I was reading over some arguments, when I saw some things that went against usual Christian logic. Apparently, against popular beliefs, you do not need to be a Christian to go to Christian heaven. This is just one example of ignorance about your own religion. So, I ask, do you theist know everything, or at least the fundamentals, of your religion? If you do not, how can you justify fully devoting yourself to said religion?
Bad example. Mars can be seen quite easily with the naked eye. You consider a "no answer" an answer, but you have not proved that He hears every prayer. For example: you ask somebody something, that person does not answer. Isn't it possible that he did not hear what you asked? So, the reason to God's silence might be that He either does not exist or that he does not hear all prayers, which means that he is not omnipotent.
First of all, just because I can see it doesn't prove it exists. Seeing something is evidence, not proof.
Second of all, I am not implying that not answering is an answer. I'm simply saying that if healing the people is answering yes, not healing them is answering no. "No" is not equivalent to silence.
Neither of us can prove or disprove that God hears every prayer or that he exists, so neither of us should challenge the other either way.
No sane human waits for proof before accepting every idea. I can't prove Mars exists, but I accept that it does.
Really bad example...goumas13 already said why.
As Carl Sagan had said "incredible claims require incredible evidence"
If I told you I had bacon and eggs for breakfast, it's likely you would take my word for it. you know from past experience that those things exist and they are common breakfast items. Now if I told you I have bacon and eggs with on an alien spaceship traveling Mars, would you really except this at face value? I bet you would want some proof before believing that claim because of how incredible it is. But even having bacon and eggs on an alien ship isn't as incredible as God.
If God exists he gave me my ability to reason. If so then why would he not want me to use that ability in regards to him?
First of all, you can't say that God didn't answer the prayer. He didn't always give the result you wanted, but he did answer: no.
Nice you've basically set things up so that if the results don't go in favor of there being a god and prayer working you simply dismiss it.
This also doesn't make sense since this would have given god a chance to prove praying works. He wouldn't have to always answer yes but just enough to show a significant difference between the study groups.
This also doesn't make sense since this would have given god a chance to prove praying works. He wouldn't have to always answer yes but just enough to show a significant difference between the study groups.
And why do that? Even if he did answer every prayer, even to those who don't believe; those you don't believe would still find a reason to not believe
So you think I can prove that Mars exists? Not completely, but from the evidence we may all conclude that it does. I guess the evidence for God is not so convincing.
But even having bacon and eggs on an alien ship isn't as incredible as God.
I have been told from multiple sources that we know of no aliens, so I weigh the evidence and conclude instantly that the many sources on one side outweigh your statement. I know that miraculous events have occurred in direct response to prayer. I have experienced some myself. I know that all cultures have had some sort of moral system, usually very similar. I know that most people claim that there is a correct way to act. I know that arguments about what is right do not center on proving that "right" is a real concept, but instead on which side is closer to what this ultimate right dictates. I know that for as long as mankind can remember, people have believed in the supernatural. I know that one group claims to have a loving God, who tells us through men that the moral laws are important. A God who says he knows how often we break our own human concept of right, and he has made a way for us to once again be with him.
And, on the other side, I hear the argument of atheism: You cn't prove this God exists.
It, and all the reasons for it, are negative arguments. They are exactly like the "scientific" arguments for literal creation in that they only try to shoot down the other theory. They cannot defend themselves. Nothing leads us to the conclusion that there is no God except by attacking the evidence for God.
This also doesn't make sense since this would have given god a chance to prove praying works. He wouldn't have to always answer yes but just enough to show a significant difference between the study groups.
If the evidence for something becomes so certain as to prove it, we cannot deny it. God wants us to have the freedom to choose to deny it, for if we don't have that choice, our choice to accept it means nothing. While we may not choose the path he wants us to, it is more important to him that we be able to choose right. Because he gave us free will, we can do things of importance. If we had no choice, what happiness could there be? What would be the point?
Nice you've basically set things up so that if the results don't go in favor of there being a god and prayer working you simply dismiss it.
I don't dismiss it. I simply believe there is more than one answer to every prayer. You don't seem to think that.
