point that actual belief in Jesus and the Bible demand that we also buy into the Devil, demons and exorcisms.

Two Roman Catholic priests were guests on the FOX talk show Hannity & Colmes discussing the recent deadly exorcism. During the interview Hannity said, "I mean Christ, if we believe the Bible and I do, um, he exorcised demons with regularity. I mean often."

The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible told about Christ exorcising demons. If rationality had replaced the ignorance and superstition of the "revealed" religions, the little girl never would have gone through this terrible experience and her grandfather would still be alive.

Further preying on and reinforcing the credulity of the people, one of the Catholic priests told a far-fetched story about the Church's chief exorcist in Spain talking to the Devil, who had possessed one of his parishioners, about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. He said when he mentioned the movie to the Devil the person who was possessed went nuts, which made the chief exorcist know that the movie was a good movie since the Devil hates all good things!

With ancient superstitions like these still being taken seriously, real progress is next to impossible. And not only is true progress next to impossible, but these ideas and beliefs bring about real tragedy and, as in the case of this exorcism, death.Are these your words or someone else's? Provide a link if not yours please.

[Ethos]

I found a link with a video capture of the exchange:

http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=78

It doesn't seem Hannity is supporting this particular incident. In fact, the priest insists the situation in Phoenix was not a true "exorcism" and if anyone was possessed, it was the grandfather and not the child.

Ethos

[DRMIZER]

Are these your words or someone else's? Provide a link if not yours please.
As the thread above provides, The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible. Whether or not he believes in this or any exorcism is a side note.

[prst31]

As the thread above provides, The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible. Whether or not he believes in this or any exorcism is a side note.So were those your words or someone else's? Please provide a link if not.

[DRMIZER]

So were those your words or someone else's? Please provide a link if not.http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=78 This is a link. They were both his and my words.

[heel31ok]

I do not see the connection between this and whether the bible is true or not.

[burntgorilla]

Well, if you believe in the Bible, you must also believe in demons and exorcisms and the like. I don't think it's fair to then bring in that exorcism and argue that literalists must support it or something.

[DRMIZER]

Well, if you believe in the Bible, you must also believe in demons and exorcisms and the like. I see no way around it. Unless you pick and choose your beliefs which invalidates the text completely because there is no logical way to understand what is true and what is not true.

[burntgorilla]

I see no way around it. Unless you pick and choose your beliefs which invalidates the text completely because there is no logical way to understand what is true and what is not true.

But I think they all do. I don't know any literalists who don't also believe in demons and the like. Unless they take the demons as a symbolic thing, or an allegory, but then that's a very slippery slope.

[DRMIZER]

But I think they all do. I don't know any literalists who don't also believe in demons and the like. Unless they take the demons as a symbolic thing, or an allegory, but then that's a very slippery slope.I completely agree.

[DrWho]

[QUOTE]Recently FOX talk show host Sean Hannity made the point that actual belief in Jesus and the Bible demand that we also buy into the Devil, demons and exorcisms.

I would agree that one cannot pick and choose. Either believe it all or none of it. Nevertheless, there is still the need to determine what parts are to be taken literally, figuratively, as allegory, as symbolism, etc. I take it literally unless there is a reason to take it figuratively.

As you can see there is a great deal of interpretation needed. Christianity is a religion which requires one to think. There is nothing irrational with thinking that the creator of the universe could perform miracles.

I believe in spirits as do almost all Americans. The first spirit I believe in is my own spirit. After that it is not too great a leap to believe in God and angels.

Two Roman Catholic priests were guests on the FOX talk show Hannity & Colmes discussing the recent deadly exorcism. During the interview Hannity said, "I mean Christ, if we believe the Bible and I do, um, he exorcised demons with regularity. I mean often."

The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible told about Christ exorcising demons. If rationality had replaced the ignorance and superstition of the "revealed" religions, the little girl never would have gone through this terrible experience and her grandfather would still be alive.

I haven't seen any of the details of this exorcism but clearly (based on the reactions of people here) she was abused in the process. Nowhere does the bible call for you and I to abuse anyone and this would be no exception. I find fault with the actual people who caused whatever harm this girl experienced.

Further preying on and reinforcing the credulity of the people, one of the Catholic priests told a far-fetched story about the Church's chief exorcist in Spain talking to the Devil, who had possessed one of his parishioners, about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. He said when he mentioned the movie to the Devil the person who was possessed went nuts, which made the chief exorcist know that the movie was a good movie since the Devil hates all good things!

One needs look no farther than this forum to see that every group of people has it's members who believe kooky things.

With ancient superstitions like these still being taken seriously, real progress is next to impossible. And not only is true progress next to impossible, but these ideas and beliefs bring about real tragedy and, as in the case of this exorcism, death.

Superstition:
Definition: An irrational belief (i.e., one held in spite of evidence to the contrary), usually involving the supernatural and associated with rituals.

The existence of God cannot be disproved since wherever one has not found Him He could always be just around the next corner. Therefore the belief that there is no God is a superstition.

Belief in God without examining any evidence would also be a superstition. But many of the Christians I know have examined the evidence for and against thoroughly before making their decision. You are all welcome to examine it yourself and draw whatever conclusions you want. But calling people superstitious without actually knowing what efforts they have done before making their decisions is not accurate.

It also seems to me that most scientific progress is the result of the religious leaders of the past who formed our scientific method.

[AgentM]

The existence of God cannot be disproved since wherever one has not found Him He could always be just around the next corner. Therefore the belief that there is no God is a superstition.

Neither can God be proved, just as he cannot be disproved. Really when it comes down to it, we just believe what we want. I choose not to believe in God because I find the idea of God or Gods ludicrous, but that is merely my beliefs. I think however, when challenging non-believers, it is up to the believer to prove his/her point. Personally I have not seen an argument in favour of God's existence that doesn't just boil down to "Just because." I don't have to buy into an argument that something exists when it is merely an assertion of people without any proof.

[Ethos]

The existence of God cannot be disproved since wherever one has not found Him He could always be just around the next corner. Therefore the belief that there is no God is a superstition.

This is an interesting position. Can your reasoning be applied to other beliefs?


If I am in a car accident, it cannot be disproven that said accident was in fact part of my seven year stretch in bad luck earned through the breaking of a mirror last week. Therefore believing that breaking mirrors results in bad luck is not superstition.

Is this accurate?

Ethos

[DrWho]

[QUOTE]This is an interesting position. Can your reasoning be applied to other beliefs?

I was only speaking of the existence of God. When a belief system gets more complicated there very well may be ways to disprove it.

For example Christianity says that Jesus' body rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Find his body and you will disprove it. It also claims that every prophet must be infallible in his prophesies. Find one error and the person is no prophet.

Religions can be disproven. The most common method would be to find self-contradictions.



Is this accurate?

Ethos

It depends. Did you do your due diligence and examine the evidence for your belief in bad luck being correlated to breaking mirrors?

If yes then it is not a superstition. It could still be wrong just not superstitious.

[DrWho]

Neither can God be proved, just as he cannot be disproved. Really when it comes down to it, we just believe what we want. I choose not to believe in God because I find the idea of God or Gods ludicrous, but that is merely my beliefs. I think however, when challenging non-believers, it is up to the believer to prove his/her point. Personally I have not seen an argument in favour of God's existence that doesn't just boil down to "Just because." I don't have to buy into an argument that something exists when it is merely an assertion of people without any proof.


The existence of God can be proven it just has not been proven.

At least not to your level of satisfaction. All God needs to do is show Himself and His existence will be proven. So far He has not shown Himself to you, but many people have claimed to have experienced God. For them this is all the proof they need. For you this is just evidence and you will decide how credible you think these people are.

The authors of the Bible all claim to have experienced God and they add weight to their claim by providing examples of prescience, prophesy, astounding and profound truths, and inerrancy.

I have been searching for contradictions to these since I was an atheist over 20 yrs ago and so far no one has honestly found a counter example. I have seen plenty of dishonest examples. In fact, one of the reasons I became a Christian is by reading "101 Biblical errors". If the author of that book could not find one bona fide example of an error which was not clearly motivated by his own intentional or foolish misunderstanding of the Bible then it must be a pretty amazing Bible. And it is.

[Ethos]

It depends. Did you do your due diligence and examine the evidence for your belief in bad luck being correlated to breaking mirrors?

If yes then it is not a superstition. It could still be wrong just not superstitious.

So as long as I assert that I have committed due diligence in associating my accident with the broken mirror, my belief is no longer a superstition?

Ethos

[DrWho]

So as long as I assert that I have committed due diligence in associating my accident with the broken mirror, my belief is no longer a superstition?

Ethos

If you have done your diligence then you may be right or wrong but you won't be superstitious. But if you just assert that you have done your diligence, when in fact you have not, then you might be wrong about that too.

Scientific inquiry like religious inquiry also requires that you examine your hypotheses to see if they are right or wrong. People who accept scientific dogma without testing it are just as foolish as those who accept religious dogma without testing it. The former are called flat Earthers and the latter are called superstitious.

