I serve an amazing God

[zoogs]

There's also zero evidence to support the claim that God didn't have anything to do with it. See, it works both ways.

I can't believe the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' thing needs to be rehashed again. Any number of claims have zero evidence overturning them (by their nature). That doesn't mean we default to saying "OK, yeah, that's true." Or even "OK, yeah, that's a very serious possibility."

It is totally fine if you are religious and have faith in your beliefs. But it is not wrong to say that you don't have real evidence to support it. If you did, then every rational human being would have to acknowledge the same beliefs.

 

[bhamHusker]

Do you have any examples of evidence I accept that you consider BS? Or are you just trolling? Remember, just because you may disagree doesn't make it BS unless you can show exactly what the BS is. That is unless you happen to be the god of BS. In that case, I may just take your word for it.

Based solely on your posts in this thread so far, I would say instances of alleged faith healing and visions of angels leap to mind. Mind you, I'm not calling you a liar when you say that you believe that you or others have experienced these things. I'm sure that you earnestly believe that these events occurred. However, since there is exactly zero empirical evidence to support these or similar claims, those of us that require actual proof before accepting fantasies as fact will continue to lump them into the "BS" category.

And no, I'm not the god of BS. That would be your Jehovah.

Hey if you're content calling things BS that you have no direct knowledge of, I suppose you can continue to pass off your anti-anecdotal evidence as fact. I thought maybe you had something of substance in mind that you could offer. Like I believe in creation and everyone knows evolution caused us to be here. You know, something that you stand half a chance at being able to defend. I guess I was wrong, but I apparently not everyone has to have a valid reason to attack someone elses beliefs.

I don't recall seeing it before, but if you indeed believe that the biblical account of creation is true, then yes, please add that to the BS category.

 

[jsneb83]

There's also zero evidence to support the claim that God didn't have anything to do with it. See, it works both ways.

I can't believe the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' thing needs to be rehashed again. Any number of claims have zero evidence overturning them (by their nature). That doesn't mean we default to saying "OK, yeah, that's true." Or even "OK, yeah, that's a very serious possibility."

It is totally fine if you are religious and have faith in your beliefs. But it is not wrong to say that you don't have real evidence to support it. If you did, then every rational human being would have to acknowledge the same beliefs.

I agree, I was just rehashing that there is no evidence to prove whether God exists or he doesn't. So saying that there is no evidence supporting the God exists is pointless because the same thing could be said for the opposite.

 

[bhamHusker]

I agree, I was just rehashing that there is no evidence to prove whether God exists or he doesn't. So saying that there is no evidence supporting the God exists is pointless because the same thing could be said for the opposite.

No. They are not even close to being equivalent. Asserting something without proof is not at all the same as rejecting a claim because it has no evidence to support it. If I claim that, for its own amusement, a giant, nameless space slug shat out the universe last week, populated it with life forms of various intelligence that it created from nothing and implanted all sorts of false evidence and memories to make the universe appear to be billions of years old, such claims can reasonably be dismissed as fantasy. The fact that you cannot disprove my claim doesn't put us on equal footing.

 

[bhamHusker]

Hey if you're content calling things BS that you have no direct knowledge of, I suppose you can continue to pass off your anti-anecdotal evidence as fact. I thought maybe you had something of substance in mind that you could offer. Like I believe in creation and everyone knows evolution caused us to be here. You know, something that you stand half a chance at being able to defend. I guess I was wrong, but I apparently not everyone has to have a valid reason to attack someone elses beliefs.

I had to cut short my previous reply to get my daughter back to bed. The fact is that the things you accept as evidence are simply not evidence. They're great stories, but they're just that. There's nothing to back them up other than "because I (or someone else) said so." You have very different, and significantly lower, standards for evidence than most people who don't believe in the supernatural. That's fine. You're free to believe what you want, but don't sit here and claim that your beliefs are evidence based because they're just not. It's blind faith and nothing more. Calling faith healing, angelic visions, divine revelations (or séances, card reading, big foot sightings, ghost stories, ancient aliens, astrology or ouija board "experiences", etc.) proof demeans the entire concept of evidence.

 

[jsneb83]

I agree, I was just rehashing that there is no evidence to prove whether God exists or he doesn't. So saying that there is no evidence supporting the God exists is pointless because the same thing could be said for the opposite.

No. They are not even close to being equivalent. Asserting something without proof is not at all the same as rejecting a claim because it has no evidence to support it. If I claim that, for its own amusement, a giant, nameless space slug shat out the universe last week, populated it with life forms of various intelligence that it created from nothing and implanted all sorts of false evidence and memories to make the universe appear to be billions of years old, such claims can reasonably be dismissed as fantasy. The fact that you cannot disprove my claim doesn't put us on equal footing.

Yes it does. That fact is neither of us can fully support what we believe as true. Unless you think people who believe in "fantasy" are less of a person, so we were on unequal footing to begin with.

 

[zoogs]

They are not even close to being equivalent, and this is the entire crux of the 'burden of proof' concept. One of the two is an extraordinary claim.

 

[tschu]

Serious lol @ claiming that saying God doesn't exist is on the same level of fantasy as saying that he does exist. Again, I'm a Christian dude, but lets be for real here

(someone kill me now)

 

[jsneb83]

Serious lol @ claiming that saying God doesn't exist is on the same level of fantasy as saying that he does exist. Again, I'm a Christian dude, but lets be for real here

(someone kill me now)

It's been a rough day and am a little drunk right now. Not thinking too clearly.

