So a friend of a friend of a friend of someone who used to go to high school with your third cousin said they saw a baby pray without any influence, because they were surgically attached to the parents 24/7 and can testify there was no influence?
Bunk.
God's limits are actually defined by man interpreting a book. One person, or religious group claims a different interpretation... how do the religious determine the correct interpretation? Rock, Paper, Scissors?
Offer some proof up please, and I will easily refute it.
This isn't "The Secret", where you just put it out there and somehow it makes it real.
All atheists believe in horoscopes and aliens. That's news to me. This is the narrow minded, inexperienced world view living out of a book produces.
Even your own book allows for false prophets and man being a lying sinner.
Orthodox Jews don't believe Jesus is the messiah, and they don't buy into your history, or the New Testament.
One group is completely wrong. Which is it?
How much do you know about QM and the "mathematics" involved?
I always find it a rich hypocrisy for the religious to use discoveries made by those who refused to accept religion and god as the final answer.
If physicists had simply stopped at the imaginary friend theory, Merriam Webster would...
Again, look up the word "Connotation".
Like any racial epithet, discriminatory label, or immature name calling... your use of the word "absurd" is used in the same vein.
Merriam Webster defines "imagination" as:
:the ability to imagine things that are not real
: the ability to form a...
You do realize definitions change, and words are added to the dictionary all the time... right?
You treat the dictionary like a bible. It's weird. Was it the number 1 definition, or the number 2... and is Merriam Webster right now having meetings to possibly update that definition?
Get out of...
Well... technically we don't know the physics of what we call thought... yet... and it may be governed by something like molecular physics... so what you perceive as a choice is simply an interaction between molecules acting on a given set of physical, predictable rules.
Regardless... the point...
Whether or not free will is an illusion and we are at the mercy of cause and effect physics, or we somehow have the ability to effect change by willful thought...
... it is not proof of a God, nor that he wants us to wear a Turban, make the sign of the Holy Cross, or pray on a mat 5 times a...
Great copy paste.
Look up the word "connotation". Even your Merriam Webster Bible also allows for words to have meaning beyond the literal sense.
There is more to intellect than rigidly defining something without allowing for expansion of the original definition as more knowledge is acquired...
External to you.
If you cannot physically have access to your book, you cannot connect with your god. There is nothing spiritual about it.
No book. No god.
It is an external object.
Take your book out of your hands before you can read it all, and you don't know what your internal kingdom is supposed to be about.
It really is that simple, and logical, so the mystical inner Camelot theory comes 100% from your external source... a material...
Unfortunately, you have the same body parts as atheists, so you are of your body. There is no divine intervention somehow making you better than everyone else.
If you don't have the book, you don't have the word of your god, and therefore, since he won't actually reveal himself, you rely solely...
Enough with the pseudo-intellectualism please.
My "I" is the same I as your "I", therefore, according to your logic, your purpose is an illusion as well.
Your "higher state of consciousness" is based solely on a book... a material possession.
Please explain *your* purpose.