Life From Dirt?

[ratiocinator]

Belief is important. Why? How many people reach a gold medal saying “I can’t do it and I will never get a gold medal”?

You seem to be conflating two senses of the word 'believe'. Belief in oneself is rather different to demonstrating something as a matter of fact bout reality.

So, as one case, Jesus said “Lay hands on the sick and they shall recover”. Consistently I was plagued by a situation where one moment I was completely fine and in a very short period of time, I was sneezing, eye-watering, snot making moment that accompanied a fever that would knock me down for a day or two.

The pastor quoted me the scripture when it hit me on a Sunday morning and it instantly left. No fever, no more sneezing and no more snot producing 24-48 hour attack.

The next time it happened at work and I called the pastor up. She said, “Doesn’t matter, it works over the phone too” - (The soldier that understood authority). I said “Really?”. She prayed and it was instantly gone.

Then I found out the promise that healing was a promise achieved by the work of The Cross. The next time it hit me, I prayed myself and it instantly went away and didn’t come back except for one time that my wife handled with wisdom.

One anecdote is hardly very convincing for something this significant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This could, for example, be the placebo effect.

ETA: Also worth noting that this kind of result is available for endless other faith positions as well as things like homoeopathy. The problem being that when we actually try a proper objective test, like placebo controlled double blind trails, neither prayer nor homoeopathy is shown to do anything at all.

Things like unto this one. The stories are countless and too numerous to be coincidence.

Which brings me back to my original questions. Are you saying that you got every single thing you prayed for? If not, how do you explain it and what sort of proportions are we talking about? What criteria did you apply that decided whether your test passed or failed? What would it have taken for you to abandon your 'postulate'?

Also, you said, "I investigated and found out the God is real, His love is real, His gift of forgiveness is real, His deliverance is real, His presence is real, His plan for my life is real as it is for everyone." Most of those are not directly linked to answered prayers, so how did you test these?

 

[Brian2]

My comment is that animal sacrifices are no longer warranted.

Interesting comment.

 

[Brian2]

You are claiming that, but you are not being neutral.

Of course I am not neutral about Biblical prophecy and academia is not neutral either even if it claims to be. It actually says that the Bible prophecies are not true and uses that................ ah what will we call it? I know, presumption or assumption would be a good term. It uses it that presumption to date the writing of the prophecies.
If there was no good evidence that the synoptic gospels were written before 70AD I could be called biased I suppose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but there is, so I cannot be called that.
And anyway I am neutral in the way I see Bible prophecy and prophecy of any scriptures. It should not be used to date the scriptures,,,,,,,,,,,, it actually should be ignored by academia as @shunyadragon said the supernatural is, and not said to be untrue.
"Ignored""Ignored""Ignored""Ignored""Ignored"
Now there is a word that I thought people in academia and even skeptics would be able to understand,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it seems not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I am not neutral about Biblical prophecy and academia is not neutral either even if it claims to be. It actually says that the Bible prophecies are not true and uses that................ ah what will we call it? I know, presumption or assumption would be a good term. It uses it that presumption to date the writing of the prophecies.
If there was no good evidence that the synoptic gospels were written before 70AD I could be called biased I suppose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but there is, so I cannot be called that.
And anyway I am neutral in the way I see Bible prophecy and prophecy of any scriptures. It should not be used to date the scriptures,,,,,,,,,,,, it actually should be ignored by academia as @shunyadragon said the supernatural is, and not said to be untrue.
"Ignored""Ignored""Ignored""Ignored""Ignored"
Now there is a word that I thought people in academia and even skeptics would be able to understand,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it seems not.

No, if you were "neutral" you would accept the magical claims of all religions equally.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course I am not neutral about Biblical prophecy and academia is not neutral either even if it claims to be. It actually says that the Bible prophecies are not true and uses that................ ah what will we call it? I know, presumption or assumption would be a good term. It uses it that presumption to date the writing of the prophecies.
If there was no good evidence that the synoptic gospels were written before 70AD I could be called biased I suppose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but there is, so I cannot be called that.
And anyway I am neutral in the way I see Bible prophecy and prophecy of any scriptures. It should not be used to date the scriptures,,,,,,,,,,,, it actually should be ignored by academia as @shunyadragon said the supernatural is, and not said to be untrue.
"Ignored""Ignored""Ignored""Ignored""Ignored"
Now there is a word that I thought people in academia and even skeptics would be able to understand,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it seems not.

You are not neutral, because you believe the subjective scripture is evidence for the existence of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not the one who claims to be using neutrality towards the supernatural and at the same time saying that prophecy is not true and can be used to disqualify scriptures, to make them all into a lie in the name of so called neutral academia.

Science nor academic history determines prophecy is not true or true. The nature of prophecies are considered religious beliefs and recorded as such like supernatural events recorded and claimed by religions and not determined to be true or false.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are principles that govern the supernatural even as there are principles of physics that govern the natural realm. Of course, I speak as per my signature and in the context of the faith that Jesus Christ gives all of us.

