Author Topic: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us  (Read 8346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« on: July 10, 2012, 01:25:52 PM »
But not here, where the strawman, appeals to ignorance, and circular reasoning will be, you know, NOTICED

http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/why-wont-god-heal-amputees


Why won’t God heal amputees?”  The question caught me by surprise.
I had just finished my “Why I Am a Christian” talk at Calvary Chapel Chino Valley’s youth conference in April.  After talking with a few students and leaders, a young man approached.  He challenged me with this question, explaining his atheist friend had asked it earlier in the week. And he had no answer for his friend.

Apparently, it’s a question atheists make a big deal about. There is even an entire website dedicated to it (www.whywontgodhealamputees.com).  The website claims “this is one of the most important questions we can ask about God.”  Sometime, somewhere I had heard the objection but had never given it much attention.  Now it was staring me right in the face.  Immediate attention was required.

I proceeded in usual fashion—by asking clarifying questions.  “What conclusion does your atheist friend draw from this question?” I inquired.  He responded, “Well, if God doesn’t heal amputees when we pray for them, then He doesn’t exist.”  I followed with a few more questions, gathering the gist of the atheist’s argument.

The atheist claims that alleged healings, like the disappearance of a cancerous tumor or diagnosed disease, seem to be ambiguous.  Did God supernaturally heal the person or is modern medicine responsible?  Both causes could be offered and both could be disputed.  But according to the atheist, if an amputee grew back a missing limb after intercessory prayer was offered on his behalf, this would be a clear case of the miraculous and thus proof for God’s existence.  On the other hand, no new limb means no God.  A fail-proof test, right?  Wrong.

First, I pointed out this atheist’s argument is guilty of a logical fallacy called a non sequitur.  The fallacy is committed when a conclusion or statement does not logically follow from a previous argument or statement.  If amputees do not grow back limbs when we pray for them, does it follow God does not exist?  Of course not.  His existence is independent of what actions He would or would not take.

But why limit myself to amputee miracles?  Any miracle will do.  A million dollars in my bank account today.  World peace starting tomorrow.  And if these miracles don’t occur, then God doesn’t exist.  Well, I think you can see the irrationality of such claims.  God’s failure to perform a miracle at my request says nothing about His existence.  In fact, even if we granted the atheist his assumption that amputees are not healed, at the very most we could only conclude God does not heal amputees.  Not a profound conclusion.

Second, I pointed out his atheist friend simply assumed no amputees have been healed.  But just because an atheist says there’s never been an amputee healing in thousands of years of human history doesn’t mean it’s true.  Now, I’ve never researched this question but I wanted this young Christian to catch a healthy bit of skepticism, particularly when it comes to anti-Christian claims.  Research is now in order but my point was you cannot simply assume what needs to be proven. 


But we also have to test the intellectual honesty of the atheist asking this question.  If we can produce a credible report of an amputee’s missing limb being healed and replaced, is the atheist willing to accept that evidence?  There are credible reports of miraculous healings in our own time and in the Bible, but he dismisses these wanting further evidence of a particular kind of miracle.  So is this an honest question or an insincere request for evidence when no evidence will suffice?

Third, even personally witnessing a miracle is no guarantee that someone will believe.  This was the case with the Pharisees of Jesus’ time.  They witnessed His miracles, but their response was to conspire to crucify Him.  Greg Koukl calls this “unbelievable unbelief.”  Jesus told them, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

You see, our essential problem is moral, rebellion against God.  Asking for evidence is legitimate, but evidence doesn’t guarantee belief because sinners don’t want to bend their knee to the Lord.  So the question actually arises from a wrong understanding of the atheist’s fundamental problem.  It’s not lack of evidence, it’s sin and rebellion to the Truth. 

Fourth, I reminded this young Christian that God does not promise He will answer every request with a “yes.”  Many times he says “no” or “later.”  And it could be there are some requests He says “no” to all the time.  Might God have a morally sufficient reason for doing so?  Absolutely, even if He never reveals those reasons to us in this lifetime.  As a dad, there are things I do for the good of my kids—taking them to the doctor for shots, punishing them for wrong behavior, or forcing them to eat their vegetables—which they don’t understand right now.  The same is true between God and us.

