tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116597344759745512..comments2024-03-28T11:25:20.916-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Miracles and Missionaries a redated postVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62793353836580242642015-09-22T20:26:06.131-07:002015-09-22T20:26:06.131-07:00MISSIONARY MIRACLE STORY
"I went on a medica...MISSIONARY MIRACLE STORY<br /><br />"I went on a medical missions trip with my father to Mexico. The goal of our group was to give medical care to the poor people there (for free) and teach them the Gospel (preying on the helpless- I love it!). Well, during my time there, a little girl came to one of our clinics. She had very poor eyesight, perhaps qualifying for legally blind even though she had some sense of vision. Well, a few people in the group, myself included, gathered around and prayed for her and Voila! She was healed! Her eyes cleared up and she could see perfectly!<br /><br />"Haha. That was the version of the story that my father took to the pulpit, along with a few other people who spread the story. Here's what really happened: we prayed for her. Then, the optometrist who was with us did some eye tests on her. He then gave her a pair of eyeglasses that had a really strong focus and, wouldn't you know it, she could see quite a bit better than she could before. This somewhat regular occurrence turned into a big miracle story. My father even wrote an article about it entitled, "Blind Girl Receives Sight". I couldn't believe that my own father would obscure the truth so blatantly and yet so sincerely. I confronted him about it, but he was completely convinced that it was a great miracle. When I realized that this story, which would eventually be widespread among our local Christian community, was so fake, I called into question all miracle stories."<br />http://testimonials.exchristian.net/2009/06/im-missionary-kid-and-atheist.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38790682553835962052015-09-22T20:22:35.825-07:002015-09-22T20:22:35.825-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72717104250764186632013-08-25T07:11:00.852-07:002013-08-25T07:11:00.852-07:00Pardon me for posting on something so old...
Some ...Pardon me for posting on something so old...<br />Some have pointed out that Christians, including missionaries get sick. That should not surprise anyone who has read the New Testiment. The Apostle Paul himself was ill as times: Galatians 4:13-14a, "As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn."<br /><br />And so were some of his companions: Philippians 2:27, "Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow."<br /><br />In my experience with skeptics, they seem to have gross misunderstandings about miracles. I think they've all seen too many "faith healers". Problem is, most of them are phony, and the ones who aren't, usually prefer not to be well known. They focus more on preaching the gospel than on the miracles that happen to follow them.<br /><br />It has been argued that studies have proven that individuals who are prayed for are no more likely to become well. What, do you think the power to heal comes from people praying, or from God? That's like saying we conducted a study to see whether or not so-and-so can jump. They didn't jump, therefore we concluded they can't. When Yeshua Jesus was tempted in the desert, He quoted the Law from the Tenach stating, "Do not put the LORD your God to the test."<br /><br />If you believe you can test whether or not miracles occur, you're probably missing the point of them to start with.<br /><br />Honestly, I used to be a skeptic myself. It took a miracle for me to believe, and it wasn't performed by anyone. I was all alone, and God spoke to me. I suppose it similar to the conversion of the Apostle Paul, because at the time, I was very much against Christianity.<br /><br />Since that time, I've seen coincidents so uncommon, I must attribute them to divine intervention. For example, one night the direction of my life was changed when God spoke to me, and called me to reach out to Jewish people who don't know their Messiah. I was questioning this, but the next morning, my friend shows up at my house uninvited (whom I rarely saw to begin with), provided me a book about how to reach Jewish people (entitled, I Have a Jewish Friend, Do You?), and introduced me to Messianic Judaism for the first time in my life. Coincidence? Well, you could say so. But I find that God ordinarily works in ordinary ways.<br /><br />I never saw the original comment about aliens in Western culture and not others get addressed. It is true enough that these things go reported, and many times may be proven to have a natural explanation. That is not to say that these reports are never based in reality. After all, if the Bible is true, then the supernatural powers who oppose God are capable of producing such experiences, the same way they produce other miracles. Whatever lie is best for the culture...