Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.

No, what you meant to say here is something like, "a book I choose to believe to be accurate says that..." etc. If the tales of my leprechauns were written down and someone decided that that book was also "holy" our two sources of "evidence" would be equivalent.

Does it not trouble you at all by the way that those who would claim miraculous cures always confine themselves to conditions that could be cured spontaneously or by other means? Why in other words would your god just exclude arbitrarily an amputee having a limb grow back after a Christian had prayed for it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You aren't credible.

Isn't it your nap time now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Isn't it your nap time now?

Any occasion when your posts are being read is nap time. Apparently they are available in Boots  next to the Horlicks.

[BeRational]

Any occasion when your posts are being read is nap time. Apparently they are available in Boots  next to the Horlicks.

Do you now accept that the KALAM argument is useless.

You brought it up, but soon divert to other stuff.

Can we at least put this to bed with you accepting it is a useless argument for all the reasons pointed out?

At least that would be progress.

[wigginhall]

Come on guys, face it, God loves hamsters!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you now accept that the KALAM argument is useless.

I asked you to point out whenever I didn't and you failed to.

You've got some nerve as an antitheist trying this on on an antitheist site.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I asked you to point out whenever I didn't and you failed to.

You've got some nerve as an antitheist trying this on on an antitheist site.

But a lot less nerve I'd have thought than someone who's enthusiastically supported it in the past, cited it again here and demanded that others falsify it even though he tells us that he thinks it's wrong anyway, either ignores or lies about every argument that undoes him, and collapses into gibberish or abuse whenever he becomes at least dimly aware that his fox his been shot.

Now that's nerve.

PS Oh, and it's got bugger all to do with "antitheism", and nor is this an "antitheist site" by way despite your rampant paranoia on the matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

But a lot less nerve I'd have thought than someone who's enthusiastically supported it in the past,

Is this post the normal or extra strength sedative.

Oh yes and where was this done?
Why should a theist support KCA Hillside?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Is this post the normal or extra strength sedative.

Evasion noted.

Oh yes and where was this done?

In the extensive discussions we had about the KCA. Have you resiled from the other hopeless WLC arguments you used to support too by the way (objective morality etc) or just from the KCA?

Why should a theist support KCA Hillside?

Because it's an argument (albeit a bad one) for god, obviously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Evasion noted.

In the extensive discussions we had about the KCA. Have you resiled from the other hopeless WLC arguments you used to support too by the way (objective morality etc) or just from the KCA?

Because it's an argument (albeit a bad one) for god, obviously.

Sorry my position has always been clear and public. The universe could have suddenly popped out of nothing, been created ex nihilo or be eternal, eternality of course not able to answer the question why something rather than nothing.

I have never commented on WLC except to note the antitheist fallacy Argumentum ad Lane Craig, whereby because WLC is evil everything he says is wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Sorry my position has always been clear and public. The universe could have suddenly popped out of nothing, been created ex nihilo or be eternal, eternality of course not able to answer the question why something rather than nothing.

The lying is strong here. At various times you've enthusiastically asserted various very bad arguments that WLC also propounds (sometimes while referencing him, sometimes not) and when you've been undone you've either ignored or lied about the refutations and rebuttals. It's what you do. Thus the KCA, the negative proof fallacy, the objective morality mistake, the teleological argument, the ad pop, the argumentum ad consequentiam - you name it, you've tried all of them at various times. Because your positions flip-flop so much it's impossible to know which you actually subscribe to (if any) at any point in time, and which you don't (if any) at any point in time so it's all (rather uninteresting) guessing with you.

Oh, and speaking of lying you've had explained already several times that asking "why something rather than nothing?" is (yet) another error because it begs the question - you'd need to demonstrate first something to decide on a "why?". Ask how as much as you like, but "why?" isn't valid. Why you repeat the lie is anyone's guess, but there it is nonetheless.     

I have never commented on WLC except to note the antitheist fallacy Argumentum ad Lane Craig, whereby because WLC is evil everything he says is wrong.