And this last response requires a bit of maturity to understand.  Frankly, many atheistic arguments are childish.  “If God doesn’t do what I ask right now, I don’t have to believe in him.”  Well, I don’t think God is really interested in becoming a magic genie.  He’s interested in something much deeper and more profound.  He’s interested in the kind of human being you become.  Indeed, Jesus suggests voluntary “amputeeism” for the sake of character development:  “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5:30).  Better to lose a hand than have your moral choices drag you away from God, forever.  Indeed, someone like Nick Vujicic understands God's perspective.


After our conversation, the young man thanked me and walked away with a look of relief.  An atheist’s challenge was turned into a teachable moment.  And a teachable moment strengthened this student’s trust in God’s existence and character.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
For Bonus stupidity we have respones like:
Quote
What a question! That's like asking why didn't God make a lion able to fly? Would you think asking God to make that Lion fly is crazy? Basically who could give a good answer, it all rhetorical?
Being born as an AK and BK I never questioned the fact of why I could never "magically" grow limbs or if God even wanted me to, it's just a fact of life. What concerns me about all this stuff is why don't people help other amputees or anyone in need?
God could heal amputees, just like he healed the blind, the lame, ect. I’m not saying I don’t get bitter sometime and maybe just plain sick of the whining of perfectly capable people that could make a difference in this world and help others, but most had rather debate an unwinnable subject like this. If we would work at helping everyone who needs help whether it’s a handicap, mental disablities, or from job lose, ect. YOU WOULD FIGURE OUT WHY GOD DOESN”T HEAL AMPUTEES. . Handicap people were put here to glorify God, make you think? Get the picture? He doesn’t because he wants us to help each other and by helping others we become better people and in the end see that all God wants us to do, praise his and love other as you would love yourself. I don’t pretend that sometime I don’t get really pissed at God, buy who I to question his judgment! I’m an amputee, to make people appreciate what they have, and if it gives God the glory then let it be.

So asking for a person to be whole = lions flying. You've never asked yourself a question like this one that might lead you to using your brain? Oh why am I not surprised? So people, flawed selfish people who are sometimes overwhelmed by their day to day lives, who if they gave every moment and every dime to solving the amputee problem...and it still wouldn't happen...bear the responsibility but an entity that could do it with less relative effort than you making one keystroke of that message you wrote, doesn't? That's amazingly inane and moroninc! And furthermore you thing the fucked up people are fucked up for YOUR BENEFIT?????????????????? You disgust me!



« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 02:30:09 PM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline boobatuba

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2012, 01:34:11 PM »
After our conversation, the young man thanked me and walked away with a look of relief.  An atheist’s challenge was turned into a teachable moment.  And a teachable moment strengthened this student’s trust in God’s existence and character.

This is amusing. "Thank you, pastor, for arming me with more circular logic and arguments that don't address the question."

My personal favorite is the old chestnut..."Maybe god HAS healed amputees before and we just don't know about it!" Yeah, right.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2012, 01:40:45 PM »
I wonder if they're aware that they're saying that god does nothing that can be detected.  Or for that matter, that god's actions are indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2012, 01:46:19 PM »
I wonder if they're aware that they're saying that god does nothing that can be detected.  Or for that matter, that god's actions are indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

This is why all apologia must be long winded, they need to hide that summary.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2012, 02:24:39 PM »
your link takes me to an article about making detroit into a zombie theme park.  I like it, but I think you wanted to link something else.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2012, 02:30:25 PM »
your link takes me to an article about making detroit into a zombie theme park.  I like it, but I think you wanted to link something else.

corrected
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3045
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2012, 02:52:49 PM »
Quote
Handicap people were put here to glorify God...

Wow.   Just... wow.  So these people worship a god that needs to deliberately mutilate its own creation in order to make itself more glorious?