<br /><br />When I was in Trinidad, I spoke to a woman who told me a story about when she was possessed by a demon. Some witch doctor came along and cast out her demon using some salt ritual. At some point in her possession, her memory was blocked out, and she only knows stories of what she's been told. When she came back to her senses, she was in a tree, and the witch doctor was standing in a circle of salt chanting something. The Christian interpretation is, of course, that demons are casting out demons for the sake of establishing the believes of those people so they won't listen to the truth. I struggled with that for awhile, thinking to the accusation against Yeshua Jesus by the pharisees, until I realized the Yeshua Jesus was preaching the same God and adherence to the same laws that the pharisees did. In that case, it wouldn't make sense that if that which the pharisees was teaching is true that the demons would try to convince people of it by expressing this power. In the case of the story I heard, that does not hold.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04900735432973686885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37716929110643626402009-10-26T06:14:31.646-07:002009-10-26T06:14:31.646-07:00In Jesus we find that God Himself endured a horrif...In Jesus we find that God Himself endured a horrific and painful and suffering death.<br /><br />Becoming familiar with, and learning about Luther's Theology of the Cross has really helped me come to a sort of truce with the "Problem of Evil". I'm still learning, but I encourage anyone unfamiliar with it to give it a fair treatment. It could help. To that end, have a read of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.<br /><br />Lastly, for those looking for miracles as evidence of God, I'd humbly suggest that your best bet in finding one may not be by *receiving* one for yourself, but by *giving* one to another in need. You can start by volunteering at your local homeless shelter or food pantry.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51764077726107461732009-10-22T09:47:12.016-07:002009-10-22T09:47:12.016-07:00SE states:
Is every last second of suffering by a ...SE states:<br /><i>Is every last second of suffering by a child dying of cancer necessary? Is there a good reason for it? Remember, we're talking about an omnipotent god to whom nothing is impossible. You are asserting, without argument, that God must allow each instant of suffering and evil for some greater purpose or good and that He must know there is no other way to achieve such good without such suffering because He is omniscient.</i><br /><br />Not every Bible-believing Christian believes that terrible things happen from divine purpose, though, granted, probably most do. I think these "most" accept the translation of Romans 8:28, which states that "God works all things together for good to those who love Him, to those who are called according to His purpose." But as one Christian professor (Tim Geddert) has pointed out, the verse in Greek grammatically allows "God", not "all things," to be the subject. Moreover, he points out that "works together" comes from the Greek word <i>synergei</i>, i.e., "to work together synergistically". And so the verse may be read "God works with us in all things, for good, etc." Probably the idea here is what should be the believer's response in the face of evil, and how God can help him with that. I personally think that taking "God" as the grammatical subject gels together with what Paul says, when he states emphatically to the Corinthians that good and evil, Christ and Belial, etc., have no fellowship whatsoever. So then, if such things have no fellowship, they certainly cannot be said to be working <i>synergistically</i> together. <br /><br />Along these lines, I think the story of Job shows that God never intended Job's suffering. I realize, since this raises the question of why God would allow evil to exist at all, that the discussion here could move toward so-called divine omnipotence, in which God is thought to even have power to dictate human choice and thought. But I personally do not believe that view of God, as the creator of man's thoughts and intents, is biblical.<br /><br />I realize this barely scratches the surface of your objections, but as a matter of historical curiousity, I thought you might want to know why most Christians (IMO) suppose that all evil somehow manages to add up to good for the believer. I think primarily it is because of this one verse in Romans.Daniel Gracelynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66723782236595900202009-10-22T05:53:32.877-07:002009-10-22T05:53:32.877-07:00Ed: {{But please reconsider my first paragraph abo...Ed: {{But please reconsider my first paragraph above.}}<br /><br />Hm. Well, let's see. As JD and I both said, repeatedly, sometimes at length:<br /><br />1.) We are extremely well aware that even events we might consider miracles could be misconstrued as such, and have any of numerous other explanations instead.<br /><br />2.) We are extremely well aware that <i>everyone</i> eventually dies (whether ever provided with a miracle, ostensible or otherwise, or not), usually in great pain, and often in pain over a protracted period of time.