Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[jeremyp]

It isn't, which is why I wrote "as you were" after it. It was just a little light diversion.
You surely can't seriously think your numbers thing proves anything.

Spud said God would tell him the numbers. This was a test to see if Spud was correct.

[floo]

I'm quite relieved the numbers were wrong. I'd have Gordon and Nearly Sane on my back asking me to explain how God hacked LR's account.

Oh blimey I never thought of that, the idea of god hacking into my account would be too awful to contemplate.

[Spud]

Spud said God would tell him the numbers. This was a test to see if Spud was correct.

I said each individual can test the claim that God answers prayer, not that God would do whatever miracle is requested of him!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I said each individual can test the claim that God answers prayer...

How?

[floo]

I said each individual can test the claim that God answers prayer, not that God would do whatever miracle is requested of him!

You seem to be backtracking.

[Spud]

Thanks. Why would that be the real world?

Because we acknowledge that without God we wouldn't be here. For example, saying grace before eating makes you aware that our food is ultimately provided by God.

[floo]

Because we acknowledge that without God we wouldn't be here. For example, saying grace before eating makes you aware that our food is ultimately provided by God.

You have made an assumption, without evidence to support it! Humans provide the food we eat, NOT god!

[Maeght]

Because we acknowledge that without God we wouldn't be here. For example, saying grace before eating makes you aware that our food is ultimately provided by God.

You might do but I don't. Not sure how that answers my question either.

[Spud]

You have made an assumption, without evidence to support it! Humans provide the food we eat, NOT god!

So have you made an assumption (that matter and life arose by chance) when common sense tells us that matter cannot spontaneously come into being by itself. So actually we need special revelation from God to confirm that he exists, which we expect through common sense.

[jeremyp]

So have you made an assumption (that matter and life arose by chance) when common sense tells us that matter cannot spontaneously come into being by itself. So actually we need special revelation from God to confirm that he exists, which we expect through common sense.

Common sense tells me God can't come into existence by itself.

[floo]

Common sense tells me God can't come into existence by itself.

'God was always there', is the answer you are likely to get that question. It makes no sense at all when in the same breath they are claiming something cannot come from nothing.

[Stranger]

So have you made an assumption (that matter and life arose by chance) when common sense tells us that matter cannot spontaneously come into being by itself. So actually we need special revelation from God to confirm that he exists, which we expect through common sense.

One of the most foolish arguments for a god that there is. Observe that we don't know why the universe exists, so insist it needs a god to explain it and then completely ignore the exactly equivalent problem of why this god just happens to exist.

Totally daft.

[Maeght]

One of the most foolish arguments for a god that there is. Observe that we don't know why the universe exists, so insist it needs a god to explain it and then completely ignore the exactly equivalent problem of why this god just happens to exist.

Totally daft.

Which is exactly what ancient people did, to create the idea of God or gods to give an explanation for what is unknown, in my view.

[Spud]

Which is exactly what ancient people did, to create the idea of God or gods to give an explanation for what is unknown, in my view.

No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinian macroevolution to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?" The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.

[floo]

No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinism to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?" The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.

[/b][/i][/u]

It is only a claim with nothing to support it.

[Maeght]

No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinism to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?"

I presume you are referring to evolution by natural selection which is about the origin of species, not the origin of life or the Universe of course. It is also a very well supported scientific theory so not equivalent to creation stories. The huge majority of the universe doesn't support life of course. What is your point again? Not clear from that post.

[Stranger]

No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinian macroevolution to explain origins.

There is copious evidence for the scientific theory of evolution.
 

The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life.

I guess that's why almost all of it is inhospitable to life.   

It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation.

It doesn't look like it has a purpose.

That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?"

Your point appears to be non-existent. The is question is relevant to any unevidenced story of an unexplained creator; such stories don't explain anything at all - except in a childish just-so story kind of way.

The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.

The bible is incoherent and self-contradictory - as are most versions of Christianity.

[floo]

No different from modern folks, who have resorted to Darwinian macroevolution to explain origins.
The universe looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life. It isn't enough just to look like it has a purpose, we need confirmation. That's the main point I was making, which still stands, regardless of the question, "well who created the creator?" The Christian claim is that the bible provides that confirmation.

The theory of evolution makes sense, there is some evidence to back it up, whereas the Biblical creation story has none.

[Spud]

You have made an assumption, without evidence to support it! Humans provide the food we eat, NOT god!

Humans grow and prepare it, but who gave us the sun and clouds to make things grow? You may say they are the result of billions of years of physical and chemical processes, which is fine. But if all the ingredients of a meal are served hot and cooked al dente it implies that someone put each of them in the oven or in the pot just at the right time. The same with the cosmos: it supports life, indeed we can say even the sun is in the best location in our galaxy for supporting life. That is either a massive coincidence or it was intended to be that way. So my point was that if it looks like it was designed to support life, then there seems to be nothing against the idea that the designer could reveal himself, as Christians believe he has.

[Spud]

The huge majority of the universe doesn't support life of course.

Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.

[Maeght]

Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.

What?

[floo]

Humans grow and prepare it, but who gave us the sun and clouds to make things grow? You may say they are the result of billions of years of physical and chemical processes, which is fine. But if all the ingredients of a meal are served hot and cooked al dente it implies that someone put each of them in the oven or in the pot just at the right time. The same with the cosmos: it supports life, indeed we can say even the sun is in the best location in our galaxy for supporting life. That is either a massive coincidence or it was intended to be that way. So my point was that if it looks like it was designed to support life, then there seems to be nothing against the idea that the designer could reveal himself, as Christians believe he has.

Even if there was some sort of intelligent designer, there is no evidence the Biblical god is it.

[Stranger]

Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.

What the hell is that supposed to mean and in what way is it relevant to your previous claim that the universe "looks like it was made for the purpose of supporting life" despite the fact that the vast majority of it does no such thing?

[Spud]

Even if there was some sort of intelligent designer, there is no evidence the Biblical god is it.

What about the bible? Unless you are also saying there is no evidence for Julius Caesar because ancient written testimony doesn't count as evidence.

[Gordon]

Life is possibly as intricate on a nano-scale as the cosmos is massive.

You're going to have to unpack this, Spud, since it has no discernible meaning as it stands.

It does win the 'Deepity of the Day' award though.