Obviously my screen name says what I believe but I encourage all ( Buddhist, Atheist, Christians, Taoist, Muslims, etc) to give me a good clear cut answer on if god really does exist. I would sincerely love to know what all of you think. That does not mean I won't argue with your idea or belief.
Keep in mind that they visited a Church before she got scanned for the tumor the second time, which does lend more credibility to his reason for belief.
That is completely beside the point. Stuff happens that we can't explain. If there was a conclusive way to demonstrate on a large scale that people with cancer that were prayed for to a specific god were more likely to be healed, maybe that would lend credibility to belief. Atheists can be miraculously healed too. Besides, I wouldn't object as much if he had said that he BELIEVES because of this event (or at least I would have taken the discussion down a different road). But he claimed to know that God exists because of this event, and I'm saying that this isn't proof or even very reliable evidence. Doctors have healed patients far more than "God" has due to scientific investigation and reality. Just because some individuals do lose their afflication through unknown means does not mean that we should assume it was a supernatural reason. We should assume that there are just things that we don't know yet. And that's okay. No need to play God of the Gaps here.
If you're denying there is a god, that means there must be a god that you have to deny, therefore there is a god. Problem?
So if you deny that there are pixies, then that means that there are pixies to deny? That is complete nonsense. Besides, atheists don't necessarily deny the existence of a god. They reject the positive claim to knowledge that a god does exist as an unsupported claim. Those are two different things.
I think Mage had it covered, but what it sounds like you're saying is that God must at least exist as a concept. I would agree on that, but cconcepts don't manifest in reality. Now, depending on what you believe about your god, this little non-proof doesn't demonstrate that this god interfered in reality, and in fact a concept of a god cannot interfere in reality because it is a concept. Just like if I deny the existence of Mage, that might prove that Mage exists as a concept in my mind. But the concept of Mage and the actual Mage, making posts and responding to theistic claims, are two completely different things.
Not really. How many people do you think go to a church or place of worship upon finding that they quite possibly have a potentially fatal disease? I bet the majority of them do. How many of them miraculously heal? Not many.
So those who weren't cured would be justified if they lost their faith in God. However, because his grandmother was healed, his belief that it was an act of God actually makes sense. It doesn't mean there is a God, but I can't blame him for choosing to believe.
But he claimed to know that God exists because of this event, and I'm saying that this isn't proof or even very reliable evidence.
It's not beside the point, because it's a core value of religious faith. People see what they believe to be miracles, and connect that with God. While I agree that claiming that as absolute proof of God is unjustified, claiming that as a source of belief is incredibly justified, and part of what keeps religion alive.
ERROR. DOES NOT COMPUTE. See the problem?
Ummm... no, actually. If He were all powerful, He'd be able to remove from Himself the ability to control the will of humans, without being able to regain that ability, because He decided to. Or, he could create will to be resistant to his power using his all powerfulness.
So those who weren't cured would be justified if they lost their faith in God. However, because his grandmother was healed, his belief that it was an act of God actually makes sense. It doesn't mean there is a God, but I can't blame him for choosing to believe.
I'm not saying that he's ignorant for choosing to believe, because it was a personal experience. I'm saying that an objective overview reveals that these things can happen randomly, and it's not necessary to say it was God just because we don't know what it was.
It's not beside the point, because it's a core value of religious faith. People see what they believe to be miracles, and connect that with God. While I agree that claiming that as absolute proof of God is unjustified, claiming that as a source of belief is incredibly justified, and part of what keeps religion alive.
The source of anyone's belief about anything should be reason and evidence. Miracles are things that people can't explain. So it's really ignorance that keeps religion alive, and I don't mean that in an insulting way. I mean ignorance of the explanations behind events is what prompts up religion.
Ummm... no, actually. If He were all powerful, He'd be able to remove from Himself the ability to control the will of humans, without being able to regain that ability, because He decided to. Or, he could create will to be resistant to his power using his all powerfulness.
Isn't that basically the "creating a stone he can't lift" paradox?
Isn't that basically the "creating a stone he can't lift" paradox?
Presumably, if He were all powerful, He'd also be all-immune to paradox.
The source of anyone's belief about anything should be reason and evidence. Miracles are things that people can't explain. So it's really ignorance that keeps religion alive, and I don't mean that in an insulting way. I mean ignorance of the explanations behind events is what prompts up religion.
From what I've seen, the source of people's belief is a result of what reason and evidence can't explain. It doesn't mean that they won't be explained in the future, but at that point in time, with the reasoning and evidence present, there are few answers. Religion exists because many people can't live only by reason and evidence, and it's not ignorance, but hope that keeps it alive. Is it wrong for people to hope for more than what they see, for more than what evidence is shown to them?
From what I've seen, the source of people's belief is a result of what reason and evidence can't explain. It doesn't mean that they won't be explained in the future, but at that point in time, with the reasoning and evidence present, there are few answers. Religion exists because many people can't live only by reason and evidence, and it's not ignorance, but hope that keeps it alive. Is it wrong for people to hope for more than what they see, for more than what evidence is shown to them?
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, and I don't mean ignorance in a bad way. Atheists in the 1800s were ignorant of what we know today. I mean that religion fits the gaps, and back when the gaps were wide, they could justify almost anything. Now it's a little more passive with regard to beliefs, but it still only fits in the gaps. It's not like I have any kind of problem with people believing anything, but I would also say that it is no more wrong than people beliving in fairies. I don't mind if people believe in fairies. They can be perfectly nice, productive members of society. They can keep that belief out of their other affairs. I simply wonder why they hold it is all.
From what I've seen, the source of people's belief is a result of what reason and evidence can't explain.
However there are many times where reason and evidence can explain or at least provide a far more likely explanation, which then goes ignored or even attempted to be suppressed by religious views.
I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, and I don't mean ignorance in a bad way.
However there are many times where reason and evidence can explain or at least provide a far more likely explanation, which then goes ignored or even attempted to be suppressed by religious views.
But that isn't a cause for belief, that's when belief is shaken, and someone will resist the dubunking of their belief.