<br /><br />3.) Similarly, we are extremely well aware that bad things happen to even the most devout people.<br /><br />4.) I at least was not expecting anyone to believe in God's existence based on the say-so of other people who think (or suspect) they've witnessed miracles; and I doubt JD was either.<br /><br /><br />I think it's funny that you address your comment to us, with a plea that we "reconsider your first paragraph", when you've persistently shown a near-total disregard for paying attention to what we're actually saying when opposing us; a disregard that continues in that same comment.<br /><br />I don't believe in the least that people are condemned to even a limited hell for being honestly sceptical. (Many non-universalists would agree with that, too; C. S. Lewis, to give a topically relevant example.) But persistently ignoring what other people are saying so that you can feel comfortable opposing them in some imaginary fashion, is <i>not</i> what the honest sceptics of <i>my</i> acquaintance normally do, when they're being honestly sceptical.<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83372800669246792882009-10-21T19:42:07.975-07:002009-10-21T19:42:07.975-07:00Recently I read the story of a girl who came back ...Recently I read the story of a girl who came back from a missionary trip to one of the countries where the Christians are filled with stories of miracles. She saw none. She left the fold. <br /><br />Below is part of Sarah's story<br /><br />The last part of my story involved a mission trip to Africa that we took that summer. I was still very much in doubt, but this trip had been in the works for a year and they convinced me that I could do other things besides religious stuff. It was one of the most awkward things ever. I enjoyed the experience of traveling and I was able to teach English and do some other work but I was constantly surrounded by the most intense Christians that I had ever seen. Christianity in many places of Africa is extremely Pentecostal. They fully believed in tongues and miracles and shouting and being slain in the spirit. I had to sit through more than one all night prayer service. I went to a spirit soaking in which people waited to be filled with the spirit and then began to yell, cry, laugh, fall over, or whatever else struck their fancy when they believed the spirit had come. I just kept seeing it as more and more ridiculous but my roommates really got into it. They all came out of the summer so much more “on fire for God”. Since I was traveling with them everyone expected me to be a Christian too and I went along with it because it was easier than trying to explain the truth and listen to them try to bring me back into the fold. I hated being the wet blanket. For a while I tried to point out the flaws in logic to my roommates but after a while I just felt like I was alienating them and being the killjoy. I think the most poignant part of all the deconversion stories is the loss that you feel when you can’t connect with your old friends and family in the same way. Now I’m back and I have stopped going to church. Ironically the summer of missions, which was supposed to strengthen my faith has only left me more doubtful and confused. Now we are supposed to attend a session with the bible study at the church that helped partially support our trip and talk about what we learned. I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to say the truth and alienate all my friends and church family, but I am tired of being hypocritical. I know that once I officially say something, it will drastically change the dynamics of my relationships with many people.<br /><br />The Story of a Recent Doubter <br />Posted Wednesday, October 21, 2009by Sarah<br />http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2009/10/story-of-recent-doubter.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81236134172946045222009-10-21T19:37:38.623-07:002009-10-21T19:37:38.623-07:00JD and Jason,
I have to be honest, I haven't ...JD and Jason, <br />I have to be honest, I haven't seen any miracles. And I don't think it's because we no longer live in such age. I simply do not see people popping out of graves after three days, nor seas splitting in two at the raising of a rod, nor food multiplying from a few handfuls to baskets full, nor lepers being healed instantly, nor amputees being healed. (I do know of spontaneous remissions in cancer cases, which is not limited to Evangelical Christians, not by far.)<br /><br />Reports of the power of prayer related to healing also seem pretty negligible in large studies. And I has also considered stories from Christians whom I consider devout but who could really use a miracle and who trust God for a long time praying ceaselessly along with fellow churchgoers for one. But to no avail. I've also noticed that bad things happen even to the most devout and prayerful people I've known and read about. <br /><br />And I've studied individual miracle stories as well. <br /><br />Lastly, Jason is a universalists who doesn't believe I will necesssarily be damned to eternal hellfire for my questions, maybe a finite hell, but I'm unsure what you believe, JD, about the salvation of questioners. As for myself, I cannot fathom being damned for eternity without a second chance. My own questions appear quite proper and honest to me given the sights and sounds, and knowledge and experiences I've had in this life on this fragile lifeboat in space, both as a born again Christian and afterwards.