The Bible says that you should test all things and that it is noble to examine the scriptures to see if they are right or not. In keeping with this I would extrapolate that you could test the concept of luck to see if it really is a quality that can be transferred, increased or decreased by one's actions. I have concluded that it is not. Are you going to take my word for it?

[AgentM]

The existence of God can be proven it just has not been proven.

At least not to your level of satisfaction. All God needs to do is show Himself and His existence will be proven. So far He has not shown Himself to you, but many people have claimed to have experienced God. For them this is all the proof they need. For you this is just evidence and you will decide how credible you think these people are.

Exactly. I would need to experience God for myself before I believe. I am not willing to take what others say as truth on mere hear-say which is what the Bible and other holy writings (and those that preach them as though they are the absolute truth) amount to. Until I experience God, I remain an atheist.

[DrWho]

Exactly. I would need to experience God for myself before I believe. I am not willing to take what others say as truth on mere hear-say which is what the Bible and other holy writings (and those that preach them as though they are the absolute truth) amount to. Until I experience God, I remain an atheist.

Do you apply the same standard to all other knowledge? We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.

[Ethos]

If you have done your diligence then you may be right or wrong but you won't be superstitious. But if you just assert that you have done your diligence, when in fact you have not, then you might be wrong about that too.

Scientific inquiry like religious inquiry also requires that you examine your hypotheses to see if they are right or wrong. People who accept scientific dogma without testing it are just as foolish as those who accept religious dogma without testing it. The former are called flat Earthers and the latter are called superstitious.

The Bible says that you should test all things and that it is noble to examine the scriptures to see if they are right or not. In keeping with this I would extrapolate that you could test the concept of luck to see if it really is a quality that can be transferred, increased or decreased by one's actions. I have concluded that it is not. Are you going to take my word for it?

And if I were to conclude that luck is a measurable quality, how would you prove me wrong? Certainly you could perform your own tests, but your tests could be inferior to my own, in which case your results are faulty. You cannot prove "luck" does not affect our lives, therefore it might be right around the next corner, so to speak.

Now at some point you may realize the eventual objective of my comments as they relate to the failures of logic in your assertions. Or you may not.

Ethos

[Ethos]

Exactly. I would need to experience God for myself before I believe. I am not willing to take what others say as truth on mere hear-say which is what the Bible and other holy writings (and those that preach them as though they are the absolute truth) amount to. Until I experience God, I remain an atheist.

Hypothetically speaking, how would you conciously know the difference between "experiencing God" and a biochemically induced hallucination?

Ethos

[DrWho]

And if I were to conclude that luck is a measurable quality, how would you prove me wrong? Certainly you could perform your own tests, but your tests could be inferior to my own, in which case your results are faulty. You cannot prove "luck" does not affect our lives, therefore it might be right around the next corner, so to speak.

Now at some point you may realize the eventual objective of my comments as they relate to the failures of logic in your assertions. Or you may not.

Ethos


No one's logic is absolutely complete. We all have assumptions that shape our world view. Even the most compulsive scientists makes assumptions about the world.

If you decide that you want to embrace the concept of luck we can discuss it civily. You might convince me and I might convince you. Perhaps in the end we can all be closer to truth.

In any event everyone of us will state what we believe as if it were the truth if for no other reason than it would be silly to begin every sentence with "My opinion" or "the way I see it"

[Ethos]

No one's logic is absolutely complete. We all have assumptions that shape our world view. Even the most compulsive scientists makes assumptions about the world.

If you decide that you want to embrace the concept of luck we can discuss it civily. You might convince me and I might convince you. Perhaps in the end we can all be closer to truth.

In any event everyone of us will state what we believe as if it were the truth if for no other reason than it would be silly to begin every sentence with "My opinion" or "the way I see it"

The issue here is you have redefined various terms to meet your own needs. It is fine to believe in a thing, but to claim that belief is rational when it is not would be incorrect. Lengthy and careful consideration of a concept does not necessarily indicate a rational foundation. As such, believing in the bad luck of breaking glass without tangible proof would be just as superstitious (and wrong, as it happens) if studied for a lifetime.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Recently FOX talk show host Sean Hannity made the point that actual belief in Jesus and the Bible demand that we also buy into the Devil, demons and exorcisms.

Two Roman Catholic priests were guests on the FOX talk show Hannity & Colmes discussing the recent deadly exorcism. During the interview Hannity said, "I mean Christ, if we believe the Bible and I do, um, he exorcised demons with regularity. I mean often."

The mother and grandfather of the victimized innocent little girl, like Hannity, also believed in the lies of the Bible told about Christ exorcising demons. If rationality had replaced the ignorance and superstition of the "revealed" religions, the little girl never would have gone through this terrible experience and her grandfather would still be alive.

Further preying on and reinforcing the credulity of the people, one of the Catholic priests told a far-fetched story about the Church's chief exorcist in Spain talking to the Devil, who had possessed one of his parishioners, about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ. He said when he mentioned the movie to the Devil the person who was possessed went nuts, which made the chief exorcist know that the movie was a good movie since the Devil hates all good things!

With ancient superstitions like these still being taken seriously, real progress is next to impossible. And not only is true progress next to impossible, but these ideas and beliefs bring about real tragedy and, as in the case of this exorcism, death.
If this twisted story is your idea of “proof” for belief against something, DRMIZER, then your criteria for proof is sadly lacking. Is it not possible to have a rational faith yet behave in an irrational manner? Is it not possible to be confused on what pleases God and what does not? The grandfather was choking the child and the mother was chanting while naked and bloody. I agree with the Catholic priest -- IF anyone were possessed, it was the mother and grandfather. When one is irrational as the mother and grandfather in trying to kill the child, it makes no matter what that irrational belief is based on. Irrational is, after all, irrational.

[Dangerrmouse]

Is rational faith an oxymoron? Faith is dependent on intuition, or personal experience, rationality is not.

[Cedars]

Is rational faith an oxymoron? Faith is dependent on intuition, or personal experience, rationality is not.
No, it is not an oxymoron. Faith is not the opposite of reason or contradictory to it. Just because you may not have come to faith through reason, it does not mean that faith is not rational. Your own belief, or lack thereof, is just as dependent on intuition, or personal experience. Faith SHOULD possess reason. The Catholic Church encourages the use of reason because reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, as people sometimes assume, but rather complement one another. Faith makes us more free, not less, because both the intellect and the will participate in a higher level of reality than reason alone is capable of reaching.

[Cedars]

Anyway, my point was that the irrational ACTIONS of the mother and grandparent does not prove that the FAITH is irrational.

[Dangerrmouse]

Belief in the supernatural is irrational. There is no rational case for the existence of the supernatural.

[Cedars]

Again, you are arguing a wholly different point than the one I was making. However, to answer your argument, you cannot use reason to prove that someone loves you; the truth of someone’s love transcends reason. That does not mean that love is somehow contrary to reason. Even though the proof of a person's love transcends reason, you can use your reason to look for signs that someone loves you. Such signs might include what a loved one says to you and how willing a loved one is to sacrifice for you. In the same way, God gives us external evidence of His revelation so that we can see that it is rational to believe it.

[DrWho]

Belief in the supernatural is irrational. There is no rational case for the existence of the supernatural.


There is no rational reason to disbelieve it. In the absence of observable evidence one can say that he has not seen something but to say that it therefore does not exist is irrational.

However, even though there is no observable evidence for the existence of the supernatural there is the evidence of the testimony of those who claim to have had an experience that indicates it exist. You can choose to believe their testimony or not. Some people choose to believe their testimony based on demonstrable aspects of the Bible that add credibility to what it says: prescience, fulfilled prophesy, internal consistency, archeological support, etc. but mostly just because when they read it they find that it "rings true" Faith is the belief in the evidence of things unseen.

Oddly enough the scientists and atheists and skeptics, etc. of this world rely on their own faith much more than people would like to believe.

Descarte tried to develop a whole system of belief based 100% on reason without any assumptions and he only got as far as "I think therefore I am". Any statement beyond that relies on faith.

The natural sciences are all built on a foundation of laws. The thing about laws is that they are unprovable. We can observe gravity as much as we want but we have no reason to think that tomorrow it will behave the same as it has since we have started observing it.

[Ethos]

The natural sciences are all built on a foundation of laws. The thing about laws is that they are unprovable. We can observe gravity as much as we want but we have no reason to think that tomorrow it will behave the same as it has since we have started observing it.

That gravity has operated with the same functionality for fourteen billion years (give or take) does not give us reason to think it will behave in the same manner tomorrow?

Truly you are trying too hard. I suspect you are also confusing not believing in something for believing it cannot exist. There is a distinction, however you attempt to blend the two.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

T'was ever so...

[DrWho]

That gravity has operated with the same functionality for fourteen billion years (give or take) does not give us reason to think it will behave in the same manner tomorrow?

Truly you are trying too hard. I suspect you are also confusing not believing in something for believing it cannot exist. There is a distinction, however you attempt to blend the two.