That kind of thinking is so perversely bat-shit insane and inhuman that the word "wrong" can't do it justice.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline blueangel

  • Novice
  • Posts: 1
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2012, 08:18:13 PM »
mutilate his own creation?  Ha ha.  What a perverse thought.

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7291
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2012, 09:10:47 PM »
mutilate his own creation?  Ha ha.  What a perverse thought.

Indeed, and coming from the benevolent and loving God of the Bible, even more perverse.  And telling.

Quote from: Genesis
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2012, 09:25:39 PM »
mutilate his own creation?  Ha ha.  What a perverse thought.





greetings blueangel

....so is that your natural colour, or just your camouflage from my blue heaven? ;)
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Samuelke

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Darwins +9/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2012, 02:27:56 AM »
Alright so first off if you were to start with the problem of evil, which is basically the backbone of the amputee argument, at least it seems. To say that you believe in evil, you are assuming a moral law to know what is good or evil, and to have a moral law means that there must be a moral law giver. Protest to this is welcome.
Science itself has been since its origin been used to prove and disprove God. But the true undeniable fact is that only the bible out of all religious text states things which have been proven correct by modern science. Such as in Job where it states that our earth hangs on nothing referring to gravity no visible by the eye. The bible tought you were to circumcise a boy on the 8th day they were living. And now modern science tells us that on this day only in life the chemical in the body which clots blood is at an all time high for all of their life. For many years humans did not have any conception of the amount of stars in the universe and not untill only modern science  have we learned that it is or almost is infinite this number. Yet thousands of years ago so
How the bible stated the number of stars is like the number of particles of sand on earth.  I can keep going if anyone would like but the evidence for not only God but the bible extends from science to historical, archeological, mathmatical, and more.
God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.

Offline oogabooga

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • I doubt, therefore I might be.
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2012, 05:54:55 AM »
Alright so first off if you were to start with the problem of evil, which is basically the backbone of the amputee argument, at least it seems. To say that you believe in evil, you are assuming a moral law to know what is good or evil, and to have a moral law means that there must be a moral law giver. Protest to this is welcome.
OK, I protest then. The concepts of good and evil have changed dramatically over the ages. Today we consider it evil if a parent kills a child for disobedience, while the Bible not only condones it, but demands it. Today we think genocide is appalling and we punish those responsible for it, while it was not just something quite common in the Bible, but a direct order and compulsory - if they're different from us, they must be killed or enslaved. And while slavery is frowned upon today, it was something god seemed to have no qualms about. Today we believe that a victim of rape is not responsible for it and we do all we can to keep them as far away from their assailants as possible, while in the Bible it's demanded they should either be killed or married to their assailants. We are also not very fond of animal sacrifice nowadays while only a few thousand years ago it was demanded of the chosen people.

Of course we have certain moral standards and we base our laws on them - but the key word here is 'we'. As we change, and with us our perception of the world, we change those laws and standards. We are the law givers. Are we therefore god?


Quote
Science itself has been since its origin been used to prove and disprove God.
Wrong. Science has always been a series of attempts of understanding the world around us and explaining its inner workings. It has absolutely nothing to do with proving or disproving god. It has become its side-effect, I'll give you that, but it's not its purpose, not even remotely.

Quote
But the true undeniable fact is that only the bible out of all religious text states things which have been proven correct by modern science. Such as in Job where it states that our earth hangs on nothing referring to gravity no visible by the eye.
Wrong. The Earth doesn't 'hang'. Gravity doesn't serve as a string, never has, never will. The Bible also says that the universe is water.

Quote
The bible tought you were to circumcise a boy on the 8th day they were living. And now modern science tells us that on this day only in life the chemical in the body which clots blood is at an all time high for all of their life.
Wrong. Circumcisions can be performed at any time in life without much fuss. The general recommendation is that it should be performed at least 8 days after birth (not on the eighth day, because that's the average time needed for the body to start forming Vitamin K. After that time (I repeat, not on that exact day) blood just clots better. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that after a week or so after birth male babies don't bleed as much when you chop off a part of their penis.

