So do they want you to believe in God because they think He is mean or because they want you to believe He is not real?

You don't have to change the rules to disprove a miracle, all you need to do is show how the claimant cheated.

I would like to see this skull pls

Why change the rules? God is Himself, God is the rule, however people go to Him naturally that's pretty reasonable

U can't go back and time you can only experience the life you live in the now.

actually in the west we have people that make a living performing miracles, they're called magicians. there are two issues with miracles to prove faith: the ability for conmen to fake them and that they occur across faiths. the only way you could prove which faith is legitimate is to show that all the other miracles makers from other religions were were just tricking people's minds and that at least some miracles from your faith are beyond all doubt real. to do this you would have to perform miracles in a laboratory setting and "test" God, which supposedly he doesn't like

Kiev Caves Lavra Monastary

There are yogis too who have healing powers

Have they ever grown an amputated limb?

It is a miracle that animals can regenerate them, like lizards and stuff.

Even our cells regenerate and stuff without us consciously making it happen, we grew from that small stuff

Are animals Christian?
If basic bodily functions are all miracles, you're just a pantheist at that point.

>all you need to do is show how the claimant cheated.
and if you can't? Also just proved my point

Animals have life force just like humans do, and death is only the energy that leaves the body. You only bury a body when the life that is in it leaves, you don't bury living bodies of people and animals.

For lizards, something during their evolution made them regrow limbs, amazing in itself.

Does believing in fry pans, make you, fry-pantheist?

Because god is babby's first spook.

you raise another point: the possibility that these miracles aren't the result of a deity, but some vaguely define magic. though i don't accept this I think it is more likely than that one religion has real miracles and all others are fake since they really are instinguishable. either you can choose to reject all miracles by default because of the possibility of conmen like magicians (though they are open about their methods not being magic) or you can choose to accept all of them until falsified

Hasn't been a well-documented case so far that can't be. Besides, just taking all "miracles" at face value would mean every religion and superstition is simultaneously true at one time.

U gotta see for urself even in the smallest way to see insight into what others see.

You can't understand the description of what something tastes like from someone, unless you have something that tastes sort of like it.

You gotta eat the food, or eat something that tastes like the food. If the tongue never associates with strawberries how will it understand when someone says "it sort of tastes like strawberries "

Can experience them for yourself

we have explanations for limb regeneration in lizards and the function of body parts that are much more specific than "life force".

Then try the holy fire miracle
>inb4 fake
Burden of proof on you to prove it
>inb4 burden of proof on you
nope, thats how atheists always try to get out of things, demand the other side show proof, well now I'm going to demand the same

Life force is the regeneration of the cells and the regrowth of the lizard, and even in humans regeneration. Life force is sweating. Life force is breathing and heart beating, a general term, can be scientifically explained.

Your body cures illness without you telling it to, just like a lizard isn't like "grow back!"

They want to point out that he's not moral by any reasonable standard of the term, and that he's likely not real.

my mind can be fooled just as easily as anyone else's. Even if I myself am performing the miracle there is a possibility that I am fooling myself just as much as the audience. I will only accept a miracle that has gone through repeated laboratory trials that has been peer reviewed. any time this has been done in the past the performer either fails or is later shown to have found a loop hole around the scientists' controls

But why? It isn't any more or less, like religious people shoving the beliefs down someone throat.

The basic Wikipedia lookup required for me to know what the holy fire miracle even was provided plenty of documentation showing how it could be faked. If the priests were to submit the candles and such to testing, it could be shown pretty definitively.

Besides, you don't understand how the burden of proof works. It's on the onus of the person making a positive claim. "There exists a type of fish that speaks perfect German" is a positive claim I would need to prove, and I couldn't just tell you to disprove it and expect you to take it seriously.

But if you think your fooling yourself, then that belief is also going to reinforce itself. We do this do the miracles, but our allowing them to happen.

Science only deals with physical, and does not deal with synchronicity or deal with different patterns of mind that would go about having one be conscious of the mind, rather than be controlled by the ideas that have been reinforced, and then call it consciousness.