Ethos


Gravity has probably existed for that whole time but we have only observed it and documented it for a few hundred years. Did gravity always act exactly the same? could it have been slightly stronger or slightly weaker? Could it operate slightly differently in different parts of the universe? We have no direct observations to tell us. Yes we can observe gravity as it passes nearby stars but that still does not tell us what gravity did here on earth beyond the time when any human first wrote a record of it. The point is not that I doubt gravity but that uniformity cannot be assumed.

I have a clock in my home that runs for 31 days each time it is wound. It's a very nice antique and the casual observer would think it runs perfectly predictably. But I know (having observed it for a full 31 days) that it runs slightly fast in the first few days after being wound and slightlty slow in the last few days before it needs rewinding. Anyone observing the clock on day 15 for a few minutes would have no way to know that the clock is not uniform. That is what human science is like. We have only been here on this planet for a "few minutes" and our understanding of what happened 12 billion years ago is built on the assumption that the laws of the universe have always been and are constant.

[Ethos]

Gravity has probably existed for that whole time but we have only observed it and documented it for a few hundred years. Did gravity always act exactly the same? could it have been slightly stronger or slightly weaker? Could it operate slightly differently in different parts of the universe? We have no direct observations to tell us. Yes we can observe gravity as it passes nearby stars but that still does not tell us what gravity did here on earth beyond the time when any human first wrote a record of it. The point is not that I doubt gravity but that uniformity cannot be assumed.

I have a clock in my home that runs for 31 days each time it is wound. It's a very nice antique and the casual observer would think it runs perfectly predictably. But I know (having observed it for a full 31 days) that it runs slightly fast in the first few days after being wound and slightlty slow in the last few days before it needs rewinding. Anyone observing the clock on day 15 for a few minutes would have no way to know that the clock is not uniform. That is what human science is like. We have only been here on this planet for a "few minutes" and our understanding of what happened 12 billion years ago is built on the assumption that the laws of the universe have always been and are constant.

I'm afraid you don't understand how this process works. We know gravity has operated uniformly for billions of years because we are able to produce mathematical (and computer) models which accurately simulate the formation of galactic systems. If the nature of gravity were altered over time, our models would fail.

Also you should note that gravity does not "pass by nearby stars".

Ethos

[DrWho]

[QUOTE]I'm afraid you don't understand how this process works. We know gravity has operated uniformly for billions of years because we are able to produce mathematical (and computer) models which accurately simulate the formation of galactic systems. If the nature of gravity were altered over time, our models would fail.


The models are based on the same assumption of uniformity. This is circular logic.


Also you should note that gravity does not "pass by nearby stars".

I stand corrected. I should have said we can observe the effects of gravity as light passes stars.

[Ethos]

The models are based on the same assumption of uniformity. This is circular logic.

A mathematical model is either correct, or it is not. If it were incorrect, resulting galactic configurations would be wildly different from what we observe. That our models accurately satisfy those observations, taking into account billions of years of movement and an absolutely colossal amount of matter (visible and not so visible), shows us the effect of gravity has remained consistent over time. If the assumption (prediction) were wrong as you claim, our models would create a universe of galaxies vastly off target from our own.

Ethos

[David Daniel]

Belief in the supernatural is irrational. There is no rational case for the existence of the supernatural.

Except when one has experienced the supernatural... then it's completely rational, and disbelief would be irrational.

You sir, are deprived of the full picture :)

[Dangerrmouse]

Except when one has experienced the supernatural... then it's completely rational, and disbelief would be irrational.

You sir, are deprived of the full picture :)

We exist in the natural world. Anyone experiencing the supernatural must therefore be mistaken, at best.

Natural being based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.

[SpringRain]

Again, you are arguing a wholly different point than the one I was making. However, to answer your argument, you cannot use reason to prove that someone loves you; the truth of someone’s love transcends reason. That does not mean that love is somehow contrary to reason. Even though the proof of a person's love transcends reason, you can use your reason to look for signs that someone loves you. Such signs might include what a loved one says to you and how willing a loved one is to sacrifice for you. In the same way, God gives us external evidence of His revelation so that we can see that it is rational to believe it.

This about love being undefinable is utter folly. If you can't determine the things a person says and does that makes you feel loved; then it isn't them loving you; its you loving them to the point that you can't see they don't love you.

[Groucho]

Except when one has experienced the supernatural... then it's completely rational, and disbelief would be irrational.

You sir, are deprived of the full picture :)


When a person says this and they are referring to God, somehow that is acceptable. When they say that and they are referring to unicorns, they are delusional and need help.

Some of us do not see much of a difference, really.

[SpringRain]

When a person says this and they are referring to God, somehow that is acceptable. When they say that and they are referring to unicorns, they are delusional and need help.

Some of us do not see much of a difference, really.

Well said!

[David Daniel]

We exist in the natural world. Anyone experiencing the supernatural must therefore be mistaken, at best.

Natural being based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.

I can be only one of a couple things:

I am either right

Or I'm insane

Or I'm a liar

Which is it? I cannot be mistaken...

Two years ago, I was wrestling.. "roughhousing" with a friend. He rushed me, stepped on my foot... I got shoved back, and sort of twisted as I fell... my friend's full weight still on my foot. As I fell, I felt a few things snap in my foot, and ankle. When it was said and done, the pain was so bad I nearly passed out... I could not move my foot... and it turned a colorful mixture of reds, blues, and purples, and swelled big enough that I could not wear a shoe on it.

I went two days without going to the doctor because I was very poor with no insurance... hoping it would get better.

Two people, one a former OR nurse, another having a MS in sports medicine convinced me that I should see a doctor... after two days with no improvement, still unable to move it at all, they both though I had tore something and would need surgery to repair it... especially with the amount of bleeding.

I was rather upset because of the lack of money, and I hate doctors (nothing personal).

On the way to the doc, I called my mom, and some friends and asked them to pray... and I started praying myself.

Within 5 minutes ALL the swelling disappeared. When I reached the doctors office, I put my shoe on, and walked in, in no pain, without the crutches I had been using the last two days... my foot completely functional. - The bright array of colors, turning into brilliant hues of green, yellow, and brown, stayed for several weeks.

Explain that away!

I have seen countless incidents of the miraculous of every form... I've never used hallucinogens, not used painkillers, and have never had more than a few alcoholic drinks at one time. I have always been an A student, always excelled at work, and have an I.Q. in the high 150s.

You can't see the wind, but you can see the effects of the wind... haven't you ever felt a breeze?

[SpringRain]

I can be only one of a couple things:

I am either right

Or I'm insane

Or I'm a liar

Which is it? I cannot be mistaken...

Two years ago, I was wrestling.. "roughhousing" with a friend. He rushed me, stepped on my foot... I got shoved back, and sort of twisted as I fell... my friend's full weight still on my foot. As I fell, I felt a few things snap in my foot, and ankle. When it was said and done, the pain was so bad I nearly passed out... I could not move my foot... and it turned a colorful mixture of reds, blues, and purples, and swelled big enough that I could not wear a shoe on it.

I went two days without going to the doctor because I was very poor with no insurance... hoping it would get better.

Two people, one a former OR nurse, another having a MS in sports medicine convinced me that I should see a doctor... after two days with no improvement, still unable to move it at all, they both though I had tore something and would need surgery to repair it... especially with the amount of bleeding.

I was rather upset because of the lack of money, and I hate doctors (nothing personal).

On the way to the doc, I called my mom, and some friends and asked them to pray... and I started praying myself.

Within 5 minutes ALL the swelling disappeared. When I reached the doctors office, I put my shoe on, and walked in, in no pain, without the crutches I had been using the last two days... my foot completely functional.

Explain that away!

I have seen countless incidents of the miraculous of every form... I've never used hallucinogens, not used painkillers, and have never had more than a few alcoholic drinks at one time. I have always been an A student, always excelled at work, and have an I.Q. in the high 150s.

You can't see the wind, but you can see the effects of the wind... haven't you ever felt a breeze?

Very simply it takes about two days for a severe sprain to begin to heal. Also the movements that got you into the car and on to the doctor helps dispel both the retained fluids and the swelling. I saw this with a dog of mine. He got injured late at night; I called the vet whose office was a little over a mile away. I went to put dog in car; but forgot car was elsewhere due to being driven home by someone else. So the dog and I ran, trotted, and walked to the vets clinic. By the time we got there I felt the fool because the only thing left was that the dogs ears (???) had swelled up to about three times their normal size. This is bizarre because the sprain was no where near the dogs ears. The vet explained that the best thing I could've done for the dog was to run him to the office and explained that this sort of thing was perfectly understandable to him.

[David Daniel]

Very simply it takes about two days for a severe sprain to begin to heal. Also the movements that got you into the car and on to the doctor helps dispel both the retained fluids and the swelling. I saw this with a dog of mine. He got injured late at night; I called the vet whose office was a little over a mile away. I went to put dog in car; but forgot car was elsewhere due to being driven home by someone else. So the dog and I ran, trotted, and walked to the vets clinic. By the time we got there I felt the fool because the only thing left was that the dogs ears (???) had swelled up to about three times their normal size. This is bizarre because the sprain was no where near the dogs ears. The vet explained that the best thing I could've done for the dog was to run him to the office and explained that this sort of thing was perfectly understandable to him.

