The offended God theory

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

So to the believer, the very absence of any evidence whatsoever for God becomes proof that God exists?.

No, I don't know anyone who thinks of it that way.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

If you were to apply such anti-logic to any other aspect of life, would you say the rest of us would be correct in thinking you "Off your rocker?"

Well, the Biblical answer, as far as I know, to a question like this is, "The Foolishness of Man is the Wisdom of God" In other words, things that man might think are stupid may be the very way God is doing things or what man thinks is idiotic might actually be the way God wants things to be or actually are in an absolute sense even if humans refuse to believe so.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Also, what you say completely contradicts all the overt mentions of signs, wonders and miracles that fills both the Hebrew and Christian Bible - so yet again, we immediately arrive at a glaring contradiction. At which point the believer invariably says some soothing-sounding illogical thing like "His ways are beyond the understanding of men ... let us pray together, brother...", and the rest of us say "what a crock."

The miracles and such in the Bible all ended after the time of the Apostles and once the Bible was finished because there was no longer a need for those things once God's word was written down in physical form. That's the idea anyway for most Christian groups who don't believe in miracles. The whole explanation would bore you and be pointless here.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

In other words, the rest of us have applied the same logic which makes sense in every other aspect of our existence (and on which all measurable human progress throughout history has depended) in order to arrive at our conclusion, whereas the believer has invoked his faith-related "Get out of logic jail free" card.

There is the idea that that's part of the point. It's supposed to be different because God is different. Science is very comfortable with certain assumptions of its own, such as, "things have always been such as they are now" and the like when they don't know that. As I said before, science only trusts what it can sense with the human body and likes that over anything else.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Since when did it become scary and uncivilized to believe in God?

Since this post is shorter than Ernst's considered reponse, I shall
try to answer this instead.

Since Darwin? Wilberforce?

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Since this post is shorter than Ernst's considered reponse, I shall
try to answer this instead.

Since Darwin? Wilberforce?

I hope you realize how insulting that kind of remark is now.

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Well, the Biblical answer, as far as I know, to a question like this is, "The Foolishness of Man is the Wisdom of God" In other words, things that man might think are stupid may be the very way God is doing things or what man thinks is idiotic might actually be the way God wants things to be or actually are in an absolute sense even if humans refuse to believe so.

But how is that not a "get out of logic jail free card"? Because with this "explanation", you can dismiss any contradicting evidence as being simply due to insufficient human knowledge.

On the other hand, don't you see that this argument is a double-edged sword? How about applying it to the claims that you do believe in? How then can you be sure that the authors of the Bible weren't just deluded by God, for some reason beyond human comprehension? Why do some claims get to be believed as absolute fact (ex. existence of God) while others are dismissed as the "Foolishness of Man"?

[brunoparga]

All of the following quoted posts have had parts of them omitted, although no distortion of their meaning is intended.

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

"what do they have against believer-amputees?"

many Christians believe He does heal such wounds (such as myself).

Would you kindly provide an example?

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Who said Saul was deserving? ;)

Well, the city I live in named after the man. I say that's quite an honour, and such an honour wouldn't be given to anyone unworthy of it.

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Unless it's evolution.

Please do read the "Evolution: the scientific evidence" thread.

Originally Posted by jasong

(1) Don't believe life is worthwhile without a purpose that is ultimately the same for all. In this case, the glorification of God.

I cannot believe in a God so vile and ordinary he needs to be glorified by anybody, let alone an entire species/planet/Universe.

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Even in Christ's day they didn't believe in Him despite the miracles.

To me, it seems the only reason the ones who believed in him did so were the miracles. That's what the biblical text implies - why even mentioning miracles if they're, as you say, irrelevant for belief?

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

because you didn't believe you're going to spend eternity in hell.

Well... I say I wouldn't be bothered by whatever torture God created for me in hell. In fact, I'd derive pleasure from them, and from getting used to new and customised ones; if it's an eternity of getting used, then it's an eternity of pleasure - in hell.

Not to mention all the amazingly intelligent people I'd find there and talk to forever.

Bruno

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

Would you kindly provide an example?

