Rockstone: "It is very easy to disprove Santa's Existence entirely, but impossible to do that with god."

Not so.

Rockstone: "Any evidence we have shows that god does exist."

Then why is his existence not regarded as scientific fact? If what you say is true it should be an easy task to prove God's existence formally, through the proper channels and settle the question once and for all.

Rockstone: "Anyway- how do you prove Santa Doesn't exist? Does he do everything little kids and tradition say he does? No. Does he live in the North Pole? Its all frozen ice water, no. Therefore, he does not exist."

Not so fast. Supposing he does all those things, but imperceptibly? Supposing his North Pole base is invisible and intangible, or that those portions of Christmas Scripture were metaphorical and his workshop resides in another dimension? Presto, you haven't disproven the existence of Santa.

Rockstone: "But God- he has done everything the prophecies have said he will, and that is the difference."

A great deal was done in the New Testament "so that the prophecies could be fulfilled". That exact phrasing. Setting out to do things in order to fulfill prophecies does not make those prophecies legitimate.

Zamboro: Both Santa and God are impossible in principle to absolutely disprove. The matter we've been debating is whether or not we can reasonably conclude something doesn't exist in spite of the impossibility of absolutely proving that it doesn't.

That applies to everything ever. I cannot prove there isn't a lizard in my pocket right now. If i check my pockets, that will only prove there isn't a lizard there when i check. it won't prove it wasn't there before I checked.

I wish i'd known that's what we were debating. Coulda saved me a couple of hours.

Clan Xpy: Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "Elitism is what turned atheism into a religion, after all."

Boy I hope you've never mocked a creationist. That'd make evolution a religion by your metric, would it not?

Yeah if said person holds it as their personal truth. It's just one of those things people do. Like Fox Mulder from X Files had "The Truth" or House had cynicism. Same applies to real life. At least that is my observation. This will just turn into a semantics argument by the way.

In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology.

Rockstone: Zamboro: Ed Gruberman: "When I was eleven I was given a book called "Album Of Dinosaurs", published in 1971 by Rand McNally. It was a kids book, but was fairly up to date on the major scientific ideas about dinosaurs of the day. Over the years many of the theories that were used in writing the book have been overturned as new evidence has come to light. Today nearly 75% of the text in the book is dead wrong. We now know that Apatosaurus (and no, Firefox spell check, "Brontosaurus" is NOT the correct spelling, you asshat) did not eat clams as was thought it might back in 1971, among other errors.

I still have this book. Even with all of its errors. I keep it to remind me that everything I know could be proven wrong at any time. I keep it to keep my mind open. (That doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mind so open that my brains leak out of my ears however.)"

Ah, but apatosaurs never having eaten clams is a pretty small error wouldn't you say? At least compared to the sorts of errors science made when it was young. That is the point I had hoped to make to Accent. Science can and will err on occasion, but there are nonetheless things which are so thoroughly proven that we can safely conclude that they are true.

Technically, we can't prove that we are alive, that we were ever born, or hell- that anything exists. I could be imagining you guys right now, in a lucid dream or a plane, but I somehow doubt it.

We could be at the bottom of the ocean, amphibious blobs that perceive everything as we do. Or we could be in the matrix.

But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists.

/I might turn this into a philosophical argument, fun.

Rockstone: "Technically, we can't prove that we are alive, that we were ever born, or hell- that anything exists. I could be imagining you guys right now, in a lucid dream or a plane, but I somehow doubt it.

We could be at the bottom of the ocean, amphibious blobs that perceive everything as we do. Or we could be in the matrix."

That's why the foundational axioms of science and logic exist. Even if we exist inside some sort of illusory simulation, it allows us to pin down and examine the properties of that simulation and build up a knowledge base about it. The discovery that we're all living in such a simulation wouldn't invalidate the discoveries of science, merely change their context from "here's everything we understand about the universe" to "here's everything we understand about the simulation".

Besides which, solipsism is the refuge of the guy who knows his position is untenable in light of the evidence.

Rockstone: Any evidence we have shows that god does exist.

he hee. This thread would have been more fun if you were here an hour ago.

Rockstone: "But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists."

You could, but that conclusion would not be supported by the evidence. Most scientists are atheists precisely because the totality of presently available evidence points to a godless universe.

Zamboro: Rockstone:
Not so fast. Supposing he does all those things, but imperceptibly? Supposing his North Pole base is invisible and intangible, or that those portions of Christmas Scripture were metaphorical and his workshop resides in another dimension? Presto, you haven't disproven the existence of Santa.
.

You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence.