If your dog was so injured, how was he running? My foot would not even move... and any pressure was unbearably painful.

Second, I had been hobbling around the office at work for nearly two days on crutches... going to the car was no change in movement.

Third, it did not begin to heal... it healed. Aside from the bright colors from the internal bleeding that I mentioned, there was no indication that I had ever been injured once I arrived at the doctor.

[SpringRain]

If your dog was so injured, how was he running? My foot would not even move... and any pressure was unbearably painful.

Second, I had been hobbling around the office at work for nearly two days on crutches... going to the car was no change in movement.

Third, it did not begin to heal... it healed. Aside from the bright colors from the internal bleeding that I mentioned, there was no indication that I had ever been injured once I arrived at the doctor.

Which is perfectly normal; particularly now that you have clarified that the bright colors were still present. Without the fluid retention, the swelling subsides, without the swelling the pain and immobility subsides. NORMAL! But hey, you keep believing it was prayer if you want.

Isn't there a study out where people were prayed for in a control, double-blind study and it was scientifically proven that prayer does not help the ailment although it may help the state of mind of the ailing person if they happen to buy into that stuff? I'll see if I can find that.

[David Daniel]

Last Wednesday, a friend showed up at church with a wasp sting on her leg... not a big deal... nothing threatening, but a major irritant; it was a big read lump on her shin. A few of us prayed a short prayer in Jesus's name, and watched it disappear completely within a half minute.

I've seen more spectacular things, but this was recent...

Am I a liar?
Do wasp stings normally go from swelling covering half the shin to nothing in 30 seconds?
Am I insane?
What has this unicorn done?

[SpringRain]

Gee, that didn't take long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088

[SpringRain]

Sorry see post below

[SpringRain]

Last Wednesday, a friend showed up at church with a wasp sting on her leg... not a big deal... nothing threatening, but a major irritant; it was a big read lump on her shin. A few of us prayed a short prayer in Jesus's name, and watched it disappear completely within a half minute.

I've seen more spectacular things, but this was recent...

Am I a liar?
Do wasp stings normally go from swelling covering half the shin to nothing in 30 seconds?
Am I insane?
What has this unicorn done?

I would say you are delusional. (Sorry the post went off without me) To finish; or simply that you all don't understand the science behind wasp stings.

[David Daniel]

Which is perfectly normal; particularly now that you have clarified that the bright colors were still present. Without the fluid retention, the swelling subsides, without the swelling the pain and immobility subsides. NORMAL! But hey, you keep believing it was prayer if you want.

Isn't there a study out where people were prayed for in a control, double-blind study and it was scientifically proven that prayer does not help the ailment although it may help the state of mind of the ailing person if they happen to buy into that stuff? I'll see if I can find that.

So you are saying state of mind can cure cancer... heal arthritis, make the blind see...heal people once so stricken of diabetes that they have already had toes amputated...but today they walk... can state of mind see the future? Stop bullets? Raise the dead? Can state of mind fix rotten teeth? I have watched it happen with my own eyes.

I am either insane,
Or I am a liar,
Or could I be right?

[David Daniel]

I would say you are delusional.

:thinking: :lol:

[SpringRain]

:thinking: :lol:

I did go back to correct the post that posted without my realizing that I nudged the mouse. To repeat:

OR simply that you all don't understand the science behind wasp stings.

[SpringRain]

So you are saying state of mind can cure cancer... heal arthritis, make the blind see...heal people once so stricken of diabetes that they have already had toes amputated...but today they walk... can state of mind see the future? Stop bullets? Raise the dead? Can state of mind fix rotten teeth? I have watched it happen with my own eyes.

I am either insane,
Or I am a liar,
Or could I be right?

No I'm not saying a state of mind can heal. What I said was that the only thing that appeared improved in the receivers of prayers was their state of mind; their ailments showed no improvements. But upon reviewing the study; the receivers of prayers did not know they were being prayed for and my remembrance that their state of mind improved is incorrect.

[David Daniel]

I did go back to correct the post that posted without my realizing that I nudged the mouse. To repeat:

OR simply that you all don't understand the science behind wasp stings. Is that normal? (are you a wasp sting expert?) As one who has been stung many many times... swelling and pain gradually subsides over a day or two... not near instantly.

[David Daniel]

No I'm not saying a state of mind can heal. What I said was that the only thing that appeared improved in the receivers of prayers was their state of mind; their ailments showed no improvements. But upon reviewing the study; the receivers of prayers did not know they were being prayed for and my remembrance that their state of mind improved is incorrect.
OK... since it is not natural for rotten teeth to heal... it must be supernatural.

Since we are agreed that state of mind cannot really fix any physical ailments.

[SpringRain]

Is that normal? (are you a wasp sting expert?) As one who has been stung many many times... swelling and pain gradually subsides over a day or two... not near instantly.

Depends on the person. Should my father get stung a trip to the emergency room would be required.

When I have been stung, I never even swell, it resembles a mosquito bite and itches for days; however a bite from a ladybug can send me to the hospital.

When my daughter gets stung; it swells up really big for about 20 minutes then disappears as if by magic, no itching or further concern.

Needless to say, if we think there is a nest somewhere, my daughter is the one chosen to attend it.

[SpringRain]

OK... since it is not natural for rotten teeth to heal... it must be supernatural.

Since we are agreed that state of mind cannot really fix any physical ailments.

Well if you think you have seen rotten teeth heal because of prayer or state of mind; I would suggest you get a lesson in the realities of magic shows and figure out how someone could have duped you.

[David Daniel]

Well if you think you have seen rotten teeth heal because of prayer or state of mind; I would suggest you get a lesson in the realities of magic shows and figure out how someone could have duped you.

Yes, it would depend on the place and person. I am a very skeptical person... but the teeth belonged to a close friend of my family, who I have known since I was a young child. His teeth was healed in another friends house. If you knew this man, you would not believe him capable of magic shows or trickery of any sort... his is a very simple man. I did not see it on a stage, or in front of a great crowd of people... it was in front of a small group of people (about a dozen)... and I was right there, standing directly in front of him.

[SpringRain]

Yes, it would depend on the place and person. I am a very skeptical person... but the teeth belonged to a close friend of my family, who I have known since I was a young child. His teeth was healed in another friends house. If you knew this man, you would not believe him capable of magic shows or trickery of any sort... his is a very simple man. I did not see it on a stage, or in front of a great crowd of people... it was in front of a small group of people (about a dozen)... and I was right there, standing directly in front of him.

Sorry, you cannot convince me of this. Slight of hand does not have to occur on a stage, David Blaine and others prove it can be done right in front of your face and if you don't know what to look for; you won't see it. And if you do know what to look for; you will miss it. Since you say others were around perhaps they perpetrated the fraud and your friend is only a willing participant in making a fool of you.

[David Daniel]

Sorry, you cannot convince me of this. Slight of hand does not have to occur on a stage, David Blaine and others prove it can be done right in front of your face and if you don't know what to look for; you won't see it. And if you do know what to look for; you will miss it. Since you say others were around perhaps they perpetrated the fraud and your friend is only a willing participant in making a fool of you. Yes, his wife, my pastor, my parents, and my best friend, were out to make a fool of me... >__>

No, I probably will not convince you... you probably would not believe if you saw it yourself...

Maybe my friend, a life long finish carpenter/cabinet maker... a grandfather in his 60s... should become the next David Blaine? I think he should stick to building cabinets.

EDIT: Do you mean "Slight of Mouth"? :P

[Cedars]

This about love being undefinable is utter folly. If you can't determine the things a person says and does that makes you feel loved; then it isn't them loving you; its you loving them to the point that you can't see they don't love you.
I never said love was undefinable. Essentially what I said was that love was not contrary to reason because you can use reason to look for signs of love.

[Dangerrmouse]

I never said love was undefinable. Essentially what I said was that love was not contrary to reason because you can use reason to look for signs of love.


How do you feel about miraculously healing sprains and rotten teeth in minutes with prayer?

[SpringRain]

Yes, his wife, my pastor, my parents, and my best friend, were out to make a fool of me... >__>

No, I probably will not convince you... you probably would not believe if you saw it yourself...

Maybe my friend, a life long finish carpenter/cabinet maker... a grandfather in his 60s... should become the next David Blaine? I think he should stick to building cabinets.

EDIT: Do you mean "Slight of Mouth"? :P

Your edit made me laugh. 2 points for you! Yes, I should have said "Slight of mouth."

[Cedars]

How do you feel about miraculously healing sprains and rotten teeth in minutes with prayer?
I believe that God can do anything. I think that seemingly fortuitous events can be the work of God and that we should take nothing for granted. I also understand that if you do not believe in God, you will accept the good turn in events merely as good fortune or as medically/scientifically explainable. The difference between belief in God and non-belief is that while we both may see medicine and science as a good thing, the believer takes it one step further and is thankful to God when they believe their prayers are answered through that same science or medicine, or "buck it up" and take up the cross when they must suffer when medicine and science cannot help them.

