Archived

Belief without Warrant

Read 39506 times

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2011, 08:42:27 pm »
Sir, your laughter is unbecoming. And uncival. You make a great case for not being Christan if thats how Christans treat people with serous questions. My whole eternity is at stake and you mock me because you do not have an answer for me. Sir, I pitty you. Its easy to test any human, or molecules, etc. Yes, we go looking for them. We use a metholigiy to find and TEST them. We cant do that with God. Why not? I'm holding God to the SAME standards as I do anything or everything else. If I (for whatever reasion) did not know who the presendet was, I could find out. If I am not sure what I am made out of, I can find out. We can test anything other then God. We can pretty much deside the issue on big foot, he does not exist. If anyone wants to claim he does, they must prove it with data. Mainly a big foot. Alines have never visitided earth. Anyone that wants to prove that must show evedance of them doing it, any alien artifict could do that, materals, videos, etc.

Spirts are not testable.
Prayer is not testable.
God is not testable.
Nothing supernatural is testable, at all. Why not?
Can anyone answer this simple question with a real answer?


1

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2011, 01:04:37 pm »
infinitehope wrote: Sir, your laughter is unbecoming. And uncival. You make a great case for not being Christan if thats how Christans treat people with serous questions. My whole eternity is at stake and you mock me because you do not have an answer for me. Sir, I pitty you. Its easy to test any human, or molecules, etc. Yes, we go looking for them. We use a metholigiy to find and TEST them. We cant do that with God. Why not? I'm holding God to the SAME standards as I do anything or everything else. If I (for whatever reasion) did not know who the presendet was, I could find out. If I am not sure what I am made out of, I can find out. We can test anything other then God. We can pretty much deside the issue on big foot, he does not exist. If anyone wants to claim he does, they must prove it with data. Mainly a big foot. Alines have never visitided earth. Anyone that wants to prove that must show evedance of them doing it, any alien artifict could do that, materals, videos, etc.

Spirts are not testable.
Prayer is not testable.
God is not testable.
Nothing supernatural is testable, at all. Why not?
Can anyone answer this simple question with a real answer?



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! How do you know spirits, prayer, God etc. are not testable? What attempts have you made to examine whether they're testable or not - or are you just relying on atheistic GUT FEELING ? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Do you even know what YOU MEAN by "supernatural", "spirits", "prayer", and "God"? If not, no wonder you have NO IDEA how to set about testing for them! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Or perhaps "supernatural" is just "what I don't know about yet" TO YOU! Again, no wonder you have NO IDEA how to test for things in that category! The problem is YOUR IGNORANCE - NOTHING ELSE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

2

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2011, 01:54:34 pm »
infinitehope wrote: Sir, your laughter is unbecoming. And uncival. You make a great case for not being Christan if thats how Christans treat people with serous questions. My whole eternity is at stake and you mock me because you do not have an answer for me. Sir, I pitty you. Its easy to test any human, or molecules, etc. Yes, we go looking for them. We use a metholigiy to find and TEST them. We cant do that with God. Why not? I'm holding God to the SAME standards as I do anything or everything else. If I (for whatever reasion) did not know who the presendet was, I could find out. If I am not sure what I am made out of, I can find out. We can test anything other then God. We can pretty much deside the issue on big foot, he does not exist. If anyone wants to claim he does, they must prove it with data. Mainly a big foot. Alines have never visitided earth. Anyone that wants to prove that must show evedance of them doing it, any alien artifict could do that, materals, videos, etc.

Spirts are not testable.
Prayer is not testable.
God is not testable.
Nothing supernatural is testable, at all. Why not?
Can anyone answer this simple question with a real answer?



By the way, can you tell me how you've tested for the existence of Space - or does it not exist to you because it is not material? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You're just a solipsistic buffoon! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

3
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2011, 02:51:05 pm »

infinitehope wrote:

Spirts are not testable.
Prayer is not testable.
God is not testable.
Nothing supernatural is testable, at all. Why not?
Can anyone answer this simple question with a real answer?


hello infinitehope,
There are several things going on with what we term as reality, is there not?  We treat Time as if it is a property, when actually it is only a measurement of movement or of decay which is always relative to what it is measuring.  Time has no physical properties you can directly observe separate from the actions it measures which is known by other identification labels.