Quote
For many years humans did not have any conception of the amount of stars in the universe and not untill only modern science  have we learned that it is or almost is infinite this number. Yet thousands of years ago so
How the bible stated the number of stars is like the number of particles of sand on earth. 
There's a lot of stars. There's a lot of grains of sand. We use simile for all sorts of things. We say that people who have lots of kids breed like rabbits. Yet they don't have up to 12 kids at a time more than once a year, do they?

Quote
I can keep going if anyone would like but the evidence for not only God but the bible extends from science to historical, archeological, mathmatical, and more.
Oh, please, do keep going. While you're at it, explain how dragons exist, how people can survive inside whales and how those same whales are fish, how rabbits chew cud, how Pi is 3 and how you can cure leprosy with pigeon blood.

I would love to debate those other biblical stories that are scientifically accurate.

Quote
God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.
He suffered the most in the few hours he was hung on a piece of wood? I find that statement arrogant, to be honest. There are people (whose existence is extremely well documented and proven, unlike god's) who have suffered for years on end, there are even stories of Christian saints who actually suffered far, far more than Jesus. Not to mention those who suffered far more and far longer at the hands of Christians. There is extensive documentation on people who were crucified by the Romans well before and after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. How did Jesus suffer the most when he was just one of so many? There were two named in the Bible alone. They were nailed to their own crosses and died there - and weren't given the satisfaction of being taken off early, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, there are (insane) people who have themselves crucified today. Even more than once in their lifetime. Did Jesus suffer more than them? How?

If we're evil, we were created evil by that same creator you seem to worship so much. He supposedly made us. He made us flawed. Now he blames us for his crappy workmanship. I've used this comparison once before, but what the hell - would you consider it loving if a drug addict blamed her child, deformed by her drug use, for its deformity? 

Anyway, we were made in his image as well, at least that's what's claimed by Christians, isn't it? So god must be as prone to evil as we are.
Excreta Occurs

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7291
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2012, 06:34:50 AM »
Welcome Samuelke.  I hope you can stick around to discuss your post, as it contains some amazingly inaccurate and baseless claims!  It seems that you are taking the approach of "the Bible say's it, science confirms it, so God is real".  If so, I would ask you to refute the Koran and it's scientific accuracies, so we can eliminate that book from the discussion, you know, before we give ALL of the credit to ancient middle eastern goat herders who had no idea they were standing on a planet, in a galaxy, in a universe - that is now billions of years old.

Good luck!

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2012, 07:24:53 AM »
Alright so first off if you were to start with the problem of evil, which is basically the backbone of the amputee argument, at least it seems. To say that you believe in evil, you are assuming a moral law to know what is good or evil, and to have a moral law means that there must be a moral law giver. Protest to this is welcome.


If there was a moral law giver, there would be one morality. The morality of the ancient Jews, the Aztecs, Japan in 1938, and the Vikings were all quite different. We only have to look at the morality of Italy in 1935 versus the Morality of France in 1935...both Catholic countries, on the same contininent, during the same year to see that morality is not objective.




Science itself has been since its origin been used to prove and disprove God.



That statement is uttterly fictional. People have used scientific language to do so, but not a single thing in the scientific method does anything of the sort.  The side affect of scientific metod however has been used to disprove claims about God or gods. When scientific jargon is used to "prove God," it always boils down to an appeal to ignorance.





 But the true undeniable fact is that only the bible out of all religious text states things which have been proven correct by modern science.



Illiad and the Trojan war(proven)

Load of websites for the Koran;
http://pintails7886.hubpages.com/hub/Science-and-Islam






 Such as in Job where it states that our earth hangs on nothing referring to gravity no visible by the eye.


First of all, quite a stretch of the language; second, so what? Throw enough phrases in poetic language around and you might get something that sticks; look at Nostradamus.



 The bible tought you were to circumcise a boy on the 8th day they were living. And now modern science tells us that on this day only in life the chemical in the body which clots blood is at an all time high for all of their life.


Yup and the ancient druids gave willow bark tea as a meditive for pain.  Concentrated this is what we now call asprin.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 07:47:11 AM by Hatter23 »
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2012, 07:37:06 AM »
Hi, Samuel, welcome to WWGHA.