Certainly. In Matthew 15:30-31 we read:

And great multitudes came unto him, having with them [those that were] lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

Another example would be when Jesus heals the ear that Peter cuts off.

Those are the ones mentioned in the Bible that I remember.

Well, the city I live in named after the man. I say that's quite an honour, and such an honour wouldn't be given to anyone unworthy of it.

Are you confounding the difference between what Saul did before his conversion, and afterward?

I can think of a few reasons God would warn Saul without him being worthy of it. It might have been an act of grace by God. It might have been in answer to the prayers of the saints in their persecutions. Etc... I just don't find much evidence that someone who consents to the death of one of God's humble servants, and goes around persecuting His saints, is "worthy" in that sense of the word. Not to say Paul didn't live faithfully afterwards.

To me, it seems the only reason the ones who believed in him did so were the miracles. That's what the biblical text implies - why even mentioning miracles if they're, as you say, irrelevant for belief?

I would simply disagree with your interpretation and reading. I've found that the ones who believe and stay faithful are not the ones converted by signs, but rather by hearing the word and trying it for themselves (i.e. planting the seed in good ground). Also, I didn't say miracles are irrelevant for belief. I said they were a strength to those who already believe.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Certainly. In Matthew 15:30-31 we read: [...]
Another example would be when Jesus heals the ear that Peter cuts off.
Those are the ones mentioned in the Bible that I remember.

Now, biblical examples don't fit too well into "lending themselves to easy direct verification". Would you have an example coming from a more reliable, responsible source? A news medium, for instance? Recorded history (to which is applied the judicial principle of testis unus, testis nullus, a single testimony is no testimony)?

Bruno

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by brunoparga

Now, biblical examples don't fit too well into "lending themselves to easy direct verification". Would you have an example coming from a more reliable, responsible source? A news medium, for instance?

I suppose one could think of the progress of science to the point of having artificial limbs and organs to be a miracle of God. But you are probably looking for something that (currently) cannot be explained by modern science. In that case, I can think of a few examples of miraculous healings, being raised from the dead, and so forth, within the last century in my religious tradition alone, that involved multiple witnesses. I imagine that if you google, you'll find stories from other faiths, with multiple witnesses.

But note, my point to ewmayer was not that I am an expert on accounts of miracles. Only that many religionists believe in amputee healings (occassionally).

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by jinydu

But how is that not a "get out of logic jail free card"? Because with this "explanation", you can dismiss any contradicting evidence as being simply due to insufficient human knowledge.

On the other hand, don't you see that this argument is a double-edged sword? How about applying it to the claims that you do believe in? How then can you be sure that the authors of the Bible weren't just deluded by God, for some reason beyond human comprehension? Why do some claims get to be believed as absolute fact (ex. existence of God) while others are dismissed as the "Foolishness of Man"?

For the believer, the answer is one word: Faith. For people such as yourself, there is no answer that would satisfy you that can exist.

[ET_]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

For the believer, the answer is one word: Faith. For people such as yourself, there is no answer that would satisfy you that can exist.

Faith is not a scientific answer...

Luigi

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

For the believer, the answer is one word: Faith. For people such as yourself, there is no answer that would satisfy you that can exist.

I cannot believe in such a being, proof of whose existence is unaccessible to the reason of a person of average intelligence (like everyone in this discussion).

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I suppose one could think of the progress of science to the point of having artificial limbs and organs to be a miracle of God. But you are probably looking for something that (currently) cannot be explained by modern science. In that case, I can think of a few examples of miraculous healings, being raised from the dead, and so forth, within the last century in my religious tradition alone, that involved multiple witnesses. I imagine that if you google, you'll find stories from other faiths, with multiple witnesses.

But note, my point to ewmayer was not that I am an expert on accounts of miracles. Only that many religionists believe in amputee healings (occassionally).

What we're talking about are miracles stricto sensu. This means, "alleged facts which counter well-known and well-established natural laws". None has ever happened, AFAIK. An example of which, recorded with the precautions needed to "avoid self-decption" (I quote someone in this forum ), is what I'm asking for.

Thanks,
Bruno