Why is it the appeal to empirical evidences gets confused with varying standards of proof which have no validity because all such proofs are field-determinate?  For example, you cannot prove I am or am not an individual person.  Perhaps I'm writing as the avatar for a small group of people who answer together under this identity called "gralan".  How can I prove one way or another conclusively with empirical evidences that would fit your standard?

Do you have an actual standard that differentiates between varying reliablitiy of proofs?  Do you recognize even the hard sciences use varying canons of proof?

I would welcome discussion, if you wish substantive dialogue -- although I cannot say I will add much to a positive conclusion or acquisition of awareness since I am just a mere person.   I've tried to follow the thread but it appears there are several standards being used.

If there is truth, and proof, the difficulty is not infinite regress for such is a difficulty of human logic which is external from that which it attempts to apprenehend.  Either something "is" or "is not", or there is no meaning even to having a conversation about it.

I welcome, as always, emails to my account; hoping that someone will enlighten me in my ignorance.
suffering servant,
gralan
BTh student
http://TrinityTheology.org/
..................Prov14.31 Micah6.8 Heb13.3 Matt5.48 Titus3.14 James1.27

4

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2011, 03:40:43 pm »
gralan wrote:

Quote from: infinitehope

Spirts are not testable.
Prayer is not testable.
God is not testable.
Nothing supernatural is testable, at all. Why not?
Can anyone answer this simple question with a real answer?


hello infinitehope,
There are several things going on with what we term as reality, is there not?  We treat Time as if it is a property, when actually it is only a measurement of movement or of decay which is always relative to what it is measuring.  Time has no physical properties you can directly observe separate from the actions it measures which is known by other identification labels.

Why is it the appeal to empirical evidences gets confused with varying standards of proof which have no validity because all such proofs are field-determinate?  For example, you cannot prove I am or am not an individual person.  Perhaps I'm writing as the avatar for a small group of people who answer together under this identity called "gralan".  How can I prove one way or another conclusively with empirical evidences that would fit your standard?

Do you have an actual standard that differentiates between varying reliablitiy of proofs?  Do you recognize even the hard sciences use varying canons of proof?

I would welcome discussion, if you wish substantive dialogue -- although I cannot say I will add much to a positive conclusion or acquisition of awareness since I am just a mere person.   I've tried to follow the thread but it appears there are several standards being used.

If there is truth, and proof, the difficulty is not infinite regress for such is a difficulty of human logic which is external from that which it attempts to apprenehend.  Either something "is" or "is not", or there is no meaning even to having a conversation about it.

I welcome, as always, emails to my account; hoping that someone will enlighten me in my ignorance.


Thanks for your kind words, I'm ingoring mwalimu and if I could, would report him to the moderator for clearly being a troll. Anyway on to your actual and logical comments.

First, I asked a basic question, "why is not God empericaly testable?" so far, I've not goten any answer per say. Other then illgoical assertions and being accused of asking God to jump though some sort of hoop for me. There are, even in science, a few objects that we (currently) can not test, one would be the quark. We have theroised such a thing exists, but we can not test it as yet, since it is so small, we observe the actions of the things around it and fourmulate a theroy that it might exist. However if the quark does or does not exist does not "matter" in any meeningfull way for humans. One day we might find out it does, or we might find out it does not , or who knows. It really does not pose any issue for anyone other then the scientist trying to find out what is causing the molecules to behave they way they do.

However, on the issue of God or Gods or gods etc I think that everyone is in agreement that it matters a whole lot if such a thing exists. We would want to know about it, why it did what it did, and what its plans are for us, if any, and so on.

See, if God is empericaly untestable, this rases the question of - "why" we can, for example,  answer why your statments are not testable. For example, you said I have no idea if you are typing as a single person, or a group of people. There is not (so far) a test though the internet a way to find that out. However, if one wanted, they could trace your internet protical (IP address) find where its connected to, and possibly find your computer terminal, they could do a stake out and observe who is typing the infromation into the computer, if its a group or just one person, and document that information. So, there IS a way to find out more about who is doing what, but the leaps one would have to though to get that information is pretty high. Still, the fact remains - one could find out.

Your right and wrong about what time is, but I have only glossed over quantom mechanics as a hobby and would be unable to talk about that, and it would cause a tangent. I'll say that its a complex issue and leave it at that.

However, again - even in that case we do have something to messure, in this case the rate of decay over time, and we also have the messurement of the sun to base an abartry fourm of "time" on that we can say that its 2:29pm.