He lied, and of course no-one argues that because he's so odious his arguments must be wrong - that's just (yet) another of your straw men.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

The lying is strong here. At various times you've enthusiastically asserted various very bad arguments that WLC also propounds (sometimes while referencing him, sometimes not) and when you've been undone you've either ignored or lied about the refutations and rebuttals. It's what you do. Thus the KCA, the negative proof fallacy, the objective morality mistake, the teleological argument, the ad pop, the argumentum ad consequentiam - you name it, you've tried all of them at various times. Because your positions flip-flop so much it's impossible to know which you actually subscribe to (if any) at any point in time, and which you don't (if any) at any point in time so it's all (rather uninteresting) guessing with you.

Oh, and speaking of lying you've had explained already several times that asking "why something rather than nothing?" is (yet) another error because it begs the question - you'd need to demonstrate first something to decide on a "why?". Ask how as much as you like, but "why?" isn't valid. Why you repeat the lie is anyone's guess, but there it is nonetheless.     

He lied, and of course no-one argues that because he's so odious his arguments must be wrong - that's just (yet) another of your straw men.

I can't say anymore than I have done. Some evidence of what you are saying usually goes down. You don't seem to have provided any.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I can't say anymore than I have done. Some evidence of what you are saying usually goes down. You don't seem to have provided any.

Are you seriously suggesting that your standard procedure isn't to ignore, to misrepresent or flat out to lie about every argument that undoes you despite your notoriety here for all of these behaviours?

Seriously though?

Pick any of the last 100 replies you've made here (or 1,000 if you like or 10,000). There's your evidence.

[Maeght]

Try praying for an amputee to be healed. That would be a good start.
-----
Of course it would. An amputee such as the high priest's servant has been healed by Jesus, but that was to confirm to those present that Jesus was who he claimed to be. We find in the Bible that God works miracles at specific points in time, when he is speaking through prophets and apostles he would confirm his word with miraculous signs.
Now we wait to hear about blue's fairies.

The bible isn't evidence.

[jeremyp]

For me I don't know why there is a God rather than no God.

So why criticise those people who profess not to know why there is a Universe rather than no Universe.

In terms of God I experience God even on those occasions when I have not wanted him. That is why 'knowing' as in knowing any factoid of science doesn't even touch defining my awareness of God. You or indeed anyone will not get that but

Hope that helps.

I experience the Universe everyday. I do not, however, experience God at all.

I am sure Spud will give you a similar report so we see agreement and repeatability.

I'm not denying you and Spud experience something, but  how do you know that something is a god? Muslims also claim to experience God but their god is incompatible with yours. If your god is real, how come nobody ever discovered a remote tribe in the Amazon that were Christians in spite of never having contact with Christians. It looks like your god only manifests to people that knew about him in advance.

In view of all the above, I don't think there is any reason to believe your god has any existence independent of the minds of Christians.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Leprechauns are more likely to be made up because they are so, well LOCAL are you sure it's leprechauns you experienced?

The Christian god is local. Your point?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why criticise those people who profess not to know why there is a Universe rather than no Universe.
I experience the Universe everyday. I do not, however, experience God at all.

Where  am I criticising people who don't know Jeremy?
What I do criticise is people saying I don't know but I know it's not etc.

[jeremyp]

Where  am I criticising people who don't know Jeremy?

This thread amongst others.

What I do criticise is people saying I don't know but I know it's not etc.

Who's that then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

What I do criticise is people saying I don't know but I know it's not etc.

One of your favourite lies that one. Be nice if one day you could finally sort out the difference between, "you've provided no sound reasons to think it's X" and "it's not X" - ie the difference between what people here actually say and your straw man version of it - but it's probably not a good idea to hold my breath on that. Ah well.

[BeRational]

Vladdo,

One of your favourite lies that one. Be nice if one day you could finally sort out the difference between, "you've provided no sound reasons to think it's X" and "it's not X" - ie the difference between what people here actually say and your straw man version of it - but it's probably not a good idea to hold my breath on that. Ah well.

I tried to show him this by asking if my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass. To which the logical answer is NO.
But this does not mean you believe it has an even number. You can reject both claims even though you know one must be true. This is some simple logic I do not think he can grasp.

[Spud]

Second, you have no comparables. To demonstrate that your god would take time out from giving malaria to African babies so as to find your nephew’s hamster you’d need to show what happened when the hamster got lost and you didn’t pray for it to be found. Lots of times in fact so as to eliminate the problem of silent evidence – ie, you have to include the misses as well as the hits in your data set if you want to claim evidence.