Clan Xpy: "In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology."

I suppose my objection would be that you're equivocating, attempting to simplify a very complex issue by treating a number of very different things as being the same.

You regard scientific fact as fact just as I do, because science is how we know things. If there were some other way that worked, we'd be using it right now. I know it goes against your sense of fairness to suppose that there's only one way of getting at truth, but all I need to do is challenge you to provide some other methodology which is as effective as science at separating fact from fiction. If there is such an alternative, name it.

If I am emphatic that we live on a (more or less) round planet, has it become a religion for me? If I insist that life evolved, is it a religion?

Doesn't the word "religion" have a more specific definition than that?

Zamboro: Rockstone: "But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists."

You could, but that conclusion would not be supported by the evidence. Most scientists are atheists precisely because the totality of presently available evidence points to a godless universe.

Yet, evidence can't prove everything, there is some stuff in Science that will never be solved, and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact. That means, that either we are so stupid we can't solve it, or (and far more likely) god Exists.

One thing I hope a lot agree with me on though- is that "You shouldn't adjust Science to your Religious beliefs, But Adjust Religious beliefs to science". That is why, I believe that the Big Bang occurred and Evolution exists, yet also believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Rockstone: "You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence."

Ah, but Santa magically changes the labels when he delivers them! :-)

So long as we're evaluating the reality of elusive beings by scrutinizing what they give us, are you aware of prayer studies? Where they research what effect prayer actually has on recovering patients? Would you care to speculate on the results before I reveal them to you....?

Would you say, for instance, that the fact that God has never answered an amputee's prayer for a new limb is proof that God does not exist?

Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology."

I suppose my objection would be that you're equivocating, attempting to simplify a very complex issue by treating a number of very different things as being the same.

You regard scientific fact as fact just as I do, because science is how we know things. If there were some other way that worked, we'd be using it right now. I know it goes against your sense of fairness to suppose that there's only one way of getting at truth, but all I need to do is challenge you to provide some other methodology which is as effective as science at separating fact from fiction. If there is such an alternative, name it.

If I am emphatic that we live on a (more or less) round planet, has it become a religion for me? If I insist that life evolved, is it a religion?

Doesn't the word "religion" have a more specific definition than that?

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Rockstone: Zamboro: Rockstone:
Not so fast. Supposing he does all those things, but imperceptibly? Supposing his North Pole base is invisible and intangible, or that those portions of Christmas Scripture were metaphorical and his workshop resides in another dimension? Presto, you haven't disproven the existence of Santa.
.

You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence.

Oh come now. We are talking about a virtually omnipotent being - one who is capable of delivering gifts to a planet of six billion people in a single evening. Santa merely creates false evidence to make it APPEAR that his toys come from Chinese sweatshops, because, in his infinite modesty, he wants to share the credit for his largesse with humanity at large. It is not for mere mortal man to understand the workings of Santa.

DeanMoriarty: no, you have that entirely wrong

I still like my version better :P

/of course if it really bothers you
//you can always
///kiss my grits
//that means I don't wanna argue about it anymore...

Zamboro: Rockstone: "You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence."

Ah, but Santa magically changes the labels when he delivers them! :-)

So long as we're evaluating the reality of elusive beings by scrutinizing what they give us, are you aware of prayer studies? Where they research what effect prayer actually has on recovering patients? Would you care to speculate on the results before I reveal them to you....?

Would you say, for instance, that the fact that God has never answered an amputee's prayer for a new limb is proof that God does not exist?

My Speculation is that those who pray have a much higher chance to get better. Give me the statistics.

Zamboro: Rockstone: "You can trace the origin of products from the industrial factory in China to the USA- when you do that, you disprove Santa's existence."

Ah, but Santa magically changes the labels when he delivers them! :-)

So long as we're evaluating the reality of elusive beings by scrutinizing what they give us, are you aware of prayer studies? Where they research what effect prayer actually has on recovering patients? Would you care to speculate on the results before I reveal them to you....?

Would you say, for instance, that the fact that God has never answered an amputee's prayer for a new limb is proof that God does not exist?

Hey, god answers all prayers. It's just that the answer is always "no".

Rockstone: "Yet, evidence can't prove everything, there is some stuff in Science that will never be solved, and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact."

It's true, science can't explain everything. But it's the only thing that can explain anything.

Rockstone: "That means, that either we are so stupid we can't solve it, or (and far more likely) god Exists."

There was a time when electricity was beyond our ability to understand. And microorganisms as the cause of diseases we were dying from en masse. But those impasses didn't last forever, we eventually built up the knowledge base necessary to unlock their secrets.