The issue is not one of asking why God is hidden  although that is a question as well, but why God is not empericaly testable. After all, for the most part, we can test or find out more about just anything. Again, using your example of the avatar of yourself and that we cant know if you are a guy, girl, both, robot, or group of people or group of robots (or other ai) we could, if we had the reseroces, find that out by using the systems of the internet and computers etc. In fact, the govemrent does it all the time to track down people who do illegal actions with there personal computers, even expert hackers can be, with enough data- caught. However, in that extreem case the person is TRYING to hide. If I said that I know a woodsman named Bob who is an excaped convict living in the woods somewhere in the world, it would be hard to track down that person, but with more information, you could - if such a person did exist.

Again, however, it just does not "matter" if Bob exists or not. Other then to those who they are escaping from. Still we could find him with enough information, test to find out if he did or did not do said crimes etc.

We can not test God. We can not find God. We can in no way identifiy "what" God is.

We can not commucate (two ways) with God.
We have (for fact) several commucation dishes and satalitghts lissining for other life. We, as a human species have heard nothing from God.

Now, you might be inclined to say that Jesus is the way we heard from God. But there are so meny issues with that.  

Now, I dont want to bring more issues into it, since the orginal question is simply why God is not empericaly testable. Meny things are, most things are, and those things that are not do not "matter" in the way God does. So why would something that is so vital to us as people be untestable?


5

hamlet

  • **
  • 266 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2011, 03:05:47 pm »
Here are some things I learned from reading the Christian philosophers Alvin Plantinga and William P. Alston. Perhaps it could be interesting. Modern philosophy (Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Reid) showed us that many of our most important beliefs are not susceptible to empirical tests or proofs. For example, the existence of a world external to my mind, the existence of minds other than my own, the reality of the past, and the like. Of course, we all believe that we are perfectly rational to believe that there is an external world and the like, but we don't hold those beliefs on the basis of empirical evidence.

When you think about it, sense perception itself cannot be proven reliable by empirical methods. Any attempt to do so would involve what some have called 'epistemic circularity.' It involves attempting to prove that a faculty like sense perception is valid or reliable by way of sense perception itself. There is no way to 'show' that sense perception really is reliable because we can't get 'outside ourselves' and check up on it.

What if the knowledge of God is very often like that? That is, what if it is something you can experience but can't verify without running into the problem of epistemic circularity? In other words, what if it is like sensing the divine when you look at the stars in the night sky, walk through the silent, snow-covered woods, witness the birth of a child, or feeling a sense of utter dependence on God, or the contingency of everything, or a sense of divine disapproval upon doing something low or mean, or feeling thankful for your very existence, or feeling as if something in scripture is aimed directly at you, or feeling yourself changing as you try and live the spiritual life, becoming much less self-absorbed and able to truly love others in a new way? Those would be indirect experiences of God, like seeing the straw on the barn floor move and realizing there is a mouse under there.

Alvin Plantinga has suggested that, in the same way that many people think we have a moral sense, we also have a divine sense. The sorts of circumstances I mentioned would be occasions for forming beliefs about God, just as other circumstances serve as occasions for forming moral beliefs. (It wouldn't be that you think to yourself, "I'm having this experience, I therefore conclude there is a God." One may think that, but the experience itself isn't just a premise in some argument.)  In neither case do you use sense perception (specifically, sight) to see morality itself or God, although sense perception is of course involved. We also can't see that there are other minds, or the reality of the past, or the reality of the external world. The fact is most people in most times and places have believed in God or something very much like God. It's the norm. They haven't considered themselves to be aware of God by way of empirical tests. It's been held traditionally that God is not one of the objects of the universe, but it has also been held that God is present everywhere. Obviously, the word 'present' is being used in an indirect kind of way, not in the sense that we say a tree is 'present' in my field of vision. So while all this is experiential, it isn't necessarily amenable to empirical tests or scientific methods. Now one could object that this moral sense and divine sense are not like sense perception and that they are therefore nonsense or unreliable. But that is just a bit of imperialism; it's like saying, "everything must be like sense perception or else!"

It's true that many people think God can be known in a more direct way than I have described—in the person of Jesus, for example, or in more direct experiences. Many more people claim to have had dramatic religious experiences than you might think. But they would, I think, agree with me on this indirect experience of God. Here is an essay of Alston's on some of these issues that might be interesting.


