Spontaneous healing

[Gordon]

I heard someone on tv the other day say they were driving somewhere and they came around a corner and there was suddenly cattle in front of them. They cried out to God and suddenly they were on the other side without harm.

You all make the decision of what and whom you trust in...

Leaving aside the detail of this remarkable claim, it seems a pity that God couldn't be trusted to have paid equally close attention to events in the Reading branch of Top Shop yesterday.

[Sassy]

you should take out a law suit of negligence against your god for not giving you the power of reason .

Not true! Whereas in reality you have no one to blame but yourself for not being able to form a proper argument or express an informed opinion about the contents of my post.  I think I still do a better job when making replies. At least my posts apply to the contents of the thread and not a personal attack.

[Sassy]

...but which do you trust more?

Without God, we would not have either...

[Sassy]

Leaving aside the detail of this remarkable claim, it seems a pity that God couldn't be trusted to have paid equally close attention to events in the Reading branch of Top Shop yesterday.

Why did a Christian drive a car into top shop and find cattle in there?  What exactly was your point as I found no relevance to what I told you?

[Gordon]

Why did a Christian drive a car into top shop and find cattle in there?  What exactly was your point as I found no relevance to what I told you?

Well now.

You tell us there is a report that God responded to prevent injury by apparently transporting a person and their vehicle in some way to the other side of a herd of cattle they would have collided with: given this presumably occurred off the main highway, involved a vehicle moving at speed where the collision would be imminent (within a few seconds), it shows remarkable attention to detail by God. Unfortunately God didn't extend the same attention to detail when a child was killed in what appears to be a freak accident in a clothes shop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-38966649

Unless of course if we dismiss the cattle avoidance story as being too unlikely to take seriously.

[Sebastian Toe]

Without God, we would not have either...

...but which do you trust more?

[floo]

Without God, we would not have either...

You have no evidence to support that statement.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Without God, we would not have either...

You have no evidence to support that statement.

And you know this how, just out of interest?

[floo]

And you know this how, just out of interest?

Well have you any verifiable evidence to support the statement, or the existence of any god? No I thought not!

[Stranger]

Without God, we would not have either...

You have no evidence to support that statement.

And you know this how, just out of interest?

Well, it would be a first from Sassy - or any theist for that matter...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Well have you any verifiable evidence to support the statement, or the existence of any god? No I thought not!

Nice evasion!

your question to Sassy was

You have no evidence to support that statement.

How do you know this?

[SusanDoris]

Nice evasion!

your question to Sassy was
How do you know this?

No, you're the one doing the evading -as usual, I might add. Remember the NPF?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, you're the one doing the evading -as usual, I might add. Remember the NPF?

So Floo can make a positive statement (Sassy has no evidence), and not have to back it up?

Isn't that double-standards?

[SusanDoris]

So Floo can make a positive statement (Sassy has no evidence), and not have to back it up?

Isn't that double-standards?

I can assure you we will all step back, utterly defeated, as soon as you produce a fact we can all rely on.

[Nearly Sane]

I can assure you we will all step back, utterly defeated, as soon as you produce a fact we can all rely on.

Cardiff City won the FA Cup in 1927 

[floo]

Nice evasion!

your question to Sassy was
How do you know this?

Because there is none. If I state there are fairies at the bottom of my garden you would ask me to produce evidence for such a statement, god is in the same category, imo.

[Walter]

And you know this how, just out of interest?

god lives in my fridge!

[SusanDoris]

god lives in my fridge!

I wish I was good at wit!  I don't think I will waste any more time posting in response to any of SotS's posts. From his pposts, it seems to me he takes a personal pride in evading questions, but that is an assumption of course!!

[Outrider]

So Floo can make a positive statement (Sassy has no evidence), and not have to back it up? Isn't that double-standards?

Not really - it is a summary of the discussion so far - it's a positive statement where the evidence to back it up is already displayed in the record, in the lack of any evidence supplied by Sassy. It's a slight (but only slight) presumption, as of course Sassy could change the habit of her posting history and suddenly drop some evidence on us.

O.

[floo]

When there is no verifiable evidence is presented to prove that any god exists outside of the human psyche, one has to assume that either gods don't exist, or if they do, they aren't communicating with humans.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I can assure you we will all step back, utterly defeated, as soon as you produce a fact we can all rely on.

Ok.

You are unable to defend your position without reversing the point and throwing it back to the religious believer.

[BeRational]

Ok.

You are unable to defend your position without reversing the point and throwing it back to the religious believer.

If you say a god exists, then you have the burden of proof.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

If you say a god exists, then you have the burden of proof.

So if Floo says to Sassy in #81

You have no evidence to support that statement.

Does the burden of proof lie with Floo to back up her claim?

Floo's reasoning is circular. In #94, the impression is given that non-belief is because of a lack of verifiable evidence, yet in #81, the impression is given that lack of evidence is due to a claim being false.

[floo]

So if Floo says to Sassy in #81Does the burden of proof lie with Floo to back up her claim?

Floo's reasoning is circular. In #94, the impression is given that non-belief is because of a lack of verifiable evidence, yet in #81, the impression is given that lack of evidence is due to a claim being false.

There is no evidence that fairies exist either, so one can be forgiven for thinking they don't.

[BeRational]

So if Floo says to Sassy in #81Does the burden of proof lie with Floo to back up her claim?

Floo's reasoning is circular. In #94, the impression is given that non-belief is because of a lack of verifiable evidence, yet in #81, the impression is given that lack of evidence is due to a claim being false.

It's a statement that shows someone has made a positive claim of gods existence, but has not supplied the relevant evidence.

If you say a god exists, you must demonstrate this, and not by faith!