We keep asking for evidence just to see it on Google saying it is true, meanwhile we aren't scientists nor do we ever actually see evidence. What use is a document over an experience

maybe then I argue burden of proof as is, is arbitrary, and maybe anything and everything is arbitrary and the old saying"Power comes from the barrel of a gun" is the only truth that exists, as I point as gun to your head of course

Power comes from the hand that shoots the trigger. Power actually comes from the mind that controls the hand.

I know it isn't the best example but the mind is a powerful tool

yes, science deals with the physical. and your miracles have a measurable, physical effect. even if science is incapable of seeing the supernatural cause we can use science to see if the cause is not supernatural, but is actually being faked through physical means. that is the point of these laboratory experiments

It's consistent, is what it is. Special allowances don't get made for claims you personally are emotionally invested in.

Submitting the candles and such for independent testing would be a pretty useful step towards proving a legitimate miracle.

Miracles come from a Source that is unable to be measured. You cannot limit God, therefore, every measurement we have for God is not enough to explain anything, and reinforces that we know nothing.

You can see supernatural through science, you have to connect the smartest scientists who also held some religious knowledge and understand that they still trusted in God.

The laboratory experiments they try to use are somewhat bogus, like paranormal investigators on tv, how do we know that is the correct "scientific way" to go about it?

>The laboratory experiments they try
they as in paranormal investegators on tv*****
*

In which user literally denies the possibility that his faith is actually wrong and was created to bend the masses to the will of a few.

You do realize that paranormal investigators are filming a reality television show and generally have zero science training, right?

just as I said, the experiment is not intended to measure the supernatural cause, but to measure the physical effects and to check to see if there is a non-supernatural cause that we know gets the same results. this is simple and straight forward, nothing like "paranormal investigators"

but consistent does not mean it isnt arbitrary, and also it is worth noting that burden of proof in theory and in practice are not the same in the way just because something works on paper doesnt mean it will work as intended or as hoped, since real life and theory are two very different things

See those skeletons?

the people who used to use those skeletons now know 100% for sure that there is a God.

We know God will prove Himself to you, atheists.

We're telling you that day will be the worst day in your miserable existences.

The way it is intended to work is to describe how things are actually proven. Nowhere in the description are the words "except when it comes to God, in which case accept all cases without evidence or investigation."

Or they see how faith agrees with a scientific result/hypothesis. If your faith is strong, you are not swayed by "bending of the masses", and if your "faith" is not genuine

You have to know how to wipe your butt before you wipe a babies butt.

That is also how science is going about it, except Einstein and Tesla, very smart people who also agreed with the nature of the Spirit to some degree.

You could record energy, for mass is energy. You could also record light.

The supernatural is nature, to say nature is not only physical, but a nature is the way something will go do something.

It is in ones nature to sleep after work, the physical effect is work and sleep, but the nature is the person's force and reason to go to bed. It is the action of going to bed, not the work and the sleeping, which are recorded, and the action, is a process

>We're telling you that day will be the worst day in your miserable existences

No we are not. You might be, but no.

That is the argument, "God is evil" when God, is Eternal, God has mercy, even on the unbeliever, who may have more knowledge and merit, than one who "believes":

A smart person believing something doesn't automatically prove it true, similar to how a dumb person believing something doesn't automatically prove it false. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed very strongly in phoyographs of faries that were eventually admitted to be hoaxes.

If I make two holes in an icon and attach an oil cylinder behind it - making it "cry" over a period of time - it's not by divine source, rather I done it to trick some people.

So goes on for every single miracle.

It does not prove it false. A smart person who does not believe in something, does not make their belief correct.

If someone hoaxes, then it is revealed. Physicists make interesting relations between God, and Quantum Forces.

>it's not by divine source, rather I done it to trick some people.

that is called tricking people, not a miracle from divine Source.

Miracles are not illusions.