6

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2011, 05:09:00 am »
I've had, what I would call spritual experances and even one or two that I would conseder experances from God/and or beound my ablity to understand. However, if we are to say that we can not prove our sences work since they too are inside of our mind to some extent, then nothing can be sure. I'm resonable to think that the world is real because I experance it, the question is what that experance really is. For example, I had a very realistic dream with meny complex ideas and immages that I could write about, however, the moment I woke - I knew it had been a dream. During the dream, I was not aware I was dreaming. The movie Inception basicly asks us this quesiton, as does Matrix, the 13th floor and other storys and movies. alice in wonderland incounters Tweedledum and Tweedledee who state that if she (and them) are all part of the Red Kings dream. But, I think that, we should assume we are real, that others are real, and that we can, for the most part, trust most of our sences.

Now, when one has a dream, halusation, or experance, this is powerfull, wonderfull, and unique, but it is not empericaly testable in any reasionable manor. Yes, YOU had the experance, and someone else might think they had one simular to it, but if meny others experance it, or something close - surely the experance is real right? Yes... Dr. Andrew Newberg has shown that the brain is telling (whoever) that the spritual experance they are having is "more real the reality itself" BUT, andrew newberg points out that says nothing about it actualy BEING soemthing real, rather then just something our brain does. Perhaps as a coping mecnisem.

That we have had any experance that is beound us is not that strange, in fact, I would auge that its genitic. Some people have had no experances at all, meny ex-christans report having spent years in chrich being very devot and never once, not ever, no matter how hard they try, have an experance, I submit that this is most likely due to evoultionary process. Now, whos to say what one is more usefull for survival, the trate that alows one to have a spirtual experance, or the one that lacks it. But, this is a far more reasionable possibly.

Now, some will auge that this is just explaining away the experance as part of a natural thing and that does not negate that it "could be really real" sure, we (as a nation) spend money on lissioning in for extra trestal's commucation. We have not heard anything yet, but we still spend our money and time and effort on it. Its POSSIBLE that alines might exist out there, but if they do, it doesnt really matter, and they have most sertnely not told us.

However, again - on something so vital to the world , so inporant, so meeningfull that one would want some sort of reserch done - there is nothing but philipical augments. And even Dr. Craig' points out his faith is not based on the augments. Then what is his fath based on? The experance!

Again and again, most if not all religous people are not religus becuase of evedance and augments , but because of experance. Why are there mormans? Why are there hindu? Why are there (insert ancent and current chinise religons here)? because some, or most of the people had an experance, and I'd be willing to wager that there are meny inside that group that have no such experance, but perhaps contune on anyway, in hopes that they have it right, or perhaps because they have friends, its tridadional, its family, socal, etc.

Whats worse is that all those that "think" they are having an expearance are all not REALLY having the REAL one - because only the "true" religon has the real experance. Everyone else is just wrong.

It gets even more cumbersome if you interduce the idea of evil spirts that could trick people, after all if such spirts exist, whos to say they are not tricking the christans into thinking they are right , when really they are wrong?

The reasion why I would like some emperical way to test for God is so that all these issues would just go away. Currently, and if we are all honest, there IS NO WAY TO DO IT. Why? I do not know. It bothers me, and meny of the responces here have bothered me greatly.

I do not know what to belive right now. I hold onto my current faith only because it is most familar, but, regretably cna not say that I do so because of evedance.

Peace.


7

hamlet

  • **
  • 266 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2011, 03:20:52 pm »
It's possible in a lab to cognitively manipulate a person into thinking they are seeing an object (say, an apple) when they are not. Does that prove that there are no apples. No. Similarly, it doesn't follow from the fact that our brain can be manipulated into having spiritual experiences that there is no spiritual reality.

And if spiritual experiences have a grounding in genetics, that wouldn't show that there is no spiritual reality. Sense perception no doubt has a grounding in genetics as well.

As for people who seem to lack this divine sense. For one thing, we often experience and feel things without realizing it. Some people are afraid of dying without consciously realizing it. Many people live for years without being fully aware of their emotions. Plus, all of us tend to be self-absorbed, seeing ourselves as the center of the universe, and viewing others as competition. This can cause us to be closed, rather than open, and can cause us to harden our hearts (perhaps this goes on almost subconsciously sometimes) in all sorts of ways. In the Christian tradition, that is partly what is meant by saying that human nature is involved in sinfulness. And the question remains, Why think everything has to be like sense perception?