<br /><br />And frankly, I would like nothing more than to meet a loving eternal Being when I die, preferably a Being that does not pride itself on ordering the slaughter of men, women and children in order to secure that Being's honor. <br /><br />I continue to reach out at times, especially at night, with every fiber of my being to all that is loving and compassionate, kind and intelligent and wise and happy. And I also continue during the day to read the headlines, various websites, and speak with friends, family, keeping my eyes and ears peeled to stories galore. But please reconsider my first paragraph above.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62610343430400439412009-10-20T22:59:37.737-07:002009-10-20T22:59:37.737-07:00BDK said: "In other words, if I'm God I&#...BDK said: <i>"In other words, if I'm God I'm obviously pretty much happy to stay hidden from modern man. Except the ones that already believe in me and don't require evidence."</i><br /><br />I wonder what your assumption is as to God's purposes? It seems that many people assume something like God should want to provide every person with demonstrable evidence similar to scientific evidence, so belief is not longer required, because we have knowledge.<br /><br />I would have thought that was a most unlikely objective. I vaguely recall CS Lewis (yes, him again!) suggesting God was more like a fairytale Prince wooing a poor girl, but doing it incognito so she is not overwhelmed against her will.<br /><br />Change the objective and you change the premise in the above statement. And then the conclusion must be different. Jesus (reportedly) did miracles in some circumstances, but declined to do the for show. I would think the same might be true about God.unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84359918306233242362009-10-20T19:56:59.836-07:002009-10-20T19:56:59.836-07:00It would be cool if God performed miracles in labs...It would be cool if God performed miracles in labs simultaneously around the country tomorrow at noon.<br /><br />Too bad he reserves them for missionaries that happen to be in exotic locales with no good video equipment on hand to document the miraces. <br /><br />If I were God, I know I would want to hide my miracles so that only small groups of missionaries, and others that already believed in me, could see them.<br /><br />Or I would place them far into the past, well out of reach of the majority of living humans that would like a bit of evidence. Religious texts are always reliable, or at least mine would be anyway, and nobody would have reason to doubt it if they already believed in me.<br /><br />In other words, if I'm God I'm obviously pretty much happy to stay hidden from modern man. Except the ones that already believe in me and don't require evidence.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34141424600968718442009-03-11T04:55:00.000-07:002009-03-11T04:55:00.000-07:00"No you're Wrong, Robito B. The dogma was young ea..."No you're Wrong, Robito B. The dogma was young earth and anti-Darwin, until quite recently."<BR/><BR/>Nope. There was a fairly wide variety of readings of Genesis among the early Church Fathers, and by no means did they all take the creation narrative literalistically. Hence there was never any doctrinal consensus on the issue of origins, therefore no dogma, either back then or more recently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64049236064787401992009-03-10T06:00:00.000-07:002009-03-10T06:00:00.000-07:00No you're Wrong, Robito B. The dogma was young ea...No you're Wrong, Robito B. The dogma was young earth and anti-Darwin, until quite recently. Faced with the facts, some fundies relented, as did a few catholics (it's still is young earth in some places). In effect, the creation story of Genesis and OT was falsified (or rendered metaphorical at any rate), and thus shown to be fallible (as do the supernatural events, according to Hume).Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62030211237438651952009-03-10T04:33:00.000-07:002009-03-10T04:33:00.000-07:00"Perhaps we can quote Darwin and Lyell and experim..."Perhaps we can quote Darwin and Lyell and experiments proving the old earth, or examine the data showing the reliability of radiocarbon dating (which DOES falsify dogma..."<BR/><BR/>Wrong-o, mon ami. Belief in a young earth is not a dogma in any form of Christianity that I'm aware of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1419760622614298222009-03-09T13:05:00.000-07:002009-03-09T13:05:00.000-07:00People might believe in God, Allah, Boodha, Krishn...People might believe in God, Allah, Boodha, Krishna, Wotan, Hecate, etc.