[SpringRain]

I believe that God can do anything. I think that seemingly fortuitous events can be the work of God and that we should take nothing for granted. I also understand that if you do not believe in God, you will accept the good turn in events merely as good fortune or as medically/scientifically explainable. The difference between belief in God and non-belief is that while we both may see medicine and science as a good thing, the believer takes it one step further and is thankful to God when they believe their prayers are answered through that same science or medicine, or "buck it up" and take up the cross when they must suffer when medicine and science cannot help them.

So what if the person "healed" believed it was a wizard or witch or wiccan that healed him? Or as pointed out before what if the prayer was to a unicorn? Then what?

[Cedars]

(sorry, double post)

[Cedars]

So what if the person "healed" believed it was a wizard or witch or wiccan that healed him? Or as pointed out before what if the prayer was to a unicorn? Then what?
Then obviously that person has little or no faith in God. :shrug:

[SpringRain]

Then obviously that person has little or no faith in God. :shrug:


True, they don't. So then you take them at their word that wizards, witches, and unicorns healed them? Can't be god if he didn't pray to god and was actively breaking a few commandments, tons of christian ideals. Or do you believe that there is more than one supernatural possibility?

[Dangerrmouse]

How did you select which one of the 2000 + gods available to follow?

[Cedars]

True, they don't. So then you take them at their word that wizards, witches, and unicorns healed them? Can't be god if he didn't pray to god and was actively breaking a few commandments, tons of christian ideals. Or do you believe that there is more than one supernatural possibility?
I believe God created all beings, including Satan and demons (angels who fell from Grace, as did Satan). As for taking them at their word, like you, I might believe that THEY believe what they experienced; one would hope it is ignorance that blinds them to God (not knowing one is offending God), and not deliberate disobedience to God (knowing one is offending God and doing it anyway).

[SpringRain]

I believe God created all beings, including Satan and demons (angels who fell from Grace, as did Satan). As for taking them at their word, like you, I might believe that THEY believe what they experienced; one would hope it is ignorance that blinds them to God (not knowing one is offending God), and not deliberate disobedience to God (knowing one is offending God and doing it anyway).

Okay let me rephrase the question because I don't feel as though you answered it really.

If this healing seems to have occurred without medical or scientific intervention; and the person does not believe in god; how did he get healed, by whom, or is he lying/deceiving in some way about the ailment supposedly healed?

[SpringRain]

How did you select which one of the 2000 + gods available to follow?

Great question. I hope someone who believes in a god actually tries to answer it.

[Groucho]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

NEW YORK - In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

[Cedars]

How did you select which one of the 2000 + gods available to follow?
The answer to that would take a book, at least. I will try to answer as simply as possible, though. I do not worship "gods" fashioned by human hands because what is created cannot be as great as the creator who created it. For instance, what is the point in building a golden calf if the calf was fashioned from my own hands and all I did was change the shape of gold? Why would I suddenly deem it "god," or greater than me who created it? It doesn't make any sense. The Christian God (who is the same as the Jewish God, and I believe the same as the Muslim God), on the other hand, is different because God created man and everything else. How do I know this? Because I look at the world and see design in the world -- the universe, the earth, nature, animals, plants, ecosystem, man -- not to mention man's eyes, nose, ears, digestive system -- all designed to work together (one design). Design implies a Designer.

[Dangerrmouse]

Many creation myths are applied to other Gods than the Abrahamic one. In fact He displays traits shared by many others.

[Cedars]

Okay let me rephrase the question because I don't feel as though you answered it really.

If this healing seems to have occurred without medical or scientific intervention; and the person does not believe in god; how did he get healed, by whom, or is he lying/deceiving in some way about the ailment supposedly healed?
I am not sure what answer you are looking for. Logically speaking, though, suppose you are wrong and that God DOES exist. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, it does not change the fact of God's existence; He would exist whether you believe or not. Secondly, just because I believe in God does not mean that I do not credit science or medicine with any merit. I think science and medicine are of GREAT value to society. Thirdly, because I believe in God, I credit God with gifting us the intelligence to even conceive of science and medicine, let alone availing ourselves of the practical uses of them. As I said before, even seemingly fortuitous events can be the work of God -- whether or not they fall under the regular course of science or medicine -- because, again, God has gifted us with intelligence. Sometimes a person can be inspired to take the knowledge one knows to the next level and find a cure. Fourthly, because God has gifted us with intelligence, He knows how we will use them (and how we treat others and how they treat us). Paths may cross that might not otherwise have been crossed. Or perhaps one's body would have healed anyway (and God did design our bodies after all). Again, the difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that the believer gives thanks to God; the unbeliever does not and attributes it to medicine or science or good luck.

[Cedars]

Many creation myths are applied to other Gods than the Abrahamic one. In fact He displays traits shared by many others.

And which one do you believe merits faith, and why?

[SpringRain]

The question is pretty straightforward; I even made it a multiple choice for you; but instead you preach vagueness. You said in an earlier post the god is capable of spontaneous healing (not in those words exactly), so if a person is supposedly spontaneously healed but does not believe in your god and instead believes a unicorn, witch, wizard, or Zeus healed him; would you believe him? Or do you only believe your god has that power?

[SpringRain]

And which one do you believe merits faith, and why?

My answer to this is that I don't believe any merits faith because they are all mythical entities, just like your god is.

[Cedars]

The question is pretty straightforward; I even made it a multiple choice for you; but instead you preach vagueness. You said in an earlier post the god is capable of spontaneous healing (not in those words exactly), so if a person is supposedly spontaneously healed but does not believe in your god and instead believes a unicorn, witch, wizard, or Zeus healed him; would you believe him? Or do you only believe your god has that power?
I do not know why you assume everyone's thought processes work exactly the same as yours. Neither I nor anyone else on this thread are your clone. Obviously, I believe in God so my answer is going to involve God (whether you believe it's preaching or not), and it seemed to me that I DID answer your question (although I did say, "I am not sure what answer you are looking for"). However, to put it a different way:

You said: "If this healing seems to have occurred without medical or scientific intervention;"

I responded: "Fourthly, because God has gifted us with intelligence, He knows how we will use them (and how we treat others and how they treat us). Paths may cross that might not otherwise have been crossed. Or perhaps one's body would have healed anyway (and God did design our bodies after all)."

You said: "and the person does not believe in god;"

I responded: "Logically speaking, though, suppose you [or "the person"] are wrong and that God DOES exist. Regardless of whether you [or "the person"] believe in God or not, it does not change the fact of God's existence; He would exist whether you [or "the person"] believe or not."

You said: "how did he get healed, by whom, or is he lying/deceiving in some way about the ailment supposedly healed?"

I responded: "Thirdly, because I believe in God, I credit God with gifting us the intelligence to even conceive of science and medicine, let alone availing ourselves of the practical uses of them. As I said before, even seemingly fortuitous events can be the work of God -- whether or not they fall under the regular course of science or medicine -- because, again, God has gifted us with intelligence. Sometimes a person can be inspired to take the knowledge one knows to the next level and find a cure. Fourthly, because God has gifted us with intelligence, He knows how we will use them (and how we treat others and how they treat us). Paths may cross that might not otherwise have been crossed. Or perhaps one's body would have healed anyway (and God did design our bodies after all)."

At this point, the only thing I can think to add is that I would not comment on whether this person is lying or not because it is a hypothetical question and it would not make sense to make an assumption of whether the person was lying or not.

Now with respect to how you re-phrased your question:
"... so if a person is supposedly spontaneously healed but does not believe in your god and instead believes a unicorn, witch, wizard, or Zeus healed him; would you believe him? Or do you only believe your god has that power?"

My response:
Do I believe Zeus healed this person? No, because Greek mythology is based on real or actual people who have been deified in memory; in other words, he no longer exists and hadn't probably since he was "deified."

A unicorn? No. I think the answer is obvious to that one.

A witch or wizard? If it is satanic, perhaps, because I do believe God gave Satan power of sorts, but exactly what that contains I do not know (which is why I say perhaps). However, Satan was created by God and so is not as powerful as his Creator.

Or as I stated earlier, even seemingly fortuitous events can be the work of God, regardless of whether the person recognizes it as such or as pure luck.

[Cedars]

My answer to this is that I don't believe any merits faith because they are all mythical entities, just like your god is.
So you see no order and design in the world -- the universe, the earth, nature, animals, plants, ecosystem, man -- not to mention man's eyes, nose, ears, digestive system? If there is no order in the word, then science (or medicine) could not be possible because there would be no orderly process in order to determine what is "normal" and what is an anomaly. If you do see order, who designed it? (Because design implies a Designer.)

[Groucho]

So you see no order and design in the world -- the universe, the earth, nature, animals, plants, ecosystem, man -- not to mention man's eyes, nose, ears, digestive system? If there is no order in the word, then science (or medicine) could not be possible because there would be no orderly process in order to determine what is "normal" and what is an anomaly. If you do see order, who designed it? (Because design implies a Designer.)

