Speaking of not logical, how is it you expect to saunter in and point to the existence of dubious concepts like "living conscious energy," and then get offended when people don't quickly nod their heads in agreement? Furthemore, how childish is it not to see the difference between "past prejudices" and "educated points of reference," i.e. if you try to convince me that animal telepathy is real, and I express the opinion that you're full of shit, you could always say "no man, you just have to let go of your past prejudices." If what you are trying to communicate has value, you aren't doing the concept any favors by acting as if no evidence or explanation is required. Nor does it help to invalidate the atheist frame of reference with throwaway statements, instead of trying to craft an argument that actually responds to it. (I'm personally closer to deist than atheist by the way.) You deserve to be smacked upside the head with a poopy diaper. No wonder you stomped off...
Oh!, how COULD you! As far as animal telepathy, he could have argued that point more convincingly. Ii is a fact the cat next door has it. Do you know, EVERY time it gets close to the back porch, it mind controls the little flap in the door and it always opens. Hey maybe it is something to do with that magnetic mind supra force concept module effort. Who knows eh, who knows.
Miracles cannot happen Sickness as an argument against God's existence Before we can decide whether or not miracles can happen, we must first define what a miracle is. Basically, a miracle is an event that cannot be normally explained through the laws of nature. In the context of Christianity, miracles are the product and the work of God who created the natural laws as well as the universe. However, vital to the discussion of whether or not miracles can occur is the issue of a person's presuppositions. Either way, the non-God, non-miraculous presupposition would not allow the skeptic to believe. This is especially ironic since many atheists consider the Christians to be the ones who lack objectivity. Since Christians do not have a presupposition that excludes the miraculous, we are able to look at the resurrection of Christ as recorded in the Bible, weigh the evidence, and make a choice to believe or not believe. , it would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur, or he must have some logical proof why miracles cannot occur, or possess a sufficiently sophisticated knowledgebase to conclude the miraculous cannot occur, etc. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it. I see God as good...Although I don't understand what he does sometimes. But it does not change his nature. He is infinitely above me and permits things to happen. I DO take some things on faith. I can look at the Bible and see its textual reliability, its spiritual truth, its accuracy, its prophecy, its patterns, messages, and make an intelligent decision based on it. Some things within it, I must take on faith. That is perfectly rational. Suffice it to say, although there are those that would to the notion that there is no objective criteria for proving the validity of the Bible's claims. Perhaps, but does that mean that it is not true? or that God is not knowable? Besides, it is historically and archaeologically accurate. That is validation. if God gives someone cancer, and they die from it, what was the purpose of that? Or can we write that one off as another example of, God works in mysterious ways? let me ask you, if there is a God and he encompasses the universe, is it possible that he would work in ways that are beyond us? Is that possible? If it is possible, then doesn't that mean that faith is necessary and logical at this point? why not? Hypothetical situations are a tool of theory and learning. Some would argue that possibilities don't create probabilities, or certainties however, But logic is still logic and God, if he made logic, can be found in it... Faith becomes logical when there is enough evidence to support it. Atheists reject a priori the miraculous. What can I provide that you would not, by necessity, interpret in humanistic naturalistic presuppositions? Your assumptions make it impossible for you to be objective and to accurate examine all the facts. You could claim the same of me however, but at least I do not rule out the miraculous.... therefore, I am open to it. You, however, are not. Which is more 'open' to truth then? All knowledge cannot be ascertained by logic or experiment. Still you say God cannot be good if he allows people to get sick with cancer because cancer is bad and God is supposed to be good. So... why is it that God is NOT supposed to make us sick or something? I mean, why not? Maybe he has a good reason. Maybe there is a good in it. Then again, maybe this is just what the world is like with sin in it. Besides, God doesn't owe me or you anything. Again you would still argue that God, who is our father, should not do bad things to us, such as give us cancer. Oh.... Exodus 4:11 is a problem for you then. It says in there that God makes the eye blind, the ear deaf, etc. âAnd the LORD said unto him, Who hath made manâs mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?â
Proof #3 - Watch the offering plate Have you ever thought about the offering plate in church? If God is real, why do they have to pass it? If you read these verses in the Bible, you can see that God claims to be extremely powerful and willing to answer any prayer: Matthew 7:7 Matthew 17:20 Matthew 21:21 Mark 11:24 John 14:12-14 Matthew 18:19 Mark 9:23 Luke 1:37 Now consider this: Why don't the ministers and deacons of the church gather together every Sunday morning and pray to Jesus for the money they need? Why doesn't Jesus answer their prayers? Why do churches have to beg for money from mere mortals when there is an immortal, all-powerful God who should provide anything they ask for? Here is what "God" is saying: Pray to me for anything and I will hear and answer your prayers. I say it in dozens of places in the Bible, but I like the way I say it in Mark 11:24 the best: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." Anything you need -- money, love, happiness, you name it -- I am here to provide it for you. Now, there is just one thing I need in return. I need your money. I need lots of your money. The Bible specifies that you tithe ten percent of your income to me, but think of that as a starting point. Feel free to give more! Because even though I created the universe and everything in it, and even though I will give you everything you ask for in prayer, I can't give a cent to any church, ever. When they pass the offering plate at church, be sure to give generously! This, of course, is ridiculous. The reason why they pass the offering plate at church is because God is imaginary.
