theophilus

Correction: God is not limited by human comprehension or human experience.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, God has not given us an exhaustive discourse on all reality. He has disclosed, for his own purposes, those things which are necessary for our redemption.
Speaking of anything else, by believers or unbelievers is pure speculation. The only difference is that believers have the possibility of some knowledge while unbleivers can, as unbelievers, know nothing.

(If they're honest unbelievers)

theophilus

This is tiresome.
The definition of omnipotence derives from God's self-revelation, not from human speculation. God has revealed himself as Almight, i.e., he can do anything he purposes to do; nothing can withstand his accomplishing his purpose.
Further, his omnipotence is in relationship to his creation and so, no he cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. This would be to make God and the rock share an ontological identity.
This is just silly, however you try to disguise it.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>

daemon

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the phrase. I said it in reference to an earlier claim of yours:
Now, this assertion is highly dubious in light of the fact that you have been repeatedly asked and have not yet even attempted to justify this statement, which should be provable if it is indeed true. The phrase "put up or shut up" was a blunt attempt to get you to actually prove this claim. You have yet to do so, and you haven't yet stopped talking, so I'll assume you didn't understand.

So, come on then, theo, prove your claim or stop pretending it's true.

theophilus

Sorry, you're trying to pass the ball on this one. By making any categorical statement regarding human experience, you implicitly assert that you possess certain knowledge about reality. I deny that claim and, as with the argument for the existence of God, the burden of proof passes to you.
I'll go easy on you. Tell me just one thing that you know for certain and how you know it. Please save time by considering the epistemological implications so I don't have to do it.

Tercel

There's been quite a few replies with reference to me, and although I'd like to reply carefully to everyone I simply don't have the time. I'll reply to what I can in the order it was posted, and also give a few general points to everyone now:
* The list of arguments I gave was in response to eowynn's question of "what arguments exist for God?". It was NOT designed as a "ha, ha atheists, look at all the arguments for God." Neither was it meant to be a complete and coherent formulation of the arguments, I merely wished to outline what some of the arguments generally were and approximately how they worked. (Okay, so my favourite one's got slightly more detail added... )
* I AM AWARE YOU ALL THINK THE ARGUMENTS ARE UNSOUND/INVALID ETC. You obviously wouldn't be atheists if you agreed with them, so you're all obviously going to think they're all bolax. I can work this out myself and don't really need to be told.
* I am NOT going to argue ALL TEN arguments at once in one thread. (Nor am I going to argue 10 arguments at once across different threads - Don't get any ideas! ) However if someone asks me a few polite questions about one or two of the arguments (as it looks like they have already), I am happy to continue the discussion with what time I have available.

Good Day All,
Tercel

daemon

So, I am correct in assuming you cannot back up your claim?

I'm not going to bother to take any challenge from you, theo, until you have answered my question, which you have erroneously assumed to be unnecessary to prove. If it is true, it should be provable; please do so.

Tercel

Devilnaut,

Hmm, I was brought up in a Christian family so I didn't exactly "convert" because of a logical argument. However I assure you that if there were no logical arguments I felt were sound, I would no longer be a Christian now.

I am saying that a theist since they already believe in God and don't need further evidence for his existence <strong>is justified</strong> in interpreting events as "coincidence" or "Divine providence" <strong>as they see fit</strong>.

No doubt the site is all knowing and I should bow down to its statement. However, I note that the statement is not a logically complete or valid argument and its conclusion seems to be poping out of nowhere. If you'd like to complete the argument then I could say why I disagree:
P1) Many religious people have an overwhelming desire for a religious experience.
P2) ???
P3) ???
C) Therefore religious experiences provide no evidence for God.

Not at all. Anyone who experience the divine is going to filter whatever they feel through their own culture and religion. Differing interpretations of the experiences is thus not evidence that the experiences are not coming from one source.

