vesperbot, in the clip homer was saying that because the bear patrol was there the bears werent, you are saying that because we have no proof that god definately isnt there that he definately is, thye are both very hard points to accept, im more inclined to beleiev homer as i knwo him better
you are saying that because we have no proof that god definately isnt there that he definately is
Ahh. Well, I have provided positive evidence that God is definitely there, check out page 86 of "Christianty FTW" for Gloria Polo's testimony, and something like 20-70, 110-150 for Fatima's miracle discussion, being the most remarkable and the most documented evidence to my knowledge. And all I have in return is "we have no proof that God definitely is there, so we assume that He definitely isn't" and "you can't prove a negative". Isn't it ridiculous by your Homer's logic?
How can three things independently (since any maximized would maximize the others, according to God's capability) and simultaneously dependently (since it's not "just" all-forgiving, but also just and holy) describe God?
I'm afraid that all the syntactic approach will be fruitless. We can't say what God is like, we can only say what God is not like. Also these are only a select few of God's attributes, add "all-knowing", "omnipresent" and "having His own plans for each one of us", and you're pretty much out of room in your brain to search for balance of all of these. And this is not the complete set of His attributes. Probably the problem you place here is similar to the problem of understanding the Holy Trinity as One and Three at once, which is unresolved to the entire Christian philosophy. It's just there, God is one, and there are three faces of Him, being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I'm no philosopher to attempt to try to solve even this lesser problem.
There are know knowns and there are known unkowns, but there are also unkown unkowns things we don't know we don't know. Just cause you don't have evidence does exist not mean that you have evidence that something does not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Sorry I meant. There are know knowns and there are known unkowns, but there are also unkown unkowns things we don't know we don't know. Just cause you don't have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that something does not exist. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
vesper, all your "miracles" have a scientific explanation that you don't want to accept. And again 2 miracles isn't enough to base a religion on. Why should god heal people at random anyway. Why are they worthier.
vesper you misunderstand my point, i am saying that there is no indisputable evidence that god exists, but there is also no indisputable evidence he doesnt, therefore we cannot say that because there is no evidence he does not exist that he definately does, nor can we say that because there ius no evidence he does exist that he definately does not
vesper you misunderstand my point, i am saying that there is no indisputable evidence that god exists, but there is also no indisputable evidence he doesnt, therefore we cannot say that because there is no evidence he does not exist that he definately does, nor can we say that because there ius no evidence he does exist that he definately does not
Agreed, this makes the question to be one of belief instead of knowledge. Still if anyone would experience direct contact with God, then that one has knowledge AND belief, because such an experience is firsthand. But those who don't believe initially will likely not consider their belief be wrong if provided such an evidence, let alone convert.
vesper, all your "miracles" have a scientific explanation that you don't want to accept.
So far every such explanation received a refutation from me, which in turn wasn't objected, so the ball is on your side again.
well yues and no, it is a question of belief, but when i was younger i thought god had spoken to me, i am now sure it was my imagination wanting to believe, my mind was logical yet impressionable, everyone around me was believeing so my mind concoted this vision because in my subconcious i wanted it to
in your case it could be both, I sometimes was imagining me being in a world of some book, and fairy characters speaking with me. That's why most personal evidences is just disregarded by others, and I expect this to be normal. It can still turn out that it was indeed God speaking to you that time, but your friends told you the opposite and you believed them. But I don't know that for sure.
yes i agree, but by the way i was at a church when it happened, everyone around me was pleased and no one disputed it, i never told any of my friends at school, and thats the thing though vesperbot, if you can never trust personal accounts of god speaking to people, there arev amultitude of reasons why people may think god is speaking to them
well, most of these are strictly related to the person the contact is made to, but if not, then these accounts are to be considered first, especially when it comes to the extremes like with Gloria Polo, there was a complete recuperation from lightning strike alongside the contact made public. Also such contacts are really hard to form into comprehensible wordings, since they are usually done without any words, like thepyro222 reported starting Christians FTW. Mine is like this, yours seems to be the same. Considering the probability of your account to come from God, I'd say ~0.6, not knowing anything else but what you provide. But it's you to believe this or not.
yes but it could bea placebo effect, the person thinks they are speakong to god who will heal them, they become so convinced that this is the case hat it happens