I'd also like to know how you figure that our inability to explain everything right now proves that god exists.

Rockstone: "One thing I hope a lot agree with me on though- is that "You shouldn't adjust Science to your Religious beliefs, But Adjust Religious beliefs to science". That is why, I believe that the Big Bang occurred and Evolution exists, yet also believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

Yes, just like many Hindus believe that the big bang occurred and evolution exists, but they also believe in Vishnu, Brahma, Ganesh and the rest of their gods. Do you think that their gods exist? If not, how is your god any more credible than theirs? They think you're just as wrong, after all.

Zamboro: Rockstone: "Yet, evidence can't prove everything, there is some stuff in Science that will never be solved, and some stuff in science that will always contradict what we know is fact."

It's true, science can't explain everything. But it's the only thing that can explain anything.

Rockstone: "That means, that either we are so stupid we can't solve it, or (and far more likely) god Exists."

There was a time when electricity was beyond our ability to understand. And microorganisms as the cause of diseases we were dying from en masse. But those impasses didn't last forever, we eventually built up the knowledge base necessary to unlock their secrets.

I'd also like to know how you figure that our inability to explain everything right now proves that god exists.

Rockstone: "One thing I hope a lot agree with me on though- is that "You shouldn't adjust Science to your Religious beliefs, But Adjust Religious beliefs to science". That is why, I believe that the Big Bang occurred and Evolution exists, yet also believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

Yes, just like many Hindus believe that the big bang occurred and evolution exists, but they also believe in Vishnu, Brahma, Ganesh and the rest of their gods. Do you think that their gods exist? If not, how is your god any more credible than theirs? They think you're just as wrong, after all.

No, I don't think their god exists, but mine is more credible because there is evidence for him.

Rockstone: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

would you care to share your religion so I can make fun of it?

Zamboro: Rockstone: "But, Judging from what we know- we can conclude that god exists."

You could, but that conclusion would not be supported by the evidence. Most scientists are atheists precisely because the totality of presently available evidence points to a godless universe.

http://www.livescience.com/history/070629_religious_scientists.html

What the article stated: People tend to get defensive if their political, ethical, religious, or other views aren't concrete, because they're insecure about them.

What Fark read: Agnostics and Atheists are stupid. Let's have a 700-post flame war.

I drunk what: Rockstone: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

would you care to share your religion so I can make fun of it?

If you didn't know I'm Catholic, you must be drunk.

Zamboro: Clan Xpy: "In Addition: Some people use a scientific fact. Others grab a specific philosophy, and even more grab their truths from a traditional faith. Either three of these things becomes one's religion. It's just a matter of whether you wanna be fanatical based on faith, science, or ideology."

I suppose my objection would be that you're equivocating, attempting to simplify a very complex issue by treating a number of very different things as being the same.

You regard scientific fact as fact just as I do, because science is how we know things. If there were some other way that worked, we'd be using it right now. I know it goes against your sense of fairness to suppose that there's only one way of getting at truth, but all I need to do is challenge you to provide some other methodology which is as effective as science at separating fact from fiction. If there is such an alternative, name it.

If I am emphatic that we live on a (more or less) round planet, has it become a religion for me? If I insist that life evolved, is it a religion?

Doesn't the word "religion" have a more specific definition than that?

I specifically use the term personal truth instead. My personal truth can be that My Little Pony figurines come to life at night when I sleep, or it can be something based on scientific fact. Admittedly the word religion applies very abstractly. I was merely trying to impress the idea that any sort of personal truth of a group of people becomes treated like a traditional religion, because of the fervor (for lack of a better word) of the human ego.

I suppose certain ideologies can be treated as fact by the masses. I think that is where atheist and agnostics get their sense of right and wrong from. Ultimately yeah it's subjective. For me it is fact that nothing has an inherent value, but I wouldn't be able to convince a christian or muslim that.

Zamboro: Rockstone:
Besides which, solipsism is the refuge of the guy who knows his position is untenable in light of the evidence.


Solipsism is not contrary to evidence.

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/scandal.pdf

(pdf file)

Rockstone: "My Speculation is that those who pray have a much higher chance to get better. Give me the statistics."

Power of Prayer flunks an Unusual Test ~ MSNBC

Long Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer ~ NY Times

The Deity in the Data ~ Slate

abb3w: If anyone cares, the actual paper is here.
servoled: Error - DOI Not Found

Well, it's SUPPOSED to be, dammit!!!

Try here.

