Religion Debates and Discussions

That's true, according to that definition animals would have souls. Thanks for posting @yourenotsorry

 

Not going to argue with you as you had to ask for my point from that short of a post.

 

I know what a soul is, I'm saying they don't exist lmao. Why is that hard for you to understand?

Are you suggesting that souls are real because there's a definition for it?

 

You have that right it has been a challenge XD

I am not going to directly answer this because I believe these will be points that we will always be disagreeing on, so, for now, I will let it slide so we can talk about points that we can have a discussion on.

I agree! Visual proof is essential when trying to help an Athiest understand where we come from. However, there have been hundreds upon thousands of accounts where inexplicable things have happened, more commonly called miracles. Now, I understand your initial skepticism (forgive my assuming), but miracles are only classified as miracles when they are something further from out of the ordinary. The Catholic Church has approximately 10,000 saints. Now to becoming a saint is more than just doing good in your life and dying. No, no, no, to be fully classified as a saint in the Catholic Church a person must perform 2 miracles after their death. And don't think that the Church will just say, "Oh we can't explain this so.... Miracle!" I won't describe it here right now (Google is always there), but a full-on investigation is launched. It is extremely intensive and the officials who orchestrate it must meet each possible miracle with skepticism and must assume that it is fake. Also, don't think that these miracles happened many centuries ago. In fact, Saint Mother Teresa was canonized very very recently (Just last year)! I will link an article that is very easy to understand. Here it is. It explains a lot and might help answer some concerns of yours. What's even better is so many of these miracles have been reported by Atheistic doctors, which helps provide credibility. There are so many more instances, many of which have been witnessed by many people (many of whom were Atheists)!

I'm not sure what I can say to this since I am not a scientist. However, my Chemistry teacher is a Christian and says that by being a scientist she believes even more deeply that there is a God. Of course that is her testimony, but she is an instance where she does put her religion aside to learn and teach but comes to the conclusion that God is real. I am sure there are many more scientists like her.

 

That is different than having faith in God as there is nothing to disprove the existence of God. Sure you can say a ball, when thrown into the air, will hit the ground (at some point) because that's how gravity works but you can't point to a thing and say "God didn't make that" (or make the compounds that make up something man made - like plastic).

There are numerous accounts of Jesus' miracles in the Bible, to which a significant number of people (sometimes thousands) were witness. Unfortunately we don't have a video but it's difficult to believe that everyone who did see Jesus walk on water, heal the sick, revive the dead, or feed the five thousand (twice) was on drugs or something.

Jesus was the son of God. Who else could have done the things he did, of which there is a record, without such a position?

We are talking about the same thing in different terms. Yes, you can prove something like the orientation of the planets to be true based on pictures from space and the like, but those are things that are of this world. God is of a world outside what we can see, feel, taste, or touch. I am not saying God is imaginary, only that it is unreasonable to suggest that God's "burden of proof" is equivalent to that we use to determine if the Earth is round or if reflected photons to our eyes cause the sea to be blue.

What are you talking about, I collect souls all the time in LoL (thresh main )

 

I also can't disprove that unicorns make the world spin. Truth is, we don't know what the hell is going on.

 

Fair enough.

Oh boy, miracles!

I'm going to completely ignore the fact that 'St.' Mother Theresa was a terrible, horrible human being and point out that until a 'miracle' is repeatable, testable, and observable, it's just an unexplained phenomenon that has just as much credibility being attributed to a nearby goat as it is to God, since miracles are not proof.

Again, visual proof, while important, is not all confirming. All they are are a basis for fact.
Here's a link from the University of Wisconsin explaining, really well, why science generally 'rejects' miracles.
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyNoMiracles.HTM

Also, here's a tip: Catholics confirming Catholic miracles isn't convincing. You go into something expecting to see a miracle, you're likely to see a miracle.
Science can prove facts to people of many religions, and doesn't require belief in it to work. You can believe that vaccines don't work but they will work anyways. Miracles prove (x religion) to members of (x religion).

Yes, there are many scientists who believe in God. Science does not attempt to prove God doesn't exist (can't prove a negative).
The difference is that these people will accept science is correct despite God (and do their science as though God isn't a factor), instead of accepting God despite science.

I was being facetious, but thanks for proving my point.

 

Ah well, the article that you posted does explain about how assuming a miracle right off the bat is illogical, it does not explain how miraculous healing could happen, which was what my article referred to. It generally was pretty interesting to read, however it mistakes a miracle for being a chance of luck.

Now I do have a problem with the article. At the bottom, and I quote, (copy and pasted XD)
"Why Science Can't Accept Miracles (Even If They Happen)"
This just proves the idea that miracles can happen and that (in my opinion) they do happen. Their point is that religious people need to "clean up" their act in order to convince people that it was truly a miracle, however, the Catholic Church has kept their act clean when it comes to miracles attributed to saints, and general miracles by God.

I have to say that I am disappointed in your lack of interest in the investigation process. It is NOT just Catholics who confirm if a miracle is a miracle. They employ Atheists, people of other religions, scientists, etc.. They question the witnesses intensively, and there were scans of the person to provide evidence that the medical ailment was true.


