You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Why won't God heal amputees?"
- Thread starter lkh
- Start date
Quote from Aapex:
By that same line of reasoning, YOU exist because someone believes that you do. Existance does not rely on belief to exist.
I don't believe that China exist because I have not seen it or stepped foot on Chinese soil. Does that mean that China doesn't exist?
Now we're getting into philosophy.
There has been a big school of philosophers who actually indeed believe what you just said. It sounds absurd on the surface but when you think about it, it actually makes sense. Of course, the philosophical construction is not as simple as the way you put it. Plato for example proposed that everything in our "real" world is only an imperfect reflection of an "ideal" world. Therefore, if you believe that ghosts exist, they indeed exist in that "ideal" world, even though you've never seen an actual ghost in this "projected" world. If you've ever heard of China, then China certainly exists in the "ideal" world. It's imperfect projection in the real world, though, doesn't matter in this discussion.
Scientists, however, belong to a different school. They're called "empiricists" who only believe in existence that can be observed by someone.
To insist on empirical evidence of God's existence, is the result of a confusion that can be harmful to your faith. Robert L. Reymond, the author of the well-known New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. He believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, so believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith.
No I do not agree Aapex.Quote from Aapex:
But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.
Do you agree?
All evidence which exists has existence. It is the form or quality that all things which exist have.
That you or I do not know what all the evidence is - is inconsequential to existence. That evidence just as God , must nevertheless depend and include the quality of existence for it to exist.
I don't like to define any atatement as "absolute" . I referred to this as 'THE primary imperative'. Existence is unavoidable to God, You, I, Everyone, Everything for us to exist.
In order to say God exists, existence must be presupposed first -before God. Existence is THE only single imperative thing It ,You or I need to exist.
God is proposed as something above everything. It cannot be, for God first needs the imperative of existence in order for It (God) to exist.
Quote from Aapex:
How? In what way?
at one time primitive man looked at thunder and lightening and thought it was god speaking. he saw disease and thought it was gods judgement. we now know what causes these things. as science uncovers more and more answers there is less and less need for "god did it " explanations.
Quote from vhehn:
at one time primitive man looked at thunder and lightening and thought it was god speaking. he saw disease and thought it was gods judgement. we now know what causes these things. as science uncovers more and more answers there is less and less need for "god did it " explanations.
On the contrary, If we believe that God exist and that God made all things then suffice it to say that God made it thunder. God also is the author of disease as a direct judgement against rebellous sinful man.
When you're sick, do you take medicine? Why don't you take God's punishment and pray to God to heal yourself?Quote from Aapex:
On the contrary, If we believe that God exist and that God made all things then suffice it to say that God made it thunder. God also is the author of disease as a direct judgement against rebellous sinful man.
Quote from stu:
No I do not agree Aapex.
All evidence which exists has existence. It is the form or quality that all things which exist have.
That you or I do not know what all the evidence is - is inconsequential to existence. That evidence just as God , must nevertheless depend and include the quality of existence for it to exist.
I don't like to define any atatement as "absolute" . I referred to this as 'THE primary imperative'. Existence is unavoidable to God, You, I, Everyone, Everything for us to exist.
In order to say God exists, existence must be presupposed first -before God. Existence is THE only single imperative thing It ,You or I need to exist.
God is proposed as something above everything. It cannot be, for God first needs the imperative of existence in order for It (God) to exist.
I dissagree.
Bottom Line: The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
When you're sick, do you take medicine? Why don't you take God's punishment and pray to God to heal yourself?
I do pray. Prayer is a commandment in Scripture. One thing has nothing to do with the other. We live in a fallen universe so disease and death are a part of that. If it is God's soveriegn will, he will heal me. Taking medicine does not take away ones faith in God to heal since God created the elements, nature. Scripture is full of examples of medicinal healings. Luke was a physician.
Quote from stu:
I don't like to define any statement as "absolute" .
So then your saying that there are no absolutes?
Your own statement denies that belief. You absolutely made an absolute statement which you absolutely believe to be true.
It is a fact that if you jump off the Empire state Building without a parachute, you will die.
If your head were to become detached from your body you will die.
You can not breathe under water.
You can not survive without water.
There are many absolutes.
Absolutely.