Clan Xpy: "I specifically use the term personal truth instead. My personal truth can be that My Little Pony figurines come to life at night when I sleep, or it can be something based on scientific fact. Admittedly the word religion applies very abstractly. I was merely trying to impress the idea that any sort of personal truth of a group of people becomes treated like a traditional religion, because of the fervor (for lack of a better word) of the human ego.

I suppose certain ideologies can be treated as fact by the masses. I think that is where atheist and agnostics get their sense of right and wrong from. Ultimately yeah it's subjective. For me it is fact that nothing has an inherent value, but I wouldn't be able to convince a christian or muslim that."

That makes more sense I suppose, although I hope we can agree that a great many movements fit that description yet were also vital for social progress. Once you involve enough people it's bound to start looking, walking and quacking like a duck whether it is one or not, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their cause.

Golly! Sure is a lot of fuss about the next life going on in this life. Couldn't we all just have a big party until we die from it? Ya know, conga line into the next world.

/Agnostic because religion is boring. Dancing, however, is much fun.

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
-Albert Einstein

Thats atheism in a nutshell.

Zamboro: Rockstone: "My Speculation is that those who pray have a much higher chance to get better. Give me the statistics."

Power of Prayer flunks an Unusual Test ~ MSNBC

Long Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer ~ NY Times

The Deity in the Data ~ Slate

Interesting, but that isn't a scientific test anyway. For one, god assists both spoken and silent intentions. And, we can't read someones mind- who is to say that the family didn't pray for them anyway?

Rockstone: "Interesting, but that isn't a scientific test anyway."

Ah, exactly as predicted:

Slate article: "If the data had turned out the other way, clerics would be trumpeting the power of prayer on every street corner. Instead, the study's authors and many media outlets are straining to brush off the results. The study "cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups," the authors shrug.

Bull. If these findings involved any other kind of therapy, doctors would spin hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms and why the treatment failed or backfired. And that's exactly what theologians and scientists are doing as they try to explain away the data. They're implicitly sketching possibilities as to what sort of God could account for the results."


In other words, you're making excuses. Exactly like the ones I've been making for Santa Claus.

Bumshway: "Thats atheism in a nutshell."

I don't think Einstein meant for that to refer to atheism:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." ~Albert Einstein

I didn't say Einstein meant that about atheists specifically. I'm saying that line perfectly applies to most atheists in general.

And Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist.

boredomatwork: Myself being agnostic, I thought it is literally the open-minded view on religion. There may be a supernatural force, or maybe not. I just choose not to pretend I know the answer.

But I guess it is close minded that I assume everyone else is wrong. Except the athiests, who might actually be on to something.

Being agnostic (as relates to theism/atheism/antitheism) wouldn't mean that you assume everyone else is wrong - unless you are assuming that the answer is something no one has ever thought of (which you might call Strong Agnosticism for a laugh) - i.e. it isn't that there is or isn't a god, it is something far different from anything a human being can conceive of.

If you are agnostic normally you would think some group is probably right, but you can't tell which one.

Zamboro: Rockstone: "Interesting, but that isn't a scientific test anyway."

Ah, exactly as predicted:

Slate article: "If the data had turned out the other way, clerics would be trumpeting the power of prayer on every street corner. Instead, the study's authors and many media outlets are straining to brush off the results. The study "cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups," the authors shrug.

Bull. If these findings involved any other kind of therapy, doctors would spin hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms and why the treatment failed or backfired. And that's exactly what theologians and scientists are doing as they try to explain away the data. They're implicitly sketching possibilities as to what sort of God could account for the results."


In other words, you're making excuses. Exactly like the ones I've been making for Santa Claus.

Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points.

Bumshway: "And Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist."

Quote please. Not that I doubt what you've said but because I'm pretty sure I know the one you're talking about and he doesn't affirm any sort of belief in a higher power therein.

So far as I can tell from his writings he was an agnostic who regarded religion as childish and primitive but who played at a religious presentation of science to please a public that was, at one point, hostile to his apparent godlessness (he regularly did receive and reply to angry letters from priests accusing him of undermining peoples' faith)

SobrietyFighter: Clan Xpy: omris: CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

For some reason this comment made me daydream about America electing a gerontologist for president. For five seconds, the world felt very cold.


probably from the spray from cthulu cracking a beer.

MMMmmm AmberBock.

/sip

Rockstone: "Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points."

But the results weren't indeterminate. They came out as atheists expected.

You didn't answer any other portions of my post, by the way. Why is it that God has never regenerated the lost limb of an amputee? Why is it always things that might've healed on their own, things that the patients were receiving treatment for at the time?