There is some order in the world, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there was an intelligent designer behind it.

If there were, why are we, humans, made in God's image, at the top of the food chain, inferior to so many other species? Our eyes aren't as good as a falcon's; our sense of smell not as good as a dog's; our hearing not as good as a bat's... Why do so many of us have to wear glasses at all? Why do we get diseases? Why are children born with birth defects? Why do we have so many people with back problems (since as a species, we are still new to walking upright?) Why didn't an intelligent designer prevent all these things happening to us, no matter whether we are good or evil?

That's poor design, if you ask me. That's not order, that's chaos.

And why did God wait so long to create us? Why did dinosaurs rule the world for a far longer time than humans have been around? How is that orderly?

Even if I agree that there is order (which I do not, at least not under your terms), how does it automatically follow that there must have been an intelligent creator.

It's backward logic. People who find God behind our design had already found God beforehand.

[Ethos]

There is some order in the world, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there was an intelligent designer behind it.

If there were, why are we, humans, made in God's image, at the top of the food chain, inferior to so many other species? Our eyes aren't as good as a falcon's; our sense of smell not as good as a dog's; our hearing not as good as a bat's... Why do so many of us have to wear glasses at all? Why do we get diseases? Why are children born with birth defects? Why do we have so many people with back problems (since as a species, we are still new to walking upright?) Why didn't an intelligent designer prevent all these things happening to us, no matter whether we are good or evil?

That's poor design, if you ask me. That's not order, that's chaos.

And why did God wait so long to create us? Why did dinosaurs rule the world for a far longer time than humans have been around? How is that orderly?

Even if I agree that there is order (which I do not, at least not under your terms), how does it automatically follow that there must have been an intelligent creator.

It's backward logic. People who find God behind our design had already found God beforehand.

There is plenty of order, just as there is plenty of chaos. You do make an interesting point as far as "design implies a designer" is concerned.

In the history of the Earth, far more species have been dismal design failures than those which succeeded. How exactly does a supposedly omnipotent designer (god) create billions of fatally flawed species?

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

There is a famous quote by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane. When asked the question of what one could infer about God based on his creation, Haldane replied: an inordinate fondness of beatles.

[Ethos]

There is a famous quote by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane. When asked the question of what one could infer about God based on his creation, Haldane replied: an inordinate fondness of beatles.

Always a fantastic quote. As far as evolutionary perfection goes, insects are far superior to humans. Of course, they've had a lot more practice.

Ethos

[Groucho]

There is a famous quote by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane. When asked the question of what one could infer about God based on his creation, Haldane replied: an inordinate fondness of beatles.

Hey, I have an inordinate fondness for Beatles! But I think Haldane was referring to beetles.

But seriously folks, a good point was made above -- since something like 95% of all species on earth have gone extinct for one reason or another, what does that say about intelligent design? Why design a bunch of creatures that cannot survive?

[SpringRain]

There is a famous quote by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane. When asked the question of what one could infer about God based on his creation, Haldane replied: an inordinate fondness of beatles.

:laughter: Excellent!

[Lumpen Prole]

Hey, I have an inordinate fondness for Beatles! But I think Haldane was referring to beetles.

But seriously folks, a good point was made above -- since something like 95% of all species on earth have gone extinct for one reason or another, what does that say about intelligent design? Why design a bunch of creatures that cannot survive?

Haha, best typo ever! Oh, and it's 99%. Easily.

[Cedars]

There is some order in the world, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there was an intelligent designer behind it.
Even if I agree that there is order (which I do not, at least not under your terms), how does it automatically follow that there must have been an intelligent creator.
There is more than just "some" order in the world. There is an infinite amount (number?) of order in the world. Too much so to be happenstance. Does a camera happen by chance? (Then what about the lens of an eye?) How about a plane -- does it happen by chance? (or a bird)? When you look at a camera or a plane, you might wonder who designed it -- at the very least, you know that SOMEONE designed it. Do you not think that intelligence went behind the designing of a camera or plane? Then why wouldn't there also be intelligence behind the designing of an eye lens or a bird?

If there were, why are we, humans, made in God's image, at the top of the food chain, inferior to so many other species? Our eyes aren't as good as a falcon's; our sense of smell not as good as a dog's; our hearing not as good as a bat's...
It is a matter of perspective. Are falcons, dogs and bats as intelligent as humans are? Can they conduct scientific experiments or perform surgeries? Can they construct cameras, planes, satellites ... ? Do falcons, dogs and bats make tools with their hands? A man can create a telescope and see further than a falcon. A man can train a dog to sniff out drugs. A man can create hearing aids and microphones and walkie talkies and telephones and televisions and . . . .

Why do so many of us have to wear glasses at all? Why do we get diseases? Why are children born with birth defects? Why do we have so many people with back problems (since as a species, we are still new to walking upright?) Why didn't an intelligent designer prevent all these things happening to us, no matter whether we are good or evil?

That's poor design, if you ask me. That's not order, that's chaos.
"Suffering can bring us closer to what is good and can draw us away from obstacles to achieving happiness. Pain can prompt rehabilitation, a turning from evil to embrace stronger relationships with others and with God (SD 12). Suffering breaks down that most fundamental of human proclivities: our desire to be God. The atheistic existentialist Jean Paul Sartre wrote: 'To be man is to reach toward being God. Or, if you prefer, man fundamentally is the desire to be God.' The original sin of Adam and Eve was an attempt to reorder the universe so they could determine what is good and what is evil. This is replicated in every human sin. The sinner orders the universe according to his own will and sets aside the will of God. Suffering is redemptive in part because it reveals to man that he is not God, rendering him more receptive to the divine."

"Sometimes suffering makes an important good possible. If God eliminated that suffering, the corresponding good also would be eliminated." "It may be that some suffering is permitted by God as a way of waking someone from a dream of self-sufficiency or illusory happiness. Life-saving surgery is painful." "Often our sinful actions lead directly to painful repercussions—the drinking binge leads to the hangover, unreasonable anger to injured relationships, laziness to lack of achievement. Suffering can serve as punishment for wrongdoing, a just retribution for personal sins."

"Christ strikes at the root of our sin and our suffering by overcoming evil with good. Indeed, the suffering of Christ overcomes the worst possible suffering of the human person—permanent alienation from God, the source and summit of all goodness. All suffering in this life—like all happiness—is imperfect, partial, and finite. Even the worst possible human life, spread over the longest spans, comes to an end. Hell does not. It lasts forever. In comparison to the pains of hell, the worst human suffering on earth pales. Jesus saves his people from hell."

"The Christian approach to the problem of pain does not imply an indifference to human suffering, and for this reason Christians have always sought to express their faith in charitable works." "The works of Christ were to restore sight to the blind, heal the leper, and give food to the hungry. He taught that we should love God and neighbor and gave us the parable of the good Samaritan to illustrate the duty of all Christians to look after the needs of others. The final judgment hinges on our care for suffering people."

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701fea1.asp

And why did God wait so long to create us? Why did dinosaurs rule the world for a far longer time than humans have been around? How is that orderly?

It's backward logic.
What relevance does the time period of man or dinosaurs make to belief? Perhaps dinosaurs served a purpose before the creation of man. I really do not know why. Just because you do not understand the time frame, why does that necessarily mean that God doesn't exist? If God did create us, wouldn't it be logical that the Creator (or Designer) have a Design in mind that we are not privy to?

People who find God behind our design had already found God beforehand.
Some people who believe in God never really ponder that question. I grew up believing in God and then I lost my faith. It is recognizing the order and design in the world that first convinced me of the existence of God.

[Cedars]

There is plenty of order, just as there is plenty of chaos. You do make an interesting point as far as "design implies a designer" is concerned.

In the history of the Earth, far more species have been dismal design failures than those which succeeded. How exactly does a supposedly omnipotent designer (god) create billions of fatally flawed species?

Ethos
Just because a species becomes extinct, why do you think that necessarily means it was a failure? Why couldn't the species have served its purpose and is no longer needed?

[Lumpen Prole]

For a work such apparent order and craft, the human body is terribly inefficient and wasteful.

[Cedars]

For a work such apparent order and craft, the human body is terribly inefficient and wasteful.

Inefficient and wasteful in what respect?

[Ethos]

Just because a species becomes extinct, why do you think that necessarily means it was a failure? Why couldn't the species have served its purpose and is no longer needed?

Because that isn't how natural selection works. A species does not succeed due to its "purpose" or lack thereof. It will succeed because its particular adaptations happen to increase its odds for survival within its habitat. In some cases one species is better suited to that environment than another, and the latter is forced into extinction by the former. Why silmultaneously create two creatures, either one of which would indepedently rise to the top of a foodchain, only to have the first edge out the second in terms of survival?

Sure you can invent "purposes" for extinct species to satisfy these conflicts, but this is just another in a long line of pretenses. The truth is that evolution is an extremely messy and inefficient mechanism whose failures outnumber its successes a million to one. This is not the work of omnipotence.

Ethos

[Camera I]

For a work such apparent order and craft, the human body is terribly inefficient and wasteful.