Alright so first off if you were to start with the problem of evil, which is basically the backbone of the amputee argument, at least it seems.

Not the main one, no, but I guess you could say it serves as a sideline.  The main reason is that Jesus explicitly said that all of his followers would be able to work any miracle they saw fit -- indeed, he said that his followers would do even greater miracles than he did.  Yet no amputee has ever gotten his leg back.

Quote
To say that you believe in evil, you are assuming a moral law to know what is good or evil, and to have a moral law means that there must be a moral law giver. Protest to this is welcome.

The degree of attraction between any two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  This is also a law.  Does it require a lawgiver?

Quote
Science itself has been since its origin been used to prove and disprove God.

When?  Where?  Where did Kepler, for example, ever say, "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci... therefore, God exists"?

Quote
But the true undeniable fact is that only the bible out of all religious text states things which have been proven correct by modern science.

Muslims say the same thing about the Koran.  They're just as wrong as you are.

Quote
Such as in Job where it states that our earth hangs on nothing referring to gravity no visible by the eye.

Scripture also says that the earth is flat, that the moon is a lightsource, that insects have four legs, that rabbits chew the cud, that day and night have nothing to do with the existence of the sun, that you can determine an animal's coat by breeding it in front of certain kinds of sticks, and that snakes and donkeys can talk.  And unlike your example with "the earth hanging on nothing being a reference to gravity", we don't need to run any of those scriptures thru a magic decoder ring to know what they actually say.

Quote
The bible tought you were to circumcise a boy on the 8th day they were living. And now modern science tells us that on this day only in life the chemical in the body which clots blood is at an all time high for all of their life.

This is just flat out wrong.  It's a myth that has been long discarded.

Quote
For many years humans did not have any conception of the amount of stars in the universe and not untill only modern science  have we learned that it is or almost is infinite this number.

No, it is not infinite.  We actually have a pretty good idea of that number.  The number of subatomic particles in the visible universe, for example, is estimated at about 10^80.  The number of stars in the universe, therefore, is significantly less than that, which is not infinite.

Quote
Yet thousands of years ago so How the bible stated the number of stars is like the number of particles of sand on earth.

Unlike the Job scripture you reference above, this is a case where scripture actually is using a simile.  Scripture also says that there are some men whose "emissions" (i.e., joy juice eruptions) are like that of horses.  Horses, on average, put out 70 milliliters of jizz with each ejaculation, and volumes as high as 250 milliliters are not terribly uncommon.  Do you think that actually means that these guys averaged 70 to 250 milliliters of spunk every time they frosted the pastry?[1]  Or could it just be a figure of speech?

Quote
I can keep going if anyone would like but the evidence for not only God but the bible extends from science to historical, archeological, mathmatical, and more.

We've heard it all before, or at least, so it always seems whenever we get a new visitor like you.  If you think you have something new, by all means, let's hear it... but don't be surprised if we tell you we've heard it before and have an answer for it, just as we have for these matters you've brought up here.

Quote
God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven

I didn't ask him to, and if I had been asked, I would have said no.

Quote
because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.

If he created us, and we're evil, doesn't that mean he created us evil, in which case being evil isn't even our own fault?  So how can we blamed or need to be forgiven for it?
 1. hint: the average volume with humans is perhaps ten to fifteen milliliters.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2012, 07:42:42 AM »
The number of subatomic particles in the visible universe, for example, is estimated at about 10^80.

That seems low. Where did you hear that?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2012, 07:47:18 AM »
Alright so first off if you were to start with the problem of evil, which is basically the backbone of the amputee argument,

It's not. You have misunderstood the question.  Don't feel bad, though.  Lots of people misunderstand.  So many people get it wrong that I have a stock response:

There is a certian type of xian who attempts to justify his or her god beliefs by claiming that people are miraculously healed of various afflictions by divine intervention.  The afflictions may include cancer, diabetes, coma, heart conditions, tooth decay, halitosis, spastic colon, etc.  We frequently hear anecdotes about how some church group prayed for some guy and the next day he was completely healed. 