Proof #4 - Think about science Notice what happens when anyone is "miraculously cured". A person is sick, the person prays (or a prayer circle prays for the person) and the person is cured. A religious person looks at it and says, "God performed a miracle because of prayer!" That is the end of it. A scientist looks at it in a very different way. A scientist looks at it and says, "Prayer had nothing to do with it - there is a natural cause for what we see here. If we understand the natural cause, then we can heal many more people suffering from the same condition." In other words, it is only by assuming that God is imaginary that science can proceed. You can see a direct example of science at work in this article: Fleming had so much going on in his lab that it was often in a jumble. This disorder proved very fortunate. In 1928, he was straightening up a pile of Petri dishes where he had been growing bacteria, but which had been piled in the sink. He opened each one and examined it before tossing it into the cleaning solution. One made him stop and say, "That's funny." Some mold was growing on one of the dishes... not too unusual, but all around the mold, the staph bacteria had been killed... very unusual. He took a sample of the mold. He found that it was from the penicillium family, later specified as Penicillium notatum. Fleming presented his findings in 1929, but they raised little interest. He published a report on penicillin and its potential uses in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology. Fleming worked with the mold for some time, but refining and growing it was a difficult process better suited to a chemist. The work was taken over by a team of chemists and mold specialists, but was cut short when several of them died or relocated. In 1935, Australian Howard Florey was appointed professor of pathology at Oxford University where he headed up a laboratory. This was a daunting task in an economically depressed time, and seeking funding for the researchers and work he hoped to do took much of his time. One researcher he hired soon after his arrival was Ernst Chain. Chain was paid to do cancer research, and work that spilled over into Florey's own interest and work on lysozyme. Chain became quite enthusiastic about the search for antibacterial chemicals. In looking back at old articles written about lysozyme, including those by Fleming in the 1920s, he happened across Fleming's paper on penicillin. "I had come across this paper early in 1938 and on reading it I immediately became interested," he wrote. The Oxford team, as Florey's researchers have become known, began experimenting with the penicillin mold. They took it one step further than Fleming did: they did not just try it topically or in a petri dish, but injected it in live mice. With controlled experimentation, they found it cured mice with bacterial infections. They went on to try it on a few human subjects and saw amazing results. By now it was 1941, and England was at war. As Fleming first foresaw, the wartime need for an antibacterial was great, but resources were tight and penicillin still very experimental. Florey had connections at the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States, however, and it funded further research. Did Fleming or Floring say, as a religious person would, "The death of this bacteria is a miracle! God has reached down and killed it!" Of course not. Instead, they completely ignored "God". They determined what was actually happening through experimentation and then made useful medicines from the mold. They took a rational approach rather than a religious approach and we all benefit from penicillin and its many derivatives today. All of science works in this way. Only by assuming that God is imaginary and prayer is meaningless can science proceed. The reason why scientists must assume that God is imaginary in order for the scientific method to work is because God is imaginary.
If one prays without faith he will not receive. If one prays outside of the will of God he will not receive. If one prays and regards sin within his heart he will not receive. God is not a cosmic genie. All prayer is subject to God's sovereignty.
Before we can decide whether or not miracles can happen, we must first define what a miracle is. Basically, a miracle is an event that cannot be normally explained through the laws of nature. In the context of Christianity, miracles are the product and the work of God who created the natural laws as well as the universe. It would be basically illogical to state that miracles cannot occur. This is because in order to logically state that miracles cannot occur, a person must either know all things in the universe so that he can rightfully state miracles cannot occur, or he must have some logical proof why miracles cannot occur, or possess a sufficiently sophisticated knowledgebase to conclude the miraculous cannot occur, etc. Furthermore, it is not enough to state that there is no evidence for the miraculous since a person's experiential base is limited. It may very well be that miracles have occurred and this person is simply not aware of it.