NAME JUST ONE thing....ONE THING...revealed by God....

by Terry 284 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Cold Creek Swimmer

  Bebu,

  I will agree that your answer is thought-provoking, but it still does not address the basic question. You say that atheists want a framework in which to prove an existence. How else is this to be done? You give your answer, as do many theists, with the framework that "It is up to us to figure out the reason God does things." Your answer, while making perfect sense to you, is based in the existential reasoning tat only allows for the existence of a god. Until you can reason with the idea that there may not be a god, or without the idea that god can accomplish all things, then there is no conversation with a theist.

  An atheist is accepting of the idea that there may be a god, if and when someone can show hard evidence. An atheist does not automatically assume that a theist is wrong. Too bad a theist cannot look beyond the idea that there may not be a god. When one can open their mind to that possibility, then and only then can a real discussion ensue. At that point one could understand the obvious reasons as to why there may not be a god-a different point of view, as it were.

  CCS
• 

  Jeffro

  I am not talking about an emotion, simple or even complex. I have hugged lots of stuffed animals as a child. I have hugged/been hugged by lots of people all my life. I have been married (sex!) for over 20 years. I have also encountered the love of God. These are allcompletelydifferent experiences, and the best by far is experiencing the embrace of God, hands down. The closest anything can come to it is sex, and even sex is (hopefully!) easy to distinguish from squeezing fluffy (stuffed!!) animals...

  This is isn't the first time someone has made an anology to their love for god with sex, and indeed in that vein most closely approximates Terry's example of masturbation, as there is no actual evidence of any second party being involved.
  
  On a separate note, love for God is indeed wholly an emotion, just like the fear a child has of the monster that he knows lives in his cupboard. The monster is not real, though the child's 'relationship' with the monster can seem very real.
• 

  Jeffro

  But obviously strange things have happened. Sometimes very strange, inexplicable things (in terms of the limited savvy of the people who witnessed them). Sometimes very strange, inexplicable things have happened to people with much more modern intellect and comprehension.

  To which strange things are you alluding? What evidence do you have that they actually happened.
  
  To re-illustrate your position... Suppose it were proven that extraterrestrials exist. According to your rationale, proof of their existence means for a certainty that every single previous claimed encounter with aliens must be true. Or if a dog ever eats one child's homework, then it must have been true every time it was claimed.
• 

  RAF

  NAME JUST ONE thing....ONE THING...revealed by God....

  Anything () since God is everything

  (I'm on kidding mode but not really kidding about the meaning to me)
• 

  Terry

  NAME JUST ONE thing....ONE THING...revealed by God....

  Anything ( ) since God is everything

  You didn't bother quoting the entire question! (See below)

  Name just one thing written in the Bible that was completely UNknown by humans which only a superhuman agency could have revealed. One thing.
• 

  RAF

  ... ... Terry (usualy you're way more subtle in doing that) - but this was for real fun I guess ...

  Thanks you, you really got me smiling here
• 

  AuldSoul

  ringo5: If someone asked you for the probability of this possibility, what number would you give?

  The probability of the possibility that humans can concieve without intercourse is 100%. It is now a proven fact. Many people alive today are not the product of sexual intercourse; QED humans could always have conceived without intercourse.

  If it is possible it has always been possible. Do you not know that basic fact of the way reality works? If not, I find that surprising.

  In ancient times, the possibility of non-sexual human conception was always credited to divine and extra-human sources.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Jeffro

  The probability of the possibility that humans can concieve without intercourse is 100%. It is now a proven fact. Many people alive today are not the product of sexual intercourse; QED humans could always have conceived without intercourse.
  
  If it is possible it has always been possible. Do you not know that basic fact of the way reality works? If not, I find that surprising.
  
  In ancient times, the possibility of non-sexual human conception was always credited to divine and extra-human sources.

  Again you apply the same illogical reasoning. You claim that mythological events happened as stated because something remotely similar is possible through very complex means. Or are you indeed claiming that Mary was inseminated by a team of trained doctors with the semen from a male donor?
• 

  AuldSoul

  Jeffro,

  ringo5 asked a specific question of fact. I answered his question factually. The probability that humans (as a species) can conceive without sexual intercourse is 100% probability; therefore the probability of the possibility is likewise 100%.

  The probability of it occurring in any specific incident at any specific time period would obviously be adjusted to a more specific set of constraints, while the probability of the possibility would remain at a constant 100% regardless of specific constraints.

  If, in 60 years, the scenario you described is not required for artificial insemination would you then require that the scenario available 60 years from now be probable for that specific instance you mentioned? What about the methods available 200 years from now? You are insisting that the method we use currently be available over 2,000 years ago in order to credit these accounts as possible.

  The effects are possible (i.e. conception without intercourse) at any point in human history irrespective of the methods used. Surely you agree, don't you?

  You are interchanging two different statistical ideas: probability and possibility. I am keeping them distinct. Revelation of the possibility of human conception without intercourse is always attributed to divine sources in every culture that possesses these traditional accounts of women who are impregnated without having had sex. Many of these accounts are sourced from 2,000 years ago and more.

  I am not, and have not, argued that any specific instance actually occurred, nor that these accounts of conception without intercourse are even probably true. You have put those arguments in my ... fingertips, I suppose.

  I have argued that the possibility was revealed exclusively by extra-human sources (according to all accounts); these accounts were deemed facetious by the finest scientific minds as lately as the turn of the 20th century simply because they did not know how it could be accomplished. Now you deem them facetious simply because you do not know how they could have been accomplished back then. You no longer have the arguments of three generations ago at your disposal because we now know a few ways in which the feat could be accomplished. We have theorized many other ways, all of which are feasible given certain technological advances.

  This recently accepted possibility of conception without intercourse has always been possible, and communication of the possibility was consistently attributed to extra-human origins.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Terry

  Isn't the whole question of virgin birth nonsensical in the context of RELIGION?

  Mary was a "young woman". Hebrew: almah. I believe it was the LXX which rendered the Hebrew word carelessly (as far as starting an unnecessary requirement theologically) and got the ball rolling.

  So, what does it matter?