>According to Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi, the 13th century Ayyubid ruler Al-Muazzam Turanshah is mentioned as having discovered the fraudulence of the Holy Fire; however, he allowed the monks to continue their fraud in exchange for money.

from Edward Gibbon
>This pious fraud, first devised in the ninth century, was devoutly cherished by the Latin crusaders, and is annually repeated by the clergy of the Greek, Armenian, and Coptic sects, who impose on the credulous spectators for their own benefit and that of their tyrants.

so this whole thread is just op trying to satiate his ego and all our arguing over religion, philosophy, etc, means nothing since all of it comes down to personal belief, faith etc

Miracles imply they're magic, of divine source.

Both magic and God are fiction, suddenly miracles stopped occurring with the prevalence of camera and scientific method being known and used even by kids in kindergarten...

because muslims couldn't be biased and he is the only one in centuries huh?

You can only get to God without ego, or the constant subtracting of ego.

This thread, because the other threads, attacking religious people, makes a balance.

What is important is your personal belief and faith. No religion is being mentioned, only God

>miracles stopped occurring
says you, again in eastern Christianity its a common occurence

>Both magic and God are fiction
is an opinion without ANY evidence.

You can experience God and miracles. You don't know someone until you meet them, otherwise, your mind will not imagine their fact or hear their correct voice. People you never have met, you cannot say they do not exist

Because eastern Christianity is most common in third and second worlds, which are stuck in medieval age - mentally.

We could start making a list of stupid and irrational shit in orthodox church and even have to make a new thread..

Science.

>In 2005, in a live demonstration on Greek television,[20] Michael Kalopoulos, author and historian of religion, dipped three candles in white phosphorus. The candles spontaneously ignited after approximately 20 minutes due to the self-ignition properties of white phosphorus when in contact with air. According to Kalopoulos' website:

>If phosphorus is dissolved in an appropriate organic solvent, self-ignition is delayed until the solvent has almost completely evaporated. Repeated experiments showed that the ignition can be delayed for half an hour or more, depending on the density of the solution and the solvent employed.

Science makes no claims to prove God to be real or false, having no evidence to prove either God or no God.

You cannot find God, by setting up an experiment with intent to make sure the evidence points to your own opinion.

Define your God.

yes, but then now the candles also have to be tested, and also one must explain how this has been happening for centuries

So because a country is second or third world that matters? Begone to /pol/ with thee

Not an argument. But that's how you bronze-age myth lovers operate... there's no rational thinking in you.

>So because a country is second or third world that matters?

No shit.

It demonstrates that they don't understand how modern society works well enough to engage in it.

This is an adults only discussion, no Russians.

The properties of phosphorous have been known for centuries also. And yes, the candles do need to be tested, and I imagine the reluctance to do so is comes from a very practical source.

God is without limit, and definitions make limits.

Someone says Christian, everyone assumes their routine. Someone says atheist, everyone assumes assumption.

Your definition, for yourself, is more valid, than someone else behind a computer screen

not arguments

Maybe you lack education, that might be your problem.

Makes sense.

I could be Cicero, but if I'm talking to a rat it's just noise.

Yes, and? They consider their ideology something worth pushing, and so long as there remains a group counter to them that wont stop pushing their ideals (it's not as though preachers will stop preaching if atheists stop talking) it's worth it for them to keep countering these ideals. It's not as though this is a matter of zero consequence either. Religious groups often hold considerable sway in politics. If left to their own devices, there are plenty of groups that would happily use their ideology as an excuse to run roughshod over people that disagree with them. Criticism is part of a free society, deal with it.

We all lack education, it is a cause for learning.

Or people could just learn to understand each other better

You lack the basic one, you're stuck in medieval times.

That's all well and good. But one group is pretty content to let you live how you want, and the considers it their ideological duty to spread "the good news" by any means necessary, and has a history of doing so through some very nasty means. They deserve to receive criticism, and indeed this criticism is part of a healthy, functioning society.

