Woolwich Incident

[d000hg]

On the contrary, I would use Sherlock Holmes* dictum (paraphrasing): "...once you have ruled out all other possibilities, what is left must be truth".
The problem with people of faith is that they don't go through the "ruling out all other possibilities" stage, by which all miracles might be explained.

Well firstly, treating "acts of God" as a last resort is hardly a fair point to start from.

Secondly, in cases like the one I mentioned above, churches do (should) encourage people to go and get themselves checked by a doctor. Not only for their own good, but also to substantiate their claim, we even have a term "verifying the healing".

For instance also in cwmbran (there is a bit of a revival going on there of all places right now):

the woman said: 'My son has just been healed of leukemia. We were at a church in Cwmbran in South Wales and they prayed for him and he felt all fatigue leave him immediately. We took him to the doctors and they ran bloods, and all the cancer has gone!

However Sas what would you like the doctor to add for it to be useful to you? A special "God did it" checkbox on the paperwork... clearly that isn't going to happen. Though I have seen paperwork on one patient (someone I know, not a friend of a cousin) on which the doctor had written "I have no idea how this woman is alive" - he was not a Christian but even came to speak to our church about it.

[sasguru]

Well firstly, treating "acts of God" as a last resort is hardly a fair point to start from.

Secondly, in cases like the one I mentioned above, churches do (should) encourage people to go and get themselves checked by a doctor. Not only for their own good, but also to substantiate their claim, we even have a term "verifying the healing".

For instance also in cwmbran (there is a bit of a revival going on there of all places right now):

However Sas what would you like the doctor to add for it to be useful to you? A special "God did it" checkbox on the paperwork... clearly that isn't going to happen. Though I have seen paperwork on one patient (someone I know, not a friend of a cousin) on which the doctor had written "I have no idea how this woman is alive" - he was not a Christian but even came to speak to our church about it.

You do know cancers can go into remission without any intervention?
Rare, but it happens, sometimes to non-believers too.
But then religions as a whole do rely on the credulous and the gullible

here's one - yes it is the wail.
No evidence he's a believer.

[d000hg]

It's probably obvious to anyone but you :

Changing a stump to a limb is physical, not something anyone can fake, or a malady that may be psychosomatic rather than physical.

The fact that none of you believers can point to any credible case is telling.

Yes of course Sas. People all over the world are getting into car-crashes and then sitting in wheel chairs for decades waiting for a chance to get famous. Cancer is a vague psychosomatic disorder, you can't blatantly see tumours on CT scans.

Amputation isn't a disease so why should it be healed anyway?

[DimPrawn]

You do know cancers can go into remission without any intervention?
Rare, but it happens, sometimes to non-believers too.
But then religions as a whole do rely on the credulous and the gullible

Trying to make these brainwashed loons see sense is like trying to make you see through the "climate change" idiocy.

Wasting one's time.......

[d000hg]

You do know cancers can go into remission without any intervention?
Rare, but it happens, sometimes to non-believers too.
But then religions as a whole do rely on the credulous and the gullible

So your argument against miraculous healings is that sometimes diseases miraculously get better?

Great argument.

[sasguru]

Yes of course Sas. People all over the world are getting into car-crashes and then sitting in wheel chairs for decades waiting for a chance to get famous. Cancer is a vague psychosomatic disorder, you can't blatantly see tumours on CT scans.

Amputation isn't a disease so why should it be healed anyway?

So your argument against miraculous healings is that sometimes diseases miraculously get better?

Great argument.

What did you actually study at your ex-poly? Because you're coming across as extremely thick.

[d000hg]

Trying to make these brainwashed loons see sense is like trying to make you see through the "climate change" idiocy.

Wasting one's time.......

I'd argue someone who has experienced healing or seen someone healed with their own eyes is less brainwashed than someone who has been told such things are impossible and simply accepts it. The people who believe in such things mostly have a reason to, and didn't believe in it until something caused them to, rather than people who just believe what they're told... in the past people believed in loads of supernatural stuff because it was what they were told, now they believe against it because it's what they're told.

The scientific route is to examine both sides, rather than to blindly follow majority opinion... most people thing supernatural intervention is not real but then most people think global warming is, and both of these are taught with equal confidence at school.

[SueEllen]

What did you actually study at your ex-poly? Because you're coming across as extremely thick.

Definitely not Theology.

You know Sas you are better of having this discussion with your local CofE vicar, Rabbi or Imam.

[d000hg]

What did you actually study at your ex-poly? Because you're coming across as extremely thick.

And yet again, Sas bows out of a proper argument on the basis that if he calls his opponent stupid, he won't actually have to come up with a proper point. He does it in ever single debate he takes part in, whether on religion, economics, climate, ... it's the real sign of an immature debater that they rely on discrediting their opponent rather than their position. It's like watching a politician or a climatologist.

[sasguru]

And yet again, Sas bows out of a proper argument on the basis that if he calls his