 

[Enhance]

This is all good and all, but it's the same circle of BS that goes on in the other religious forums. Whenever you assert a claim, it is your responsibility to prove that claim, not the responsibility of others to disprove it. You don't see people coming up with hypotheses using the scientific method and then telling someone else on the other side of the fence to prove it wrong. That's not how it works.

Of course, it's the religious person's response to say I can't prove it, it's just a belief/faith, and that's all there is to it. Fine and dandy by my standards, even though I disagree with it.

The real crux of this thread is supposed to be whether or not OP was healed by God.

 

[tschu]

This is all good and all, but it's the same circle of BS that goes on in the other religious forums. Whenever you assert a claim, it is your responsibility to prove that claim, not the responsibility of others to disprove it. You don't see people coming up with hypotheses using the scientific method and then telling someone else on the other side of the fence to prove it wrong. That's not how it works.

Of course, it's the religious person's response to say I can't prove it, it's just a belief/faith, and that's all there is to it. Fine and dandy by my standards, even though I disagree with it.

Haha I agree with what you're saying.

So often it gets turned into "Prove God exists" vs. "Prove God doesn't exist" when that isn't the case at all. It is really "God exists" vs. "There's no evidence that God exists" ...which is a much more rational argument I guess. Why am I still posting here? I must really like you guys because there is almost nothing I hate more than a religious argument

 

[HuskerShark]

This is all good and all, but it's the same circle of BS that goes on in the other religious forums. Whenever you assert a claim, it is your responsibility to prove that claim, not the responsibility of others to disprove it. You don't see people coming up with hypotheses using the scientific method and then telling someone else on the other side of the fence to prove it wrong. That's not how it works.

Of course, it's the religious person's response to say I can't prove it, it's just a belief/faith, and that's all there is to it. Fine and dandy by my standards, even though I disagree with it.

The real crux of this thread is supposed to be whether or not OP was healed by God.

The answer is simple..... Aliens.

 

[tschu]

 

[JJ Husker]

This is all good and all, but it's the same circle of BS that goes on in the other religious forums. Whenever you assert a claim, it is your responsibility to prove that claim, not the responsibility of others to disprove it. You don't see people coming up with hypotheses using the scientific method and then telling someone else on the other side of the fence to prove it wrong. That's not how it works.

Of course, it's the religious person's response to say I can't prove it, it's just a belief/faith, and that's all there is to it. Fine and dandy by my standards, even though I disagree with it.

The real crux of this thread is supposed to be whether or not OP was healed by God.

I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent however, there are a few minor problems. I have asserted some claims that are impossible to prove. That doesn't automatically make them false. I also realize people do not have to accept my claims. They simply are what they are. It has not been my intention at all to claim that others need to accept them as being true. I would hope some people might believe that I am not making up stories but I fully understand being skeptical. Like I said earlier, I too am skeptical when people make claims like this and I do not accept them as absolute truth unless they can be proven. And actually I think in the scientific world you do see people making claims and people on the other side of the fence attempting to disprove them. In fact I think that happens a lot. You are correct about the crux of this thread but I'm pretty sure there is not a single person (except possibly the OP) involved in this discussion that can get to the bottom of whether or not he was actually healed by God. So that is why the discussion has turned to ancillary issues. My only position on the OP's claim is that I do believe it is possible. Anyone who makes a claim stronger than thinking it is possible or that it is highly unlikely is just blowing smoke because they can't prove squat.

 

[JJ Husker]

Hey if you're content calling things BS that you have no direct knowledge of, I suppose you can continue to pass off your anti-anecdotal evidence as fact. I thought maybe you had something of substance in mind that you could offer. Like I believe in creation and everyone knows evolution caused us to be here. You know, something that you stand half a chance at being able to defend. I guess I was wrong, but I apparently not everyone has to have a valid reason to attack someone elses beliefs.

I had to cut short my previous reply to get my daughter back to bed. The fact is that the things you accept as evidence are simply not evidence. They're great stories, but they're just that. There's nothing to back them up other than "because I (or someone else) said so." You have very different, and significantly lower, standards for evidence than most people who don't believe in the supernatural. That's fine. You're free to believe what you want, but don't sit here and claim that your beliefs are evidence based because they're just not. It's blind faith and nothing more. Calling faith healing, angelic visions, divine revelations (or séances, card reading, big foot sightings, ghost stories, ancient aliens, astrology or ouija board "experiences", etc.) proof demeans the entire concept of evidence.

Sorry if you thought I was presenting my anecdotes as evidence as to why you should agree with or believe me. I was simply explaining why I believe. Those are 2 different things. Everyone has to make up their own mind on this issue. I would never expect someone else to accept it based on my story alone or even hundreds of stories. However, for me, it is quite a lot more than just blind faith.

Anyway what got me started on this particular reply was your mention of seances. Beware another unprovable story coming....About 38 years ago when I was around 4th or 5th grade age, we thoght it would be fun to have a seance in a friends basement. One of the boys had recently lost a grandfather so we tried "contacting" him. Long story short- a baseball got thrown into the middle of the table we were sitting at and we could not come up with any logical explanation from whence it came. We searched the basement and found no one there. The boy said his father was a huge baseball fan. It was extremely weird and creepy. I have never decided what I think even really happened. And no I can't prove it, and no I don't expect anyone to accept that anything supernatural happened. Just a fun story I haven't thought about for a long time.