-- whatever Deity they choose--- and also insist the dogma of their particular religion is the correct one. That does not mean that they can justify their particular belief, or prove that their flavor of dogma is El Numero Uno (or correct). <BR/><BR/>Anyway, quoting Russell is not the same as quoting theologians. For one, he's dealing with reason and logic-- not assuming the dogma to be correct. I don't worship any philosophers; I'm more interested in politics and economics and am contra-metaphysics, even of the Russellian sort, though I think Russell did an admirable job in terms of combatting theocracy (as did Hume at times, over two centuries ago). <BR/><BR/>Perhaps we can quote Darwin and Lyell and experiments proving the old earth, or examine the data showing the reliability of radiocarbon dating (which DOES falsify dogma, at least as a source of natural history/science).Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-940956294605743512009-03-09T12:10:00.000-07:002009-03-09T12:10:00.000-07:00"Your usual Ad Auctoritas proves nothing..."Appare..."Your usual Ad Auctoritas proves nothing..."<BR/><BR/>Apparently Perezoso's appeals to Hume, Kant, Russell, etc., AREN'T Ad Auctoritas statements. What makes them such? Simply his ipse dixit, I guess.<BR/><BR/>"Believe if you must, but never mistake your belief for rationality"<BR/><BR/>What's with all the folks like Jaki, Polkinghorne, Polanyi, Florensky, Teilhard, Tristan Englehart, etc. -- those who are trained both in science and in theology/philosophy, and who are/were theists? Are they irrational? Or do they just compartmentalize?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11482229288619204942009-03-09T11:26:00.000-07:002009-03-09T11:26:00.000-07:00Your usual Ad Auctoritas proves nothing, just as P...Your usual Ad Auctoritas proves nothing, just as Plantinga's odd "arguments from possibility" prove nothing. The arguments for God have been dealt with, and shown to be at best sort of metaphorical: not merely by the neo-atheist crew, but starting with like Kant. Russell's point on omniscience, and really the absurdity of Calvinism (which I paraphrase above) also quoted and well known. <BR/><BR/>So you're mistaken if you think some consensus among seminarians proves your case (another problem being a belief in this new, bizarre philosophical school based on "modal realism". A school that WVO Quine, for one, opposed)Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73992713927371637512009-03-09T11:12:00.000-07:002009-03-09T11:12:00.000-07:00Oh please. These issues on the relation between fr...Oh please. These issues on the relation between freedom and omnipotence have been extensively discussed. Ever heard of open theism? Whether you think it's adequate or not, you can't defeat it by just making pronouncements.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8907942666968348522009-03-09T11:08:00.000-07:002009-03-09T11:08:00.000-07:00Human freedom to do wrong is pretty meaningless if...<I>Human freedom to do wrong is pretty meaningless if God is going to intervene every time we try to do wrong in order to prevent suffering.</I><BR/><BR/>AH going through this again: assuming a monotheistic God exists, He's omniscient by definition, knows what his creation will do, or He ain't God. So the putative Freedom's like a test (as Calvin also realized, in his own sinister way): that makes God the robotmaster, controlling the robots He made and programmed to think they are free, moral, etc. Since that is so palpably absurd, it's safe to claim He doesn't exist. <BR/><BR/>For that matter, a great deal of atrocity happens to people who did not make some immoral/"evil" decisions: not only natural disasters, disease, but say collateral damage in wars (bombing of civilians, etc). Collateral damage not great for those who insist on God's omnipotence, and justice and love. <BR/><BR/>Believe if you must, but never mistake your belief for rationality.Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77690307636878557462009-03-09T10:39:00.000-07:002009-03-09T10:39:00.000-07:00Human freedom to do wrong is pretty meaningless if...Human freedom to do wrong is pretty meaningless if God is going to intervene every time we try to do wrong in order to prevent suffering.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88867807481202688682009-03-09T10:36:00.000-07:002009-03-09T10:36:00.000-07:00I think we have to think in terms of disconfirmati...I think we have to think in terms of disconfirmation. And some things do disconfirm theism, and others could disconfirm it. Whether these things disconfirm theism decisively depends upon a person's prior probabilities.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10798270500984853402009-03-09T09:44:00.000-07:002009-03-09T09:44:00.000-07:00Of course God can intervene. Can he do so without ...<I>Of course God can intervene. Can he do so without doing more harm than good?