It appears you haven't done much investigating into the supernatural yourself. You believe it exists because your religion told you to. I can do that much investigating. I have no religion telling me that, and no reason to believe it. There. Investigation complete.

Belief is important. Why? How many people reach a gold medal saying “I can’t do it and I will never get a gold medal”? Or you could say it this way in a natural example like Jesus used, “The Kingdom of God is like a sower who sows the seed”. If you didn’t believe, would you sow a seed?

Not an apt analogy. Training to win a gold medal and planting a seed relate to reality, which can be investigated and tested empirically.

What you are talking about is something that doesn't exist, a figment of the imagination, which is why there is nothing to investigate.

What you are actually recommending is thinking about the supernatural in the hope that that will normalize the idea and make it more palatable in the hope that critical thought defenses collapse and the notion is admitted uncritically. That probably is effective with the less intellectually mature with some reservations but still not completely immunized from indoctrination.

That describes me when I became a Christian at age 18. I was an atheist until then, and had had some college, but was still willing to engage in magical thinking, or as I worded it, to try out this ideology and see if it would begin to make sense the way one might walk for a while in a new pair of shoes that don't feel quite right in the hope that they would fit and feel better with time.

But that was then. I'm wiser now and more experienced in the ways of the world. I doubt that any amount of contemplation on the supernatural would budge me from my present position, but why would I want to test that? In the off chance that I could still be captured that way - and someday, I may do an Antony Flew and become susceptible in that way - I surely wouldn't want that to happen to me.

So, no to "investigating" (read: self-indoctrination) the supernatural.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

but I find it interesting that the experiences of people like yourself seem to have no effect on what skeptics believe or not believe.

If you've read any of my prior posts on this topic, then you'd know that I've met many skeptics who have changed their minds about the paranormal.

For example:

Where are the Dead?

... sometimes that spirit can come back to this world and cause paranormal things to happen. ... Correction: some invisible beings claim to be the spirits of those dead. That is contrary to what the Bible teaches /Ecl.9:5,10; Psal. 146:4), so these invisible beings are something else...

www.religiousforums.com

Where are the Dead?

The better hypothesis is the one that better fits all the data including unusual things called paranormal. I've been researching and investigating the paranormal for nearly 16 years (16 next month). During these years, I've traveled across the country to research and investigate both suspected...

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

You are not quite right. Lacking a belief that a god did it is rational since there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe that a god did it or a pixie did it or even a leprechaun. But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened...

www.religiousforums.com

What’s after death?

Nothing imo. The only death where something happens is when the man that god chose as his incarnate dies imo. Then of course all the dead, since this man’s inception, rise with him once again along with a new earth. What’s your view beyond death? I have no opinion, since I have never died.

www.religiousforums.com

 

[YoursTrue]

I spring from dirt regularly.
But many theories of abiogenesis posit starting in water or mud.
Dirt (which is dry) seems less suitable because chemistry would
be more difficult without water & the mobility it provides molecules.

If one finds abiogenesis too implausible, & that a beginning
for such things is necessary, then the God alternative raises
the question of whence came it / them / those. If that has
no reasonable answer, then we're back to abiogenesis.

Either way, however the posits go, you can't have evolution without whatever was supposed to happen at abiogenesis. Then you have to wonder which abiogenesis led to plants, which led to animals, etc. The theory no longer makes real sense to me. Unreal sense maybe. But not real sense.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you've read any of my prior posts on this topic, then you'd know that I've met many skeptics who have changed their minds about the paranormal.

For example:

Where are the Dead?

... sometimes that spirit can come back to this world and cause paranormal things to happen. ... Correction: some invisible beings claim to be the spirits of those dead. That is contrary to what the Bible teaches /Ecl.9:5,10; Psal. 146:4), so these invisible beings are something else...

www.religiousforums.com

Where are the Dead?

The better hypothesis is the one that better fits all the data including unusual things called paranormal. I've been researching and investigating the paranormal for nearly 16 years (16 next month). During these years, I've traveled across the country to research and investigate both suspected...

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

You are not quite right. Lacking a belief that a god did it is rational since there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe that a god did it or a pixie did it or even a leprechaun. But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened...

www.religiousforums.com

What’s after death?

Nothing imo. The only death where something happens is when the man that god chose as his incarnate dies imo. Then of course all the dead, since this man’s inception, rise with him once again along with a new earth. What’s your view beyond death? I have no opinion, since I have never died.

www.religiousforums.com

The demon spirits can affect those inclined. No doubt in my mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, if you were "neutral" you would accept the magical claims of all religions equally.

Really?? ???

 

[YoursTrue]

If you've read any of my prior posts on this topic, then you'd know that I've met many skeptics who have changed their minds about the paranormal.

For example:

Where are the Dead?

... sometimes that spirit can come back to this world and cause paranormal things to happen. ... Correction: some invisible beings claim to be the spirits of those dead. That is contrary to what the Bible teaches /Ecl.9:5,10; Psal. 146:4), so these invisible beings are something else...

www.religiousforums.com

Where are the Dead?