No one is stuck in medieval times, it is 2016. Why say someone lacks knowledge? It seems you say they lack knowledge because they don't agree with your opinion.

Religious people do it, Atheistic people do it. "You must be stupid because you don't agree with me, get off my Veeky Forums"

More because poverty tends to mean things like cell phone cameras and the necessary education to apply scientific reasoning or critical thinking to such matters are less common.

Also, stepping outside of the scientific argument Hume provides a perfectly valid reason to doubt any and all miracles.

Further, even a supernatural miracle doesn't prove God. Let's take the biggest one, Jesus' resurrection. What's to say he isn't a pagan demigod pulling a long con by destroying competing cults?

Atheist also do not want you to live how you want, only the illusion that they are about freedom and acceptance. Everyone is different, no atheist is the same, no Christian is the same, not all Christians hate everybody.

The internet, everyone's opinion suddenly is a fact backed up by science? It is like the internet is more ridiculous than having no God or a religion, at least Veeky Forums

>Why say someone lacks knowledge?

Because education standards and literacy rates are typically substantially lower in those countries. They say they lack knowledge because they do. Jackass.

You don't even have an opinion, you try to defend a God you're not even capable of defining by saying irrational shit.

You're an retrograde.

>Atheist also do not want you to live how you want, only the illusion that they are about freedom and acceptance.

Oh, so that's why atheists by and large have been a major driving force behind secular states that guarantee freedom of religion?

Some advice from my Friend

>For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

We don't need to define something greater than definition, definitions limit a term and also create biased assumptions. You can call Becky mean, but if someone else never meets Becky, they can't go off of what someone says about her, they have to meet Becky for themselves.

God will do exactly what He said He will do.

Exactly.

Freedom of religion is universal, should be at least. It is natural to agree each person should be allowed what they want to believe, does not need to give credit to "atheists allows us to believe whatever we want"

No, you have your own power to believe your own beliefs, even if you must in secret.

> thats how atheists always try to get out of things, demand the other side show proof, well now I'm going to demand the same
i kekked irl

Oh get fucked you spineless milquetoast.

>We don't need to define something greater than definition

But god is not greater than definition. Countless thinkers have taken that task and come up with perfectly viable definitions. I'm done with you, you pathetic fucking hippy.

God is greater than definition, because you are dealing with experiences, speechless moments, thoughts that are not language but abstract feeling.

Minor definition sure, those will do for a little while, but hearing about God is not the same as approaching God.

God surpasses and transcends them all.

Read Aquinas, read Spinoza, read Lao Tzu. Stop being intellectually lazy, you're a cancer on this board, and your mode of thinking/discussion gets no one any further in thought.

They don't define God at all, in fact, they do the opposite and explain what God might be like, but none of them claim any one definition to do, rather they could talk for eons about God, and still admit they are only starting to explain God

Also, using words like calling someone cancer, is intellectually lazy

You're just brainwashed, you're just not seeing it. Might be your biological limits or years of indoctrination.

Look at image, trying to help you make up your mind - tell us at least which divinity you worship.

>not worshiping Sir

Brainwash commonly means "controlled" and when you really find God, you really see you control yourself, and always have. You must wash your brain of the bullshit that everyone tells you what to believe in order to really learn the mind.

Biological limitations come from being taught we are always right, multiple choice, true and false, this is what you must do, etc etc etc, and the real indoctrination brainwashing people is the school system not teaching kids the psychology of their own mind, and how to think for themselves

when you find God? But you said God can't be defined or explained... how do you identify God then - are you certainly sure it's not someone else idea or mental illness?

In other words, not opening up to ideas and semi-insulting people, is not controlled by you, rather by your reaction. That would be biological limitation in the mind, which you totally have the ability to be over

You can find a new species of animal today and have no idea what to call it or even compare it to. You found what you were looking for, but you cant even start to explain it.

To define, is to describe, to find, is a result from looking for something.

God is His own idea originating from His existence.

Imagine seeing a color never seen before, you cant define it, but you have found it