I also thought it was interesting how the article mentions multiple religions, but it does not (I might have missed it!) mention Catholicism, which I believe is well known for its saints and miracles.

 

I'd like to point out that you can make the same argument replacing 'God' or with 'Unicorns', which is why I'm not saying that God didn't make x', and thus not holding a position of faith.
So again, faith alone is not evidence for God's existence. You cannot prove a negative, you must provide proof for a positive.
Essentially, you must say 'god made this and here's proof that it couldn't be anything but God' instead of saying 'god made this and you can't disprove it".

Oh boy, there's witnesses to the miracles of the Bible... in the Bible.

The book has people in it that prove the book is correct.

As an analogy, there's witnesses to the magic in Harry Potter, but that doesn't mean that Harry Potter is real.

Harry Potter was the son of James and Lily Potter. Who else could have done the things he did, of which there is a record, without such a position?

See the issue?
Assuming Jesus's powers were real because the book that assumes his powers were real says they're real is circular reasoning.

OK, but only if you believe in Harry Potter because he exists in a world that is hidden to ours.

It's very convenient to say that God doesn't need to be proven because he's outside of this world. So is Harry Potter.

To be fair my soul does break when I get my ass handed to me in Planetside.

 

• Even if an unquestionably anomalous event occurred, not explainable in terms of any known laws of nature, we cannot rule out the possibility that the event is due to unknown laws of nature. Hume was right; no amount of evidence for a miracle can rule out the possibility of some hidden flaw in the evidence or unknown natural explanation. However, Hume made the unwarranted leap from "miracles can't be proven" to "miracles don't happen."

This is clearly just a scapegoat, so that if they are wrong then they can say that they have always considered it a possibility. I have extreme doubts that science can ever explain this medical miracle, so it will have no choice but to stand by this statement. If they find proof or a flaw in their "natural explanation" then let me know.

Harry Potter was written as fiction, the Bible was written as history. This is very self-evident.

 

(Even if they happen)
See here's the thing. The point of the article is that miracles, if they can be attributed to nature, are. It's the burden of proof: science doesn't accept 'miracles' as 'miracles' wholesale. If there's any proof to their happening (which is generally shaky) then it's looked into and researched as a natural phenomenon.

No but your article was Catholics investigating a Catholic's miracles for the Catholic Church.

As my article states, you're not allowed to claim miracles for yourself.

Did you miss the part where the leap from 'miracles can't be proven ' to 'miracles don't happen' was called unwarrented?

It's not a 'scapegoat' (which is the wrong word), it's an explanation that there may be unknown laws of nature, like there were before we knew how gravity worked, or before we knew germs.

That's not my point; you can't take the word of a book that the events in the book are true because the book says they are.

There is no evidence for Jesus's divinity beyond the Bible itself. Especially since the book was written before modern sciences were known, and it would have been genuinely believed that Jesus could be used as a 'scapegoat' (correct usage of the world) to clear themselves of their diseases and woes.

Which also has no proof of happening beyond the bible.

Have you ever considered that the entirety of the actions of everyone in the Bible take place in a tiny little part of the middle east?
Maybe because the authors, who were human and uneducated, didn't know that anything else existed.

 

You know that when Adam and Eve ate the apple, God referred to them as 'one of us'?

Who was God referring to? It was only him and them at the time, there were no angels or demons in Genesis.

Edit: I'm not saying you're polytheistic, it's just a fun Bible tidbit.

 

If something can be classified as a "natural phenomenon" then the only part you are missing is that God was behind it. You see, people say science can prove anything, and if it can't now then it will in the future. Well, that last part as said before is a scapegoat. And yes it is a scapegoat. While they are not blaming a person for their possible failures, they are blaming their own methods which is just a questionable attitude from the beginning. And once more, when science can explain why the tumor disappeared with no explanation, especially given the fact that doctors had given up on saving her, then I would consider it a false miracle which I still doubt will happen.

While the article was regarding the investigation, they themselves did not perform the investigation... At all. And might I ask who gives the authors of the article the right to state that you are not allowed to claim miracles for yourself? I suppose it would be the authors who gave themselves the authority to say it. It is vague and I honestly think it to be a shallow move on their part. What makes it so? The way it is presented. They make it sound so sure that they don't seem to leave room for argument. I find that to be deceptive by making it sound like they have the right to claim such a thing. Of course, that's my opinion on that part.

If it's not your point then you used the wrong analogy. You mistake the Bible to be a fiction book. If you look at a history book describing... How and who conquered the wilderness of England then I would hope you would look at the information as credible and a fact. The interesting thing about the history book I just described is real and it's called The History of the English Speaking People written by none other than Winston Churchhill. An interesting fact is England was first claimed by the Roman Empire, which was around when Christ was alive. My point is that if you were not present at a particular event, then yeah, you would rely on a book for information.

 

I've got a reply, @enderdragon3615.

It's quite late though so expect it in the morning (if it is going to be your morning, what with time zones.)

 

That's fine! I am going to go to bed soon anyways, so I wouldn't answer till morning anyways

 

It's always represented as an apple, does it not explicitly say what kind of fruit in the bible?