Prayers for So and So

#81
#81
Obsessed said:
I would imagine you have seen your fair share of miracles.

My mother in law ( while she is wheel chair bound) is a living miracle on her own.
Click to expand...

On that note, I would also imagine there have been a fair share inexplicable and sudden illnesses and deaths.

That card works both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
VOLatile said:
Majority of medical professionals would agree with me...

Inb4 miracles.
Click to expand...

So it can be medically and scientifically proven that a person cannot have a conversation with God?

Ok provide proof of your statement. BTW I have seen many miracles, they do happen. But your entitled to your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
burntorangeVOLffle said:
I have a pet peeve when I hear someone who is facing a tough decision in life and they say they prayed and prayed until God pointed them in the right direction.

Like a college athlete who is deciding whether or not to go pro early.

99% of the time God seems to tell them the answer they wanted to hear to begin with. The one that benefits them most.
Click to expand...

Or giving God the glory when you win...people think it sounds humble, but really it just sounds like you think you are so important that God favors you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#88
#88
BigOrangeTrain said:
So it can be medically and scientifically proven that a person cannot have a conversation with God?

Ok provide proof of your statement. BTW I have seen many miracles, they do happen. But your entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof does not fall on the scientific community to discredit anything, it falls on the faithful community to prove that god speaks to them. And at this time, no proof has been given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#90
#90
VOLatile said:
The burden of proof does not fall on the scientific community to discredit anything, it falls on the faithful community to prove that god speaks to them. And at this time, no proof has been accepted.
Click to expand...

fify

I'm good with the scientific community doing their thing and the faithful community driving on with theirs. No one is obligated to prove anything to the other, especially when neither will fully accept the other's answers.
 
#91
#91
YorkVol said:
fify

I'm good with the scientific community doing their thing and the faithful community driving on with theirs. No one is obligated to prove anything to the other, especially when neither will fully accept the other's answers.
Click to expand...

I think the comment was referring to the notion that the burden of proof is on science, and it hasn't disproved anything. That is 100% wrong. No other way to put it.

It isn't the onus of science to disprove anything that isn't testable. That burden of proof lies with those making that claim. If someone says they saw bigfoot, or knows he exists, science shouldn't prove said person is wrong, the burden lies with said person to prove his/her claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#92
#92
rjd970 said:
I think the comment was referring to the notion that the burden of proof is on science, and it hasn't disproved anything. That is 100% wrong. No other way to put it.

It isn't the onus of science to disprove anything that isn't testable. That burden of proof lies with those making that claim. If someone says they saw bigfoot, or knows he exists, science shouldn't prove said person is wrong, the burden lies with said person to prove his/her claim.
Click to expand...

The scientific community spends a lot of time disproving things, always been the case.

And in the case of big foot, the person isn't obligated to prove the claim, they just have to be willing to stand by their experience and withstand the slings and arrows. The problem starts when they feel that obligation and feel that their sense of self revolves around the opinions of others. I could even see a case where someone not only saw bigfoot, but actually met him and developed a relationship with bigfoot, maybe even had daily talks with him and worked out issues in their life. At a certain point, the opinion of others and this need to prove what that person knows for certain shouldn't matter so much as the importance of that relationship in their life. Just speculating of course, we all know big foot doesn't exist, right?
 
#93
#93
YorkVol said:
The scientific community spends a lot of time disproving things, always been the case.

And in the case of big foot, the person isn't obligated to prove the claim, they just have to be willing to stand by their experience and withstand the slings and arrows. The problem starts when they feel that obligation and feel that their sense of self revolves around the opinions of others. I could even see a case where someone not only saw bigfoot, but actually met him and developed a relationship with bigfoot, maybe even had daily talks with him and worked out issues in their life. At a certain point, the opinion of others and this need to prove what that person knows for certain shouldn't matter so much as the importance of that relationship in their life. Just speculating of course, we all know big foot doesn't exist, right?
Click to expand...

Science can disprove testable phenomenon, in as much as it can be tested. Otherwise, its a matter of evidence to come up with the best explanation. Disproving negatives never comes into play. Would like to hear an example of where it has if you think otherwise.

That being said, no, science hasn't disproved bigfoot, and shouldn't have to. The evidence is there for everybody to make their own conclusion, and those claiming he exists shoulder the responsibility to prove it. Not science to disprove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
This actually has little to do with "science" proving anything, and more to do with Volatile stepping into another religious discussion and offering up criticism toward something he admittedly does not believe in... so he just took another cheap shot because that's apparently what he likes to do regarding any religious discussion.

However, in this case he actually made a claim...

VOLatile said:
Majority of medical professionals would agree with me...

Inb4 miracles.
Click to expand...

... and was asked to prove it. I, for one, would be interesting in seeing his proof.

fig17.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
IBlvNTmWrk said:
This actually has little to do with "science" proving anything, and more to do with Volatile stepping into another religious discussion and offering up criticism toward something he admittedly does not believe in... so he just took another cheap shot because that's apparently what he likes to do regarding any religious discussion.

However, in this case he actually made a claim...



... and was asked to prove it. I, for one, would be interesting in seeing his proof.

fig17.jpg
Click to expand...

That chart (a.) has no source and (b.) does not directly refute my claim that the majority of scientists and medical professionals do not believe that god speaks directly to people.

And you're correct, I have no basis for my claim either...
 
#96
#96
rjd970 said:
Science can disprove testable phenomenon, in as much as it can be tested. Otherwise, its a matter of evidence to come up with the best explanation. Disproving negatives never comes into play. Would like to hear an example of where it has if you think otherwise.

That being said, no, science hasn't disproved bigfoot, and shouldn't have to. The evidence is there for everybody to make their own conclusion, and those claiming he exists shoulder the responsibility to prove it. Not science to disprove it.
Click to expand...

The point is, no one is obligated to prove it to anyone else. I've never met Bigfoot but I do believe in God, so I would put it this way.

1. I believe in God (Christian version), the power of prayer, etc.
2. Science says I am obligated to prove that any of this stuff I believe is actually true.
3. Science can take a leap off a tall bridge for all I care.

(Note, I'm a huge fan of science for all sorts of things that don't include my spiritual beliefs so I hope science doesn't get hurt too badly when it jumps off the bridge).
 
#97
#97
I agree with York. Nobody has the burden of proof, unless you're trying to force something on the other party (for example, a law based on relgion or science).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#98
#98
YorkVol said:
The scientific community spends a lot of time disproving things, always been the case.

And in the case of big foot, the person isn't obligated to prove the claim, they just have to be willing to stand by their experience and withstand the slings and arrows. The problem starts when they feel that obligation and feel that their sense of self revolves around the opinions of others. I could even see a case where someone not only saw bigfoot, but actually met him and developed a relationship with bigfoot, maybe even had daily talks with him and worked out issues in their life. At a certain point, the opinion of others and this need to prove what that person knows for certain shouldn't matter so much as the importance of that relationship in their life. Just speculating of course, we all know big foot doesn't exist, right?
Click to expand...

So Jesus is bigfoot in this analogy? I agree with your post completely.

Who cares what someone else thinks, as long as you're content with your personal understanding.
 
#100
#100
YorkVol said:
The point is, no one is obligated to prove it to anyone else. I've never met Bigfoot but I do believe in God, so I would put it this way.

1. I believe in God (Christian version), the power of prayer, etc.
2. Science says I am obligated to prove that any of this stuff I believe is actually true.
3. Science can take a leap off a tall bridge for all I care.

(Note, I'm a huge fan of science for all sorts of things that don't include my spiritual beliefs so I hope science doesn't get hurt too badly when it jumps off the bridge).
Click to expand...

I agree. I just think it is errant to say Science hasn't disproved his existence so he must exist.

I'm atheist. It's impossible to prove the negative "he doesn't exist". And I will discuss all day the arguments/proof of the positive "he does exist". But I still say if somebody wants to convince me of their position, "science hasn't proven he doesn't exist" is a stupid argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top