But there are several problems with this kind of reasoning.  First, data shows many of these types of afflictions sometimes "clear up" without any kind of prayers.  It seems to be a natural response or a misdiagnosis. 

Second, people of all religions make the same claims.  And last, there is a whole class of ailments that are never, ever cured by prayer or naturally.  People never regrow lost limbs.  Lost eyes never regrow in the empty sockets.  Retarded people never gain normal mental capacity. Alzheimers and Dementia sufferers never recover.  Old people never rejuvenate. 

This has clear implications about a god that supposedly heals people.  It leaves you only a few conclusions about such a god.

 
To say that you believe in evil,

I don't.  Most people here don't.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You should ask questions before making assumptions.

 
But the true undeniable fact is that only the bible out of all religious text states things which have been proven correct by modern science.

That's not what the muslims say.  Or the hindus. 

Such as in Job where it states that our earth hangs on nothing referring to gravity no visible by the eye.

That's silly.

For many years humans did not have any conception of the amount of stars in the universe and not untill only modern science  have we learned that it is or almost is infinite this number

You are uninformed.

God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.

That is wishful thinking at best.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2012, 07:52:56 AM »
The number of subatomic particles in the visible universe, for example, is estimated at about 10^80.

That seems low. Where did you hear that?

I don't remember the specific source, but it was in one of my textbooks in college.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5082
  • Darwins +586/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2012, 09:29:54 AM »
I think what the writer of that article didn't get is that it's about providing testable empirical evidence.  Anyone can make a claim about something, but only by testing it can we determine how valid that claim is.  I'm sure the apologist argument makes Christians feel really good about their beliefs, but it isn't very useful for anything but sustaining those beliefs, because it can't be tested.

If an apologist could point to an example of an amputee being healed only by the intercession of prayer, in a way that could be empirically tested and scientifically validated, then it would be a different story.  But for some reason, they never seem to be interested in doing that.

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2012, 09:30:46 AM »
I... am not sure I can agree with this one either.

You're talking about the Eddington Number, right?  That's 1.57x10^79 - or the observable number of protons in the universe.  The actual number of subatomic particles would be much, much higher - this is just one.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 09:33:07 AM by Grimm »
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2012, 09:37:22 AM »
He suffered the most in the few hours he was hung on a piece of wood? I find that statement arrogant, to be honest. There are people (whose existence is extremely well documented and proven, unlike god's) who have suffered for years on end, there are even stories of Christian saints who actually suffered far, far more than Jesus. Not to mention those who suffered far more and far longer at the hands of Christians.

My thoughts exactly. I've never understood why xtians say Jesus suffered for all of mankinds sins (so we don't have to) when the suffering he endured, while terrible, wasn't at all the amount one would think would be required to atone for all mankind. Every person tortured into confession and subsequently burned at the stake for witchcraft surely suffered more.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2012, 09:45:10 AM »
I... am not sure I can agree with this one either.

You're talking about the Eddington Number, right?  That's 1.57x10^79 - or the observable number of protons in the universe.  The actual number of subatomic particles would be much, much higher - this is just one.

Well, when you consider that the universe is, what, 98 percent hydrogen?  What you would do, then, is take your number and double it (hydrogen = one proton and one electron) and you'd have just about all the subatomic particles in existence.  You'd still be missing some, but that's still in the general range of the number I gave, which is a factor of ten higher than yours.

In any event, that number is an estimate; obviously there's a lot of "wiggle room" here.  Regardless, though, the highest number I've ever heard for this estimate is 10^82, or a thousand times larger than the number you gave.

If we want to pursue this further, we should probably start a thread in the Science section, though.  We're wandering off-topic here.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2012, 09:47:10 AM »
On newborn coagulation/eighth day nonsense:

http://tinyurl.com/7v2haq4

Allow me to quote from William Oliver's paper:

"The newborn coagulation system matures to adult concentrations and function over 6 months, even if premature birth temporarily depresses system capabilities.  Maturation does not ensure normal concentrations of all clotting factors.  Infant prothrombin levels lag behind adult concentrations by 20% into childhood, even though thrombin formation is the center of clotting...  Term and preterm infants form thrombin poorly.  Overall clotting capacity is below that of adults because of reduced clotting factors and contact proteins.  Ultimately, this impacts anticoagulation during CPB and hermostasis postoperatively."