Not to mention they put the entertainment center next to the sewer system.

[Groucho]

There's always a loophole for believers, isn't there? "Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean God doesn't have a plan." Well, how can one argue with that?

God is orderly and the human is a great example of that, except when it isn't. Got me there.

God works in mysterious ways that don't make sense...therefore he must exist. Yep, you've convinced me.

None of these arguments convince the unbeliever, and given how internally illogical they are, I am surprised they don't turn a believer into a skeptic. But hey, belief is based on "faith" not facts.

[bowerbird]

There is more than just "some" order in the world. There is an infinite amount (number?) of order in the world. Too much so to be happenstance. Does a camera happen by chance? (Then what about the lens of an eye?) How about a plane -- does it happen by chance? (or a bird)? When you look at a camera or a plane, you might wonder who designed it -- at the very least, you know that SOMEONE designed it. Do you not think that intelligence went behind the designing of a camera or plane? Then why wouldn't there also be intelligence behind the designing of an eye lens or a bird?


To reply to this I would suggest you play with fractals for a little. Randomness CAN generate design and even beauty. What you are not factoring in is the sheer amount of time this has taken to get to this point as well as the sheer number of reproductions of individuals.






Some people who believe in God never really ponder that question. I grew up believing in God and then I lost my faith. It is recognizing the order and design in the world that first convinced me of the existence of God.

And yet by propounding creationism you are diminishing God - many who believe in evolution believe in a God that CAN span millions of years, millions upon billions of light years within a universe and the trillions of living creatures that have inhabited Earth.

Why make God small??

[Lumpen Prole]

Inefficient and wasteful in what respect?

Let's keep it simple. Why did my so-called Designer endow me with wisdom teeth and an appendix? There are countless examples of physiological processes that are not well-suited to our lives in modern human society and aspects of our anatomy that serve no useful purpose. To paraphrase a favorite fictional character, just what sort of supreme intelligence includes phlegm and tooth decay in His "crafty" inventions?

[Dangerrmouse]

Why is your pelvis tipped forward, (like those of the great apes) necessitating a sharp turn in the spine to enable your standing upright? That "design" would flunk engineering 101.

[Cedars]

Because that isn't how natural selection works. A species does not succeed due to its "purpose" or lack thereof. It will succeed because its particular adaptations happen to increase its odds for survival within its habitat. In some cases one species is better suited to that environment than another, and the latter is forced into extinction by the former. Why silmultaneously create two creatures, either one of which would indepedently rise to the top of a foodchain, only to have the first edge out the second in terms of survival?
Natural selection is a THEORY of evolution. It is a scientific theory, and as such, can only predict a part of the story. Philosophy, on the other hand, investigates the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods; it is also useful for a part of the story. Where science studies the world through empirical evidence, philosophy studies the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Natural selection, then, is not the only theory to consider. Your belief that man and nature is inefficient is your judgment on man and nature; but science offers no such judgment (it is not the purpose of science). Science discerns order and from that order it discerns laws; likewise, in the case of natural selection, it can only discern what it observes from that order (otherwise, if there were no order, or design, there could be no anomalies nor any patterns). Philosophically speaking, there certainly is no reason to believe that natural selection is the only theory to consider when pondering the ULTIMATE question of WHY nature is what it is.

Sure you can invent "purposes" for extinct species to satisfy these conflicts, but this is just another in a long line of pretenses. The truth is that evolution is an extremely messy and inefficient mechanism whose failures outnumber its successes a million to one. This is not the work of omnipotence.

Ethos
I am not inventing purposes. The difference between you and me is that you will only acknowledge what you can observe through science and its theories and then make a judgment based on what you believe it all means. I, on the other hand, do not limit myself to science. For one thing, I believe philosophy (the ultimate WHY) has merit as well because, as I said, I see design in the world (regardless of whether YOU think it is inefficient or not). It is foolish to judge what you do not understand. While I understand that you think man and nature SEEM inefficient, you cannot honestly say that you have FULL knowledge and therefore judge same as inefficient. No one has full knowledge -- no man, that is.

[Cedars]

There's always a loophole for believers, isn't there? "Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean God doesn't have a plan." Well, how can one argue with that?

God is orderly and the human is a great example of that, except when it isn't. Got me there.

God works in mysterious ways that don't make sense...therefore he must exist. Yep, you've convinced me.

None of these arguments convince the unbeliever, and given how internally illogical they are, I am surprised they don't turn a believer into a skeptic. But hey, belief is based on "faith" not facts.
Put simply, if the world didn't exist in an orderly fashion, neither would you or I. Or science (because science relies on order). Or nature (because nature relies on order).

[Cedars]

To reply to this I would suggest you play with fractals for a little. Randomness CAN generate design and even beauty. What you are not factoring in is the sheer amount of time this has taken to get to this point as well as the sheer number of reproductions of individuals.
Please provide an example of how you think randomness has generated DESIGN.


And yet by propounding creationism you are diminishing God - many who believe in evolution believe in a God that CAN span millions of years, millions upon billions of light years within a universe and the trillions of living creatures that have inhabited Earth.

Why make God small??
The only "creationism" I am propounding is that God created the world and everything (and everyone) in it. I have no problem with science or a timeline. You are mistaken in thinking I am saying otherwise.

[Cedars]

Let's keep it simple. Why did my so-called Designer endow me with wisdom teeth and an appendix? There are countless examples of physiological processes that are not well-suited to our lives in modern human society and aspects of our anatomy that serve no useful purpose. To paraphrase a favorite fictional character, just what sort of supreme intelligence includes phlegm and tooth decay in His "crafty" inventions?
Key word is "modern." Some scientists believe an appendix had a use at one time (or perhaps will in the future). Wisdom teeth can be useful for chewing, even in modern times.

[Cedars]

Why is your pelvis tipped forward, (like those of the great apes) necessitating a sharp turn in the spine to enable your standing upright? That "design" would flunk engineering 101.

Since man can and does stand upright, I would say the design is highly efficient -- even if engineering 101 doesn't approve.

[serenity]

Since man can and does stand upright, I would say the design is highly efficient -- even if engineering 101 doesn't approve.


No, that's not correct...and you seem to be positing some non-existent argument between "rational" reality and irrational engineers.

It's like saying that the Model T was the perfect automobile, had the perfect design...why? Because the thing worked.

The point is, there are plenty of aspects of the human body which do not appear to have been rational choices...at least, they do not rise to the level of perfect, or even near-optimal, design.

that's not even really debatable, is it?

[Ethos]

I am not inventing purposes. The difference between you and me is that you will only acknowledge what you can observe through science and its theories and then make a judgment based on what you believe it all means. I, on the other hand, do not limit myself to science. For one thing, I believe philosophy (the ultimate WHY) has merit as well because, as I said, I see design in the world (regardless of whether YOU think it is inefficient or not). It is foolish to judge what you do not understand. While I understand that you think man and nature SEEM inefficient, you cannot honestly say that you have FULL knowledge and therefore judge same as inefficient. No one has full knowledge -- no man, that is.

Your knowledge on the subject may be insufficient, but I promise you I am in a position to judge the actual efficiency of biological design and its history. I'm sorry to say the record is still a poor success to failure ratio, whatever you may believe.

I stated the design for life is inefficient from having been presented by an omnipotent deity. If the species of the world had been designed by a toddler, I would be far less skeptical.

Ethos

[Cedars]

No, that's not correct...and you seem to be positing some non-existent argument between "rational" reality and irrational engineers.

It's like saying that the Model T was the perfect automobile, had the perfect design...why? Because the thing worked.

The point is, there are plenty of aspects of the human body which do not appear to have been rational choices...at least, they do not rise to the level of perfect, or even near-optimal, design.

that's not even really debatable, is it?
No, what I am saying is that the matter is really quite simple in this respect. Regardless of whether engineering 101 would approve of the design, the truth of the matter is that man does in fact stand upright. Whether one deems a design "perfect" depends on what one's understanding and criteria are.

[Dangerrmouse]

Design is in the mind of the beholder. You posit a "designer" from frankly incompetent "designs", yet also claim perfection for the "designer"

[Cedars]

Your knowledge on the subject may be insufficient, but I promise you I am in a position to judge the actual efficiency of biological design and its history. I'm sorry to say the record is still a poor success to failure ratio, whatever you may believe.

I stated the design for life is inefficient from having been presented by an omnipotent deity. If the species of the world had been designed by a toddler, I would be far less skeptical.

Ethos
You missed my point. You seem to only base your opinion on what you know through science. There is more to life and learning and knowledge than merely science.

[Ethos]

You missed my point. You seem to only base your opinion on what you know through science. There is more to life and learning and knowledge than merely science.

I don't disagree with your point, only your application of it.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Key word is "modern." Some scientists believe an appendix had a use at one time (or perhaps will in the future). Wisdom teeth can be useful for chewing, even in modern times.

Precisely. The appendix is a vestigial organ. In other words, a remnant of our evolutionary past. Likewise, wisdom teeth are vestiges of a time when proto-humans existed. Compared to our closest living relatives (the great apes), we have a reduced jaw structure which largely reflects our differences in diet.