</I><BR/><BR/>That's a good one: sort of the Ad Leibniz. G*d could have stopped (or not pencilled in) Stalin and Hitler, concentration camps, Hiroshima, pol pot, plagues, natural disasters, etc. but that would have resulted in an even more brutal and absurd world. WWII was there for a purpose. Ergo, Stalinism was a sign of His Love! Be thankful, bruthrenn. <BR/><BR/>And yes, that is the unfalsifiable position. Imagine a Death Asteroid's detected in two weeks, headed right for Earth, and no chance of shooting it down. The True Believer would start praying, and probably call it Rapture--a sign of His Love as well. Really, a Death-Roid (like the one that just missed us a few days ago) pretty good evidence that the term "God" refers to a null set (unless you want to claim God = the Devil ).<BR/><BR/>(The intervention issue slightly different than problem of evil, anyway. This follows from Overall's take on miracles).Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35440953986645308272009-03-09T09:21:00.000-07:002009-03-09T09:21:00.000-07:00"Yes, of course, all suffering and evil, even that..."Yes, of course, all suffering and evil, even that endured by the most defenseless, must somehow, in some mysterious way, be necessary."<BR/><BR/>Uh, afraid not. See David Bentley Hart's book "The Doors of the Sea" on this. God in no sense needs evil to fulfill his plan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1140243586358748192009-03-09T01:51:00.000-07:002009-03-09T01:51:00.000-07:00The idea that God might have a good reason for not...<I>The idea that God might have a good reason for not preventing evil that you don't understand, (and even some that you might understand) is swept aside, of course. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, of course, all suffering and evil, even that endured by the most defenseless, must somehow, in some mysterious way, be necessary. Is every last second of suffering by a child dying of cancer necessary? Is there a good reason for it? Remember, we're talking about an omnipotent god to whom nothing is impossible. You are asserting, without argument, that God must allow each instant of suffering and evil for some greater purpose or good and that He must know there is <I>no other way</I> to achieve such good without such suffering because He is omniscient. But this is simply begging the question. Just another theistic "mystery"; how convenient for theism (classical theism with a tri-omni god, that is).<BR/><BR/><I>Your atheism, I fear, is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence would convince you of God's existence, even if God were to provide it in abundance.</I><BR/><BR/>There are plenty of examples that would falsify atheism, or cause someone to at least consider that god may be real after all. If amputees were to regrow limbs after being prayed for, I would consider that good evidence for theism. <BR/><BR/>What, Mr. Reppert, would falsify theism? Is there any occurrence, any scientific discovery, or any statement, that, if proven true, would disprove the existence of God? Be honest. If all the apparently needless suffering that a supposedly all good, all powerful, all knowing god allows hasn't already disproved your god, what would? It is theism that is truly unfalsifiable.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09991410496107221875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71317402166233084622009-03-08T23:40:00.000-07:002009-03-08T23:40:00.000-07:00Well, this is just the argument from evil. You are...Well, this is just the argument from evil. You are saying that even if the one in charge of the universe were to demonstrate His existence, there would be evidence that this being was not a good being. Yes, I suppose miracles won't solve the problem of evil. Did anyone think it would? <BR/><BR/>Why I am using the word atheism in a perjorative way? What are you talking about? <BR/><BR/>Of course God can intervene. Can he do so without doing more harm than good?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20638195422076312302009-03-08T22:17:00.000-07:002009-03-08T22:17:00.000-07:00You were the one saying God can always intervene: ...You were the one saying God can always intervene: so He could have intervened to stop nazis invading poland, or stalin or mao but chooses not to, and instead has Mary appear in a grotto, or maybe pull a few supposed miracles in hospitals? Then God's hardly different from the devil. <BR/><BR/>Imagine a sinister doctor who could have easily saved many patients, but decided not to show up (or in fact administered the wrong cure, etc), and patients died, and yet Dr. and his supporters/friends/nurses say he's not to blame, and really a good guy. Magnify that by a few thousand and maybe you might get Overall's point. Supposed miracles count as evidence against theological claims for omnipotence and monotheism (and in favor of skepticism). It's a moot discussion anyway: since He didn't (or couldn't) miraculously appear at the end of WWII, then it's highly unlikely He's around. <BR/><BR/><BR/>(also--your use of the a-word itself pejorative. I wager any spiritual Beings (however unlikely) would welcome Jefferson and Co--perhaps even Hume and Darwin-- to the realm of the blessed before they welcome the Billy Sundays of the world).Perezosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01875109580933192779noreply@blogger.com