Also, the idea that some people have a better grasp of parts of our experience of reality is not an idea that is foreign to us in other areas of life. Take humor as an example. Sometimes you have to know some things in order to see the humor in a situation or a joke. The same goes for beauty; to really appreciate a sonata, a certain amount of knowledge is required. Think about how physicist talk about the beauty of equations. I can't see the beauty because I don't understand the equations. Similarly, a fellow like Richard Dawkins may not be the best judge of spiritual things. In the New Testament, you will find Jesus saying that those who love God with every last bit of themselves and who love other people as they love themselves will come to know God, and it will set them free. He seems to be saying that if you do something, then you will come to know something.

W.L. Craig says the way that he knows God is not through philosophical arguments, but he also says that the way to help someone see that God is real or to help them be able to take God's existence seriously is to give good philosophical arguments. But he also talks about the immediate experience of God that is possible.

You said that only the true religion has the real experience and the other are false. Well, not everyone believes that. I see no reason to think it is true. I do think it is true that if one religion affirms a proposition the other denies, then they cannot both be correct. But it doesn't follow that people in different religions couldn't have real spiritual experiences of God filtered through their various traditions. It's perfectly possible to experience something and then say incorrect things about the experience. We do it all the time.

You end by saying there is no way to empirically test God. Well, not in a laboratory. God is a being or person, not some inanimate object. And God isn't one of the objects of the universe. But there is some data that we have to work with: the divine sense that I have talked about, more direct experience of God, the existence of anything at all (rather than just nothing), the moral life which seems to many people to be a clue to the meaning of the universe.

W.L. Craig has talked about doubt; his advice was to take some issue that is bothering you and pursue it into the ground until you get a good answer. Keep looking! And good luck.

8

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2011, 04:39:19 am »
been awhile, but personal or inner experance does not help comferm the reality of God , since this is something that comes after a religon has sugested it, not before. List or name or show one person that has come to belive in this idea without being told about it.

The other issue that the last post brings up is that everyone of every religon might be "filtering" the real God though there own ideas. So, what was the point of God laying out any sort of execulsive foundation at all?

As far as people who can not experance (X) vs those who can, this is due to genitics, so people are badly made, unable to KNOW that they ever had a spritual experance, so they miss the bus. So only those that miss the bus due to no falt of there own are doomed, where as at least maybe the other relgious person who found God but filtered Him though there own ideas... so anyone that belives in some sort of God is at least a little better off then that person that does not.

But again, this is somewhat blown out of the water once the truth teller of Christanity tells that pour hindu they got it wrong, the hindu does not belive, and now are doomed. They were better off before, now they are not.

Again, none of this answers the first question. None of it. What you said is just because we can trick your mind into beliving that an apple is there (when its not) does not nessarly meen the apple does not exist. Yet this is a STRAWMAN... if I wanted to do the same, I would say I could make you think a lepercan existed using technoligy, but that doesnt meen they dont exist.... see why it doesnt work?

The question remains-  why isnt God empericaly testable. No one has answered this yet.


9

Alyosha

  • **
  • 34 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2011, 08:54:33 am »
@infinitehope

For simple reason, God is just not something that can be empirically tested. Lets consider what is empirical testability?

1) Something is empirically testable if it can be tested through senses.
2) Senses can only detect matter or energy.
3) God is neither matter nor energy
4) God is not empirically testable.

I hope that answers your question.


10

neil meyer

  • **
  • 168 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2011, 12:16:52 pm »
this seems to me a objection the follower of scientism bring up. Their are many philosophical theories for religion, but those hold little sway to the scientific naturalist I guess

How many unprovable hypothesis are their in physics I wonder. Does not seem to invalidate that discipline.

The notion of a God is rather abstract. What test are we going to do in the lab thats going to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 I ask you. Scientism has been dealt with on the podcast on this website. Maybe the OP should listen to them.

I get mildly annoyed when people ask questions on the forums that could easily be answered by listening to a podcast.