SobrietyFighter: Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist.

So Santa can travel at 50 times the speed of sound delivering 100 million tonnes of goods across the entire world in a single night using magical reindeer that fly. But he can't deal with the lack of a chimney.

filth: I'm merely asserting that the attempt to restrict matters of faith to logical analysis is one of the greatest exercises in missing the point known to man.



Talon: if we cannot express it in language then it is nonsense

You've not gone far enough into math. About half a dozen major steps after you've gotten א_ω, "express" gets smashed like it was run over by a steamroller, even while sense (in at least a philosophical use) may not have. Admittedly, as a rule all the philosophers except the pure mathematicians have gone "what's the point?" and wandered off by then....

T.rex: i think if someone believes something, it is true (for them).

The question is whether the belief system uses a boolean algebra where TRUE and FALSE are "different" elements, or the trivial algebra on {MU} where NOT MU is MU and thus where MU=TRUE=FALSE.

emkajii: The only valid position to take on the existence of anything is disbelief until satisfactory evidence has been provided for its existence.

Rockstone: If you didn't know I'm Catholic, you must be drunk.

oh yeah, i was just in that catholic thread, duh!

/my memory is horrrrible

so I guess you've already witnessed my catholic rantings and don't care to beat that dead horse then?

Zamboro: Bumshway: "And Einstein specifically said he wasn't an atheist."

Quote please. Not that I doubt what you've said but because I'm pretty sure I know the one you're talking about and he doesn't affirm any sort of belief in a higher power therein.

So far as I can tell from his writings he was an agnostic who regarded religion as childish and primitive but who played at a religious presentation of science to please a public that was, at one point, hostile to his apparent godlessness (he regularly did receive and reply to angry letters from priests accusing him of undermining peoples' faith)

At any rate, Einstein was a physicist. He is no more an authority on the existence or nonexistence of deities than my cat Spooky.

Zamboro: Rockstone: "Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points."

But the results weren't indeterminate. They came out as atheists expected.

You didn't answer any other portions of my post, by the way. Why is it that God has never regenerated the lost limb of an amputee? Why is it always things that might've healed on their own, things that the patients were receiving treatment for at the time?

But you didn't address my statement, you went around it.

And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with. And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them.

I drunk what: Rockstone: If you didn't know I'm Catholic, you must be drunk.

oh yeah, i was just in that catholic thread, duh!

/my memory is horrrrible

so I guess you've already witnessed my catholic rantings and don't care to beat that dead horse then?

Not if I can avoid it.

abb3w: I don't think the last one was wharrgarbl. A proclamation of certainty that something does not exist if it has not yet been proven to would be outright scientism, but to meet someone's suggestion that something exists with a "what good reason is there to suppose that it does?" is not. Coming to a tenative negative conclusion is a way of reigning in speculation, pruning the tendrils of wishful thinking so that we do not assume more than we can know at any given point in time.

Does that make any sense? It would be way easier to visualize this in Maya. :-\

CrankMyBlueSax: CrankMyBlueSax: Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

So, if you are God and you turn yourself into wine, then you drink yourself, is that some sort of auto-erotic asphyxiation?

Not if you don't need to breathe!

Rockstone: "But you didn't address my statement, you went around it."

How so?

Rockstone: "And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with."

If there is a mind of god in the first place and if indeed we cannot know it, that does not in itself constitute an explanation of why god has never healed an amputee. At best it's an assertion that the answer cannot be known, which I'd agree with while also pointing out that the unwillingness to heal amputees (in spite of allegedly healing other types of afflictions) raises some troublesome questions about your god.

Rockstone: "And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them."

Examples, please.

lordargent: I drunk what

You need to add some more parameters.

For example, what about the people that aren't sure god exists, but if he does exist, he's a bit of an asshole and isn't worthy of worship.

Or the people who aren't sure god exists, but worship him "just incase".

etc

So the people that aren't sure that gods exists but think he is an asshole have assumed that only the Christian god is possible then?

Rockstone: Zamboro: Rockstone: "Yeah, and if the study had gone the other way Atheists would have done the same- arguing the same points."

But the results weren't indeterminate. They came out as atheists expected.

You didn't answer any other portions of my post, by the way. Why is it that God has never regenerated the lost limb of an amputee? Why is it always things that might've healed on their own, things that the patients were receiving treatment for at the time?

But you didn't address my statement, you went around it.

And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with. And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them.

Wait a minute. God has never regenerated a lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with?
I fail to see the slightest logical link between those two concepts.
Let alone a causative relationship.