The better hypothesis is the one that better fits all the data including unusual things called paranormal. I've been researching and investigating the paranormal for nearly 16 years (16 next month). During these years, I've traveled across the country to research and investigate both suspected...

www.religiousforums.com

Life From Dirt?

You are not quite right. Lacking a belief that a god did it is rational since there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe that a god did it or a pixie did it or even a leprechaun. But you don't know so it is a belief that no gods or pixies did it. It's a belief that it just happened...

www.religiousforums.com

What’s after death?

Nothing imo. The only death where something happens is when the man that god chose as his incarnate dies imo. Then of course all the dead, since this man’s inception, rise with him once again along with a new earth. What’s your view beyond death? I have no opinion, since I have never died.

www.religiousforums.com

I prefer the Bible's explanation as to where the dead are...they can be in God's memory but according to the Bible the dead are...not alive.

 

[Trailblazer]

I prefer the Bible's explanation as to where the dead are...they can be in God's memory but according to the Bible the dead are...not alive.

Their bodies are dead but their spirits are alive, according to the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Their bodies are dead but their spirits are alive, according to the Bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

As you know, I don't believe in the Bible's multiple depictions of the afterlife. My forty-four years of experience seeing, hearing, and sensing earthbound spirits, as well as my personal interactions with them, have taught me otherwise. In addition to these personal experiences, my sixteen years of experience as a veteran paranormal investigator, as well as the evidence I've personally documented, have only strengthened my belief that the Bible is inaccurate in its multiple depictions of the afterlife. There is no doubt in my mind. And I couldn't care less if Christians believe that human spirits are demonic in nature because I don't believe in demonic entities or Satan. In my opinion, the stories of demons and Satan in the Bible and in Christian doctrines are nothing more than fearmongering tactics. However, I'm pleased to say that believing in demons and Satan was the last vestige of my Christian indoctination that I've let go of and have rejected. Frankly, no Christian will ever be able to convince me that the Bible is true. I dare say that your limited knowledge of the Bible is better than most of the Christians I've met in my life, especially a certain sect whose sole mission appears to be going door-to-door proselytizing.

 

[YoursTrue]

As you know, I don't believe in the Bible's multiple depictions of the afterlife. My forty-four years of experience seeing, hearing, and sensing earthbound spirits, as well as my personal interactions with them, have taught me otherwise. In addition to these personal experiences, my sixteen years of experience as a veteran paranormal investigator, as well as the evidence I've personally documented, have only strengthened my belief that the Bible is inaccurate in its multiple depictions of the afterlife. No doubt in my mind. And I couldn't careless if Christians believe that human spirits are demonic in nature because I don't believe in demonic entities or Satan. In my opinion, the stories of demons and Satan in the Bible and in Christian doctrines are nothing more than fearmongering tactics. However, I'm pleased to say that believing in demons and Satan was the last vestige of my Christian indoctination that I've rejected. I dare say that your limited knowledge of the Bible is better than most of the Christians I've met in my lifetime, especially a certain sect whose primary mission appears to be going door-to-door proselytizing people.

It doesn't matter how long you have been in contact with spirits. Jesus expelled demons from people. I'm glad I got out of that milieu a while back. Just telling you. You obviously can do what you want.

 

[Brian2]

No, if you were "neutral" you would accept the magical claims of all religions equally.

Why do you want to turn the discussion away from neutrality of academia and into some sort of crazy attack on what I might believe or not.
For a start the whole thing is not about believing, it is about how prophecies are used to date the scriptures or not.
If I were neutral I would not use the prophecies of any scripture to work out the date they were written.
If historians ignored the supernatural they also would not use prophecy to work out the date of writing.

 

[Brian2]

You are not neutral, because you believe the subjective scripture is evidence for the existence of God.

see post

• #3,116

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you want to turn the discussion away from neutrality of academia and into some sort of crazy attack on what I might believe or not.
For a start the whole thing is not about believing, it is about how prophecies are used to date the scriptures or not.
If I were neutral I would not use the prophecies of any scripture to work out the date they were written.
If historians ignored the supernatural they also would not use prophecy to work out the date of writing.

You must see that you got your claims wrong. You really should have admitted that. As to using prophecy, you can't because when analyzed properly they fail. That is when uses the same limitations applied to the Bible that you would to any other source the prophecies of the Bible fail. It is a special pleading fallacy to rely on only one as "evidence". That is just one of the reasons that they are rightfully ignored, not presumed to be wrong. by historians. I already mentioned the one about Jesus predicting that he would return before the last of his apostles died. There is no proper way to reinterpret that one. One has to lie to oneself to even try.

You were wrong about others when you were told that they did not presume the prophecies to be incorrect. They just did not bother with them since too many have been shown to be wrong. What you call an "attack" is merely a correction. You want to use your false beliefs as an excuse for a very short time period between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. When you make errors on several levels that you use as a base for your reasoning it is not an attack to correct those beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

see post

• #3,116

By the way, the prophecies made and make a lot of sense now. But that's after I asked for God's help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, the prophecies made and make a lot of sense now. But that's after I asked for God's help.

What prophecies are you referring to? What prophecies in the Bible are not failed prophecies?