Seems like most of the atheist on these forums just want to stick it to some Christians

Proud follower of Christ

11

Andrew Gray

  • **
  • 61 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2011, 11:51:58 pm »
infinitehope wrote: Why is God totaly untestable? Not only does the Bible say we are not alowed to, but any test I've seen into (prayer) gives about the same result as you might expect to see from chance alone. No "unexplainable" miricals happen as a result of any prayer tests so far.
Here are a couple of exmples:
regrowing of limbs, or brain tissue. Knowalge of fucture events that are confermed (more then once)

both would be just inpossible to explain away as natrual or other. Regrowing of body parts or brain tissue is just pyhyiscaly inpossible for the body to do, more so on larger scale.

Knowing fucture events with confermation has long been saught after by goverments of the world. Prophy is in the bible. Why not alow such prophy to take place here and now, repeatable, so that we can varyfy it as a real thing?

Now, in one or both cases prayer is our only link to the devine. In one case, healing we have promices thoughout the bible that say if we pray in Jesus name that we will have it fullfilled, praying for healing of someone else, AND having that healing be something unmestakably miricalus would help skeptics to put down there sketpicsm towards mirical events. If said event only happened when Chirstans prayed, and no one else, even better.

So... why not? Why will this not happen?


I hear ya man.  I wonder this a lot myself.  One thing that has helped me a lot when thinking about this is that when you read the Bible, you realise that people believing in the existence of God is a matter of *relative* indifference to God.  He doesn't really care whether you believe in his existence or not.  What God cares about is that we have a saving relationship with himself.  That is the end God works towards, and certainly belief in His existence plays a part in that, but it's not the primary concern of His.  

I don't know why this is the case, but it does make a little bit of sense to me, and does help me when I ask the very same question: Why wont you make yourself more known to me.

I have more thoughts on this, but they are a little unstructured.  I note that Ravi Zacharias has said a bit of this, and so has C S Lewis.  Why not check out what they have said?  It's well worth the investigation.

12

Andrew Gray

  • **
  • 61 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2011, 12:24:23 am »
infinitehope wrote: Why is God totaly untestable? Not only does the Bible say we are not alowed to, but any test I've seen into (prayer) gives about the same result as you might expect to see from chance alone. No "unexplainable" miricals happen as a result of any prayer tests so far.
Here are a couple of exmples:
regrowing of limbs, or brain tissue. Knowalge of fucture events that are confermed (more then once)

both would be just inpossible to explain away as natrual or other. Regrowing of body parts or brain tissue is just pyhyiscaly inpossible for the body to do, more so on larger scale.

Knowing fucture events with confermation has long been saught after by goverments of the world. Prophy is in the bible. Why not alow such prophy to take place here and now, repeatable, so that we can varyfy it as a real thing?

Now, in one or both cases prayer is our only link to the devine. In one case, healing we have promices thoughout the bible that say if we pray in Jesus name that we will have it fullfilled, praying for healing of someone else, AND having that healing be something unmestakably miricalus would help skeptics to put down there sketpicsm towards mirical events. If said event only happened when Chirstans prayed, and no one else, even better.

So... why not? Why will this not happen?


I hear ya man.  I wonder this a lot myself.  One thing that has helped me a lot when thinking about this is that when you read the Bible, you realise that people believing in the existence of God is a matter of *relative* indifference to God.  He doesn't really care whether you believe in his existence or not.  What God cares about is that we have a saving relationship with himself.  That is the end God works towards, and certainly belief in His existence plays a part in that, but it's not the primary concern of His.  

I don't know why this is the case, but it does make a little bit of sense to me, and does help me when I ask the very same question: Why wont you (ie God) make yourself more known to me?

I have more thoughts on this, but they are a little unstructured.  I note that Ravi Zacharias has said a bit on this, and so has C S Lewis.  Why not check out what they have said?  It's well worth the investigation.

13

Alexander

  • ***
  • 1308 Posts
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2011, 12:01:09 am »
God is testable, but it isn't likely that theists and atheists will agree on any test, because no matter what the results are the theist will have an explanation for why it is that way.

14

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
Untestable: Why?
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2011, 03:58:34 pm »
Alexander wrote: God is testable, but it isn't likely that theists and atheists will agree on any test, because no matter what the results are the theist will have an explanation for why it is that way.


I think it's the nature of an omniscient and omnipotent being that makes testing for God hard. When you test for God, your must be assuming, "if God existed, he would respond in such and such a way." However, it seems hard for me to imagine that such judgements about the mind of God would be possible without revelation from God, which is not assumed in the test.