Hi jem "I have be faced" What's that? and "Really explaining" what exactly? Time is explained in physics. Were you at all interested in explanations, you would find the actual science yourself, instead of just trying to maintain a daft - science is crap therefore God is not - argument. There is scientific definition for time. It is proof of the measurement of time. ..for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one. Albert Einstein Are you wanting an explanation for that statement? So which are you in now?? physics or philosophy. Where did Einstein state this? at a funeral or in his science? The question is somewhat rhetorical just in case you missed that. A poignant figure of speech to a grieving widow, or a hard scientific fact? But how does that help an already nonsensical argument for God anyway is what I would like explained? By the simplistic incorporation of befuddlement which is obviously the essential ingredient in your arguments, that statement would make God even more illusional. You now want to drift toward Quantum to establish time is all illusion? Why? In such circumstances were time described that way , QM would leave no gap for God-annihilated by the shake of a leptons nudger. But Einstein's equations would still work, as they do, as Newton's scientific discoveries and proofs still do. There would still be a scientific proof of time as defined in physics. You choose to call time an illusion but only through the misplaced application of one of those areas in physics into the other.
Nice try stu. does not work. I made the statement time is an illusion - because i surmised that debating calvinistic thought with respect to predestination and free will is rendered meaningless if there is no past present or future (in reality for you) or to God for those who wish to believe in God. You responded with a bunch of crap and said Einsteing agrees with you. And now when I have Einstein saying time is an illusion you wish to say Einstein did not mean it. Grow up man. You were wrong. Einstein (your authority) said so. And he said physicists agree with him. So once again - in your arguments with me we have Stu against the dictionary (definition of athiesm and free will) Stu against history books and professors (historical man named Jesus who lived around the time of pilot according to Josephues and others) Stu against every theologian with a brain (Stu said arainism is consistent with modern day christianity - I said modern day Christianty requires a belief in the Trinity.) And now for the piece de reisistance - we have STU against Einstein as to whether time is an illusion. Nice try axeman. I will not waste my time with you.
my guess someone is writing a book and has no word on his/her computer. i am trying to figure out the title of the book ...
Most of the arguments presented from lhk are cut and pasted from here: <a href="http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm"> whywontgodhealamputees</a>. They aren't original, but part of a proselytizing, evangelistic campaign. Found some interesting analysis of the weak assumptions of this whole approach here: <a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-dosnt-god-heal-stupidity.html"> Why God wont heal Stupidity </a>. Excerpt: There's more there, but a good start at the faulty methodological assumptions.
Re that example of rebuttal you just cited -- what about statistical evidences of prayer, or the lack thereof? i.e., a mathematically inclined non-believer might make this assertion: There is no hard evidence for the phenomenon of answered prayer. The one-off citations of answered prayer here and there never cross the threshold of meaningful statistical significance. The vast majority of answered prayer requests are so mundane as to be ludicrous, and the bigger ones--healing of the sick for example--fall wholly within standard probability patterns. The rate of spontaneously healed cancer patients, for example, is arguably no different for praying vs non-praying cases, given equality of outside factors. Does any statistical evidence exist to refute the above assertion? If not, why not?
Here are some sources with links to documentations of medical miracles. They are summaries of the listed sources of investigations of only 2 ministries, one Catholic and one Protestant. I don't vouch for the theologies of either source, but the rigor of the Catholic reserve regarding Lourdes is notable for its documentation and methodology. The protestant doctor uses standard medical records and hospital and x-rays: Protestant: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/miracles5.htm">http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/miracles5.htm</a> Catholic: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles2.htm">http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles2.htm</a> Overview, with included but less scientific: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm"> http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles.htm</a> This is just once source of two investigations.
Just glanced at the first link, came across this intriguing quote from Mr. Dan Wakefield: "These are not kooks. They only spoke to me because their minister asked them to. The stories I have are not all religious, and they are from all different religions." Now this is even more confusing...
Forget the opinion. Look at the documentations. The first ones are documented, the second are anecdotal. I don't suggest the second are evidence of themselves.
Now hold on a second, I want to know your answer to Mr. Wakefield. If a unitarian brings you documentation of non-Christian miracles... miraculous healings brought about by prayers to Moroni or Vishnu or some pagan god, what is your natural response? If a Wiccan showed you compelling evidence of Pan's healing power--albeit in exceedingly tiny sample size--would you seriously consider the potential viability of Pan's goodness, or would you be more inclined to ponder the reality of statistics and the possibility of statistical flukes?