Healings (attested by an average person rather than a doctor), speaking in Tongues (and having it recognised by a speaker of a different language), Prophesy, and Demonic possessions are a few examples of things which would fall under this category.
An example-to-go: (I'm not at home so I don't currently have any of my books handy, so this is as best I can remember the situation described)
A Jewish man who was an anti-Christian had gone to America to further his efforts in talking against Christianity. He went into a room in a Pentecostal Church where someone was speaking in Tongues. He heard, in his own language a message for him apparently from God (I can't remember the exact words) which, among other things, used his real name which no one in America except himself knew (he was travelling under a different one). He found it sufficiently convincing that he became a Christian as a result and reversed his ministry to become a pro-Christian speaker.

Okay, yes: They might not know a sufficient amount about what they're telling us for us to establish the truth based on the facts they know. I didn't even bother stating that before, because such a situation doesn't even count as a proper testimony.

If you so wish...
Lourdes, France, is historically famous for supposed appearances of Mary, as well as miraculous healings. This has led the Catholic Church to set up an independent medical board (with rather impressively thorough procedures) to investigate each alleged healing. Over the years there have been several healings declared "inexplicable by science" and "miraculous". More information including both the procedure for investigation and the declared miracles can be found at
<a href="http://www.lourdes-france.org/gb/gbsa0010.htm" target="_blank">the Lourdes website.</a>

In my experience “sceptics” tend to swallow whole anything “science” says and disregard anything that is “unscientific”. Science apparently brings nothing but good, and anything that isn’t “science” is apparently not to be believed. (Since religion isn’t “scientific” it’s therefore wrong too…) I personally find this biased view quite amusing…

I think further investigation on your part is definitely required.

<strong>It is worth noting, however, that biblical scholars cannot even agree on the existence of Jesus Christ, much less that he performed any miracles.</strong>
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! Damnit, not this crap again!!!!!!!!!!!
99.99999% seem to be able to agree, and if one nutcase like he secweb’s hero Earl Doherty decides he knows better than everyone else: that doesn’t count.

<strong>Another thing worth noting is that there is no evidence for his miracles outside of the bible- which is somewhat odd, considering the nature of these wonderful feats.</strong> More research on your part into these matters is a must.

The Cosmological argument? You mean: A version thereof. (And a very bad and unconvincing one at that may I add)

Tercel

Tercel

Okay, I'm fast getting sick of this. Let's be clear: The Christians are the ones believing the doctrine, we get to define what we believe. It is not up to atheists to come along and tell us what is meant by omnipotence. There is a centuries old Christian tradition discussing exactly what is meant by the doctrine of omnipotence.
An atheist comes along and tells me that omnipotence means the ability to do anything at all, and ha ha ha it's contradictory.
Should I laugh or cry? What arrogance to declare based on their own opinion what they think Christians should mean by a word!

There is little more to discuss. If some atheist wants to think that the Christian idea of omnipotence includes the ability of God to perform contradictions and is therefore contradictory they are welcome to go an live in their own imaginary world until they get a brain.

Tercel

Yup. The many joys of self references...

Triple Six

I had a look and what is striking is the astonishingly low number of "certified miracles" (66) for something that has been running for 150 years collecting thousands of suckers every year. Less than one "miracle" every two years Furthermore the rate that these "miracles" seem to be happening is declining rapidly with the majority coming before 1920 and two in the last 20 years! Superior medical diagnosis would obviously be a good explanation. I must thank Tercel for providing such powerful evidence as even the Church's own statistics show what an evil fraud Lourdes is; there is nothing lower than preying on the sick

One must also note that a Church body reviewing these "miracles" hardly constitutes an independent and fair tribunal, can you say conflict of interest? We are talking of one of the catholic churches great money making scams here. Before you whinge Tercel remember that you declare that human logic is not the correct way to define your god's powers. By the same token why should we trust the churches view of its own operation.

In conclusion I'm rather confidant you will find that truly unexplained recoveries from illness of Lourdes visitors, atheists, football fans, communists or any other randomly chosen group occur at exactly the same (very unlikely) rate. Try coming back with some real evidence next time.