Third, given the fact of terrible things in the world happening to innocent people your god bothering to find a hamster rather than, say, cure someone of childhood leukaemia would tell us that “he’s” anything but benevolent which, as I understand it, is one of the tenets of your faith. That it was your cousin’s hamster rather than yours is neither here nor there by the way – presumably he was as pleased that you found it as he would have been had he found it for himself and your reward was his being pleased with you for finding it. 

And that’s your problem with claiming the efficacy of prayer as evidence for “god” – no-one has ever been able to show that it is effective. Such studies as there have been find that praying or not praying makes no difference whatever to the outcomes (in fact one study of patients in a hospital who were told that they were being prayed for suggested the that they actually did slightly worse!). Sorry, but it’s just nonsense.

The problem with making this a scientific study (comparing the results with not praying for an outcome) is that you risk losing the hamster, which is not an option because you care about it. This wasn't an experiment but a matter of life and death (and of having a dead rodent decomposing under the floorboards). I'm surprised that tests involving not praying for a patient were allowed to go ahead, because that crosses an ethical line in my opinion.
I can't prove to you either that I did pray or that the prayer was what made the hamster come out in the night and take the bait (which was balanced on a spoon that was supporting an upturned yellow bowl such that when he put his front feet on the spoon the bowl came down over him). I just know that I did, and we still have the hamster. I am more careful now so he doesn't escape. (I didn't realize at first how sneaky he could be).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The problem with making this a scientific study (comparing the results with not praying for an outcome) is that you risk losing the hamster, which is not an option because you care about it.

No it isn’t. The problem is that for all you know you’d have found it anyway so you have no argument that it was the praying wot did it.

This wasn't an experiment but a matter of life and death (and of having a dead rodent decomposing under the floorboards). I'm surprised that tests involving not praying for a patient were allowed to go ahead, because that crosses an ethical line in my opinion.

What ethical line? In one trial none of the patients were told whether or not they were prayed for, and the outcomes were the same for both groups. That is, when the claim “praying works” was tested the result was that it didn’t work at all.

When in a separate trial one group was told they were being prayed for they actually did slightly worse than the rest! Why? Presumably because they thought something like, “Oh blimey, if I’m being prayed for this must be even more serious than I realised….” which then had some negative clinical effect. To put it another way, if you don't want to cross an ethical line then don't tell people you're praying for them!

Anyway, the point is that there’s zero evidence for praying working, which was your original claim re how to test the existence of “god”.
 

I can't prove to you either that I did pray or that the prayer was what made the hamster come out in the night and take the bait (which was balanced on a spoon that was supporting an upturned yellow bowl such that when he put his front feet on the spoon the bowl came down over him). I just know that I did, and we still have the hamster. I am more careful now so he doesn't escape. (I didn't realize at first how sneaky he could be).

And you can’t demonstrate to yourself that the praying worked either. That’s why you have no business claiming it as evidence for “god”. You may find it to be a persuasive explanatory anecdote, but that’s all it is.

[SteveH]

If someone has terminal cancer and is prayed for, and the cancer disappears, you can't prove that it was the result of prayer, but it seems likely. Whether that sort of thing ever happens is another question.

[Maeght]

Bluehillside,
How about "you cannot disprove God, yet you can prove he exists"? Repeat for leprechauns.God left his fingerprints. Did leprechauns?On all three occasions when I've prayed that I can re-capture my nephew's hamster while I was hamster-sitting, I've done so, against seemingly high odds. This example is a good one because it is different from the somewhat selfish prayer that we are tempted to pray, such as for the removal of someone we don't like from our town, for example. Now lets have the statistics from your prayers to leprechauns and we'll compare.
Ps, the hamster required trapping with bait, as he had escaped down a hole under the floorboards.

How did you calculate the odds of being able to recapture the hamster without prayer?

I find it amazing that anyone actually thinks God intervenes to rescue a hamster!

[Maeght]

If someone has terminal cancer and is prayed for, and the cancer disappears, you can't prove that it was the result of prayer, but it seems likely. Whether that sort of thing ever happens is another question.

How do you determine that it is likely?