Also, I think it should be made clear that evolution is not a random process. Genetic mutation is more or less random, but it is only one component of the evolutionary process. This is a common and unfortunate misconception that many people have.

[Cedars]

I don't disagree with your point, only your application of it.

Ethos
Ok. Let me try to explain in a different way, then.

I said:
"Just because a species becomes extinct, why do you think that necessarily means it was a failure? Why couldn't the species have served its purpose and is no longer needed?"

And then you said:
"Because that isn't how natural selection works. A species does not succeed due to its "purpose" or lack thereof. It will succeed because its particular adaptations happen to increase its odds for survival within its habitat. In some cases one species is better suited to that environment than another, and the latter is forced into extinction by the former. Why silmultaneously create two creatures, either one of which would indepedently rise to the top of a foodchain, only to have the first edge out the second in terms of survival?

Sure you can invent "purposes" for extinct species to satisfy these conflicts, but this is just another in a long line of pretenses. The truth is that evolution is an extremely messy and inefficient mechanism whose failures outnumber its successes a million to one. This is not the work of omnipotence."

Now, a shorter version of my response is that there is more to life, knowledge and learning than merely what we can learn from science (more than just consideration of the theory of natural selection). From a philosophical viewpoint (whether one believes in God or not), one might wonder if a species has become extinct because its purpose is no longer useful. Now if one is also of a scientific mind, one could apply scientific research to this viewpoint and "discover," say (hypothetically), that Species A was introduced onto a new continent where Species B flourished and fed on Species C but now, due to new certain environmental factors (Species A had quickly devoured Species C), Species B has now become extinct (because Species C was wiped out by Species A). It does not mean that Species B (or even Species C) was inefficient (to assume so is to disregard what it DID accomplish before Species A arrived on the scene). One might surmise that Species B served its purpose -- regardless of whether or not one even believes in God. In other words, "natural selection" does not prove inefficiency. But it does seem to contribute to design -- a design that keeps nature in check.

[Cedars]

Precisely. The appendix is a vestigial organ. In other words, a remnant of our evolutionary past. Likewise, wisdom teeth are vestiges of a time when proto-humans existed. Compared to our closest living relatives (the great apes), we have a reduced jaw structure which largely reflects our differences in diet.

Also, I think it should be made clear that evolution is not a random process. Genetic mutation is more or less random, but it is only one component of the evolutionary process. This is a common and unfortunate misconception that many people have.
Our "evolutionary past," yes. If we are evolving, does that evolutionary process have SOMETHING to do with our environment? Maybe we needed an appendix somewhere back in time which served a purpose with regard to Species B, say?

PS: We might say something is "random" when we can FIND no explanation, pattern or specific purpose. In science, today's "random" regarding a specific thing might be tomorrow's (or next century's) "not random after all."

[Ethos]

Now, a shorter version of my response is that there is more to life, knowledge and learning than merely what we can learn from science (more than just consideration of the theory of natural selection). From a philosophical viewpoint (whether one believes in God or not), one might wonder if a species has become extinct because its purpose is no longer useful.

Again I need to disagree with your position. There is more to life than science, that does not mean science cannot explain life. It can and does. In this case science has never shown a "purpose" for animals other than as nutrition for other animals.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Again I need to disagree with your position. There is more to life than science, that does not mean science cannot explain life. It can and does. In this case science has never shown a "purpose" for animals other than as nutrition for other animals.

Ethos
Science CAN explain life. But science is not the SOLE means of explaining life. For even those who do not believe in God, philosophy has just as much to offer as science.

[Cedars]

Design is in the mind of the beholder. You posit a "designer" from frankly incompetent "designs", yet also claim perfection for the "designer"
I am assuming you were directing this at me. I missed it earlier, sorry.

Design is in the mind of the designer. The beholder can only behold and wonder at the design (whether perceived and understood by the beholder correctly, incorrectly, or somewhere in between). Science does not tell us EVERYTHING about man and our environment -- our information is only as good as the research and UNDERSTANDING that is put into it (that is why some ideas are THEORIES).

[Dangerrmouse]

You infer the existence of a designer from your perception of nature as having been "designed". You claim the "designer" is a perfect being, incapable of imperfection, yet you reject the imperfections inherent in many of the "designs".

[Cedars]

You infer the existence of a designer from your perception of nature as having been "designed". You claim the "designer" is a perfect being, incapable of imperfection, yet you reject the imperfections inherent in many of the "designs".
While it is true that I presently believe in a Designer, there was a time when I did not -- but unlike some people, my mind was open to both the possibility that God exists and the possibility that God did not exist. I found it unreasonable to assume anything at that point -- unlike the mistake you are now making in thinking you know even MY mind. But you do not.

[Cedars]

You infer the existence of a designer from your perception of nature as having been "designed". You claim the "designer" is a perfect being, incapable of imperfection, yet you reject the imperfections inherent in many of the "designs".

I apologize, Dangerrmouse, I just re-read your post and realized I misread your post the first time when I answered it.

We have a different understanding of what is imperfect or inefficient. Whether one deems a design "perfect" depends on what one's understanding and criteria are. If one thinks the design should be "perfect" in that one wishes to have all comforts of life, then that would likely be your own idea of a perfect design. It is Christian belief that this was so with Adam and Eve -- they were created immortal and were given paradise (the Garden of Eden) to live in. However, even though they had real knowledge of God, they turned away from God anyway -- hence sin entered into the world. Sin is turning away from God -- when one turns away from God, there is corruption. While God's design is perfect, because of sin, corruption entered and man suffers disease and death (because God did not violate man's free will and allowed man to turn away from God -- but man did suffer consequences for that turning away). It is through suffering that man can be brought closer to what is good and obstacles to happiness removed. God's design is to bring us closer to God, but He will not violate our free will if we do not desire God.

PS: So while I recognized design in the world, I did not understand the design (why it was the way it was), but later on faith gave me a greater understanding of the design.

[Izdaari]

We exist in the natural world. Anyone experiencing the supernatural must therefore be mistaken, at best.

Natural being based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
It isn't necessarily so. Though we live in the natural world, what if the natural world exists inside of a larger supernatural world, that sometimes intrudes into our natural world? If one happened to witness one of those intrusions, that would not make one mistaken, though those who didn't share the experience would be likely to think so.

[SpringRain]

It isn't necessarily so. Though we live in the natural world, what if the natural world exists inside of a larger supernatural world, that sometimes intrudes into our natural world? If one happened to witness one of those intrusions, that would not make one mistaken, though those who didn't share the experience would be likely to think so.

Even many of those experiencing it might stay coherent enough to look for or believe that there is a natural reason for the seemingly supernatural experience even though at that moment they do not know what the natural reason is. To this point I mention watching magic shows. No one actually believes that a magician can really make elephants, the statue of liberty, or any of the supposedly "disappeared" items disappear. It is a trick and we know it; we just don't know the natural explanation for the trick.

[Cedars]

It isn't necessarily so. Though we live in the natural world, what if the natural world exists inside of a larger supernatural world, that sometimes intrudes into our natural world? If one happened to witness one of those intrusions, that would not make one mistaken, though those who didn't share the experience would be likely to think so.
I agree.

Even many of those experiencing it might stay coherent enough to look for or believe that there is a natural reason for the seemingly supernatural experience even though at that moment they do not know what the natural reason is. To this point I mention watching magic shows. No one actually believes that a magician can really make elephants, the statue of liberty, or any of the supposedly "disappeared" items disappear. It is a trick and we know it; we just don't know the natural explanation for the trick.
Magic tricks are "sleight of hand" -- not the same thing as the supernatural realm, although I understand you might think it is -- but then whose sleight of hand is it?

[serenity]

It isn't necessarily so. Though we live in the natural world, what if the natural world exists inside of a larger supernatural world, that sometimes intrudes into our natural world? If one happened to witness one of those intrusions, that would not make one mistaken, though those who didn't share the experience would be likely to think so.


I agree with this, but it doesn’t go far in way of argument. Because we also happen to be in agreement—and I mean ALL of us, without exception, are in agreement (if I may be so bold)—that plenty of delusion occurs in the world. The argument that of all the apparent delusions, the ones that should give us pause are those professed by faithful Christians, is, well, a kind of circular argument. When one Faith crashes up against not only all other faiths, but non-faith as well, we are generally (and rationally) compelled to err on the side of dismissing the experiences as bunk or delusion.

I mean…what else CAN we do? Provide exemptions in our perception of reality—but ONLY for Christian believers?


Magic tricks are "sleight of hand" -- not the same thing as the supernatural realm, although I understand you might think it is -- but then whose sleight of hand is it?


The humna being, whom we are all looking at, and whom we ALL agree is responsible. There IS no debate, so there is no analogy.

[Cedars]

The humna being, whom we are all looking at, and whom we ALL agree is responsible. There IS no debate, so there is no analogy.
I agree -- there is no analogy between magic tricks and the supernatural, which I thought I pointed out. They are two entirely separate things.