TL;DR?  Infants have less coagulation capability than adults, with the system improving into childhood.
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11139
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2012, 09:47:26 AM »
<snip>

Protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks each. You also have gluons, muons, neutrinos, and a bunch of other subatomic particles. Just saying.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2012, 09:51:28 AM »
I... am not sure I can agree with this one either.

You're talking about the Eddington Number, right?  That's 1.57x10^79 - or the observable number of protons in the universe.  The actual number of subatomic particles would be much, much higher - this is just one.

Well, when you consider that the universe is, what, 98 percent hydrogen?  What you would do, then, is take your number and double it (hydrogen = one proton and one electron) and you'd have just about all the subatomic particles in existence.  You'd still be missing some, but that's still in the general range of the number I gave, which is a factor of ten higher than yours.

In any event, that number is an estimate; obviously there's a lot of "wiggle room" here.  Regardless, though, the highest number I've ever heard for this estimate is 10^82, or a thousand times larger than the number you gave.

If we want to pursue this further, we should probably start a thread in the Science section, though.  We're wandering off-topic here.

Agreed, and we should - but as a final thought:  Photons, Mesons, neutrinos?  Just photons alone are almost uncountable, due to their nature.  10^80 may represent baryonic matter, but it's far from /everything/. 

To the science section!
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2012, 09:59:43 AM »
Unfortunately for the pastor, had he seen the whole video instead of simply responding to the WWGHA question he would have seen that his objections on the grounds of logical fallacy are dealt with.

Furthermore, a god of whatever flavour, NEVER performs a miraculous restoration of a missing body part. Which leaves us with the options of a god that exists but doesn't care or a god that exists but is bound by the limits proposed by Epicurus so why worship it or call it god? Or, no gods exist.

Hopefully the young man will present his pastor's arguments to his atheist friend and have them refuted.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2012, 10:08:14 AM »
The bible tought you were to circumcise a boy on the 8th day they were living. And now modern science tells us that on this day only in life the chemical in the body which clots blood is at an all time high for all of their life.

I asked my wife about this. She's a Senior BMS specialising in Haemostasis (i.e. blood clotting) in a major teaching hospital which includes the largest maternity unit in the country. She holds an MSc in her field and she's also contributed to several published scientific papers on the topic including WHO standards.

Her considered response to this allegation was, "bollocks".
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3045
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2012, 10:21:25 AM »
To say that you believe in evil, you are assuming a moral law to know what is good or evil, and to have a moral law means that there must be a moral law giver.

It appears that the "moral law giver" is community consensus, not gods.

Quote
But the true undeniable fact is that only the bible out of all religious text states things which have been proven correct by modern science.

Unless you can demonstrate that pi=3.0, and Fed-Ex a Talking Snake™ to My house, you're dreadfully wrong about the scientific truthiness in the Bible.  It's full of nonsense, and I suspect that anything they *did* get right was plagiarized from real scientists in neighbouring cultures.

Quote
God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.

That's a ridiculous proposition.  Why would a god have to sacrifice itself to itself to forgive?  At least when Oðinn hung on Yggdrasil for 9 days and nights He came out of it with some useful information rather than a guilt trip to lay upon the hapless mortals in Midgard.  Not impressed by your dead-guy-on-a-stick theology.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Hold the phone; another theist weighs in on refuting us
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2012, 02:28:24 PM »

God loves us so that he suffered the greatest on the cross so we can be forgiven because as the creator of us he knows us, and he knows our human nature is evil.

Christ, assuming he existed at all, was neither the first nor the last person to be cruxified. I doubt his suffering was any greater than anyone else's who received the same punishment. Are you against capital punishment or just capital punishment that hurts?
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".