Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
That's not what you're thinking it is.
Thank you, Based God.
I'm not sure if he's trolling or not, but I do want to address this kind of statement.
They don't need actors. They just don't mention that not everyone in a wheelchair is paralyzed and that legally blind (which could be shortened to just 'blind') people can actually make out some shapes. These people are screened prior to coming onstage and then are asked to stand up or whatever, the healer praises God, and then the healee is whisked offstage. The demonstration can be compelling, but only if you believe that that their condition limited them from doing the commands. However, those who can't do the commands obviously aren't picked. Also, notice how they are not lying when they say that people get up out of wheelchairs and the blind see. It just misleads people because we assume that they mean that someone paralyzed was cured, not someone who can only walk short distances was able to stand up. Derren Brown is awesome (It's actually relevant, @17:40).
I wont deny that there have been actors involved in some healings but there is plenty of evidence of real healing miracles occuring. There are accounts of people who have never heard of Christianity dying and coming back to life with stories that line up with Biblical principles. Considering they had no former knowledge of christianity in their life how could they have just made these visions up?
This is where it gets tricky, I don’t have the time or will to research these phenomena but a knowledgeable Christian researcher might say something to this effect (assuming the person who died/rose again had no knowledge with the religious principles he came in contact with after he died):
Again, I laugh at the proposition that I should trust what a dying brain comes up with.
No, believers burn in hell and atheists go to heaven.
Actually I don't think anyone has ever had a legitimate miracle that isn't based in religious texts. I've heard of the Miracle of Fatima which is somewhat recent, however from what I read from something, the eyewitness accounts are nowhere near consistent and the Church used it to propagate the Christian beliefs. Almost all modern miracles are fake, which people twist to sound like a real miracle. The whole problem with the idea of Miracles in general, is that you never see legitimate miracles in modern times, ESPECIALLY when cameras, writing, easier communication have become available. It's silly to think that God stops providing miracles when they become much more beneficial. I heard Craig answer this question once by saying that God has given all the proof for someone who is honestly looking for him to find him. The problem with this, not even mentioning the numerous examples of Christians who were seriously looking for God, but stopped believing in the Christian God after examining the evidence, is that all the Christian evidence is faulty. All the miracles are listed in a book, which already has numerous faults and holes in it, so why should we take that as evidence?
I don't have to show what it isn't the case, because you have provided no information for why it is the case. All you have said is that you have the answer but no one will understand it.
And you assume that there is a God that always existed (or never existed since he isn't a physical thing). You assume that physical things couldn't have always existed. You assume it is possible to exist outside of what is physical. You make assumptions that don't coincide with what we know about the universe. I will concede that I don't believe that physical things always existed, I believe they came into being, but I am not sure how. However, that is not enough reason to say "okay I can't think of any other way so God had to do it".
Good, because I am not trying to show he can't exist. Lots of things can exist, but they don't.
I am not assuming he isn't necessary, you are assuming that he is.
And what are these metaphysical properties I am not accounting for? See this is where you don't explain yourself, you just say it.
And you are assuming that all physical things are contingent in the first place.
No offense, but you can see how this comes off as extremely arrogant at best. This is the root of the problem, you don't realize that your assumptions are even more unfounded then the ones you argue against.
The problem is you don't listen to anyone not using the same language. You don't wan't to talk to anyone who "isn't on your level" and that is very pompous. You assume they don't know what they are talking about, because they don't use language that is familiar with you. You dismiss their claims before considering them. This is the overall issue, you dismiss claims, and suggest that everyone else needs to prove why they don't believe you rather than convincing them.
This so much.
The only people who have been dead and came back to life were people who:
Thanks for trying to help. I'm sure that sometimes what I hear is an imaginary voice when I'd like to think it's God. I'm not perfect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like your idea of my God is like an invisible Santa Claus friend, someone who I can imagine and talk to whenever I need a few bucks or a spring in my step. If that were my God, I'd have certainly outgrown him years ago like you did with your friend. My God is the God of the Bible, and he proves that to me over and over. If that leaves you wondering how, make sure to read my next post, which will pretty much be a novel...
That still doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if someone died peacefully of cancer or was killed in a train crash and came back to life. The point I've been getting at is these visions are created by a DYING BRAIN and you cannot trust what it comes up with reflects reality.
Then honestly you haven't added very much to the discussion. You can't just come in and attack every position, but guard yourself from scrutiny that way. You are arguing that he is necessary by attempting to make me show that he isn't. But the burden of proof is not on me.
I know. You have said it over and over and over and over again, but never explain yourself. You through out logical/philosophical jargon so no one can argue against you, because they don't know what they have been accused of. In reality, you have said nothing of substance, just asserted something without explanation, but if you had said it in layman terms you would have been stricken down much quicker.
You say this like the PSR is something everyone automatically accepts and you need a reason to deny it. Instead it is much the opposite, you need to provide justification for why it is the case. No one here is really that familiar with philosophy, so they just don't respond.
But you didn't show it, you said it, but never showed it. Here you are simplifying the issue greatly.
Dre, I'd love to hear it too.
in the same way you can't prove magical unicorns aren't necessary to exist. And in the case that god did exist, then who created him?
It's possible for people's heart's to stop beating and still come back to life, sort of.
Please don't post stuff about the Big Bang theory or basic cosmology when you don't know much about them. Regarding your statements, we know quite a bit about the life cycles of stars from observation, so we know around when the Sun will expand into a red giant, and it isn't for quite a long time. The sun produces a large amount of energy from Nuclear Fusion in it's core by fusing hydrogen into Helium, enough to equalize the force from it's own gravity. The life cycle of stars is much larger than you seem to think.
You're the best poster on SWF and I hope you never stop doing what you do.
I figured you would dodge the point once more. All you have done is sit back and point fingers. Originally, we were discussing God, but you refuse to state what you believe and join in on the discussion. Instead you misinterpret my words, and never address any of my points. The "flaws" in my argument are mostly you making me state why I don't believe what you do, instead of you stating why I should or aren't flaws at all. I have stated why I make the assumptions or state why there is no need to respond to your "problems" but you keep suggesting their are holes.Kataklysm- What I've contributed is the point that there are huge holes in your argument, and those like yours. I don't need to provide my own argument to point out the flaws in another.
If you actually justified the assumptions I'm talking about, I wouldn't be criticising it, because the methodolgy wouldn't be flawed.
Debating the existence of God and debating the way of providing good arguments for/against God are different things.
Forget about kataklysm for a second (no disrespect though KK). I believe in God and I'm not debating with you currently, but I enjoy metaphysics and I'm just really curious about the metaphysical necessities you've mentioned. At least for the sake of a mental exercise, let's hear it, please.Kataklysm- What I've contributed is the point that there are huge holes in your argument, and those like yours. I don't need to provide my own argument to point out the flaws in another.
You're right but I think you're misunderstanding him. He's not talking about people being miraculously raised from the dead but people leaving their bodies and having supernatural experiences while being medically dead.
Holy ****, that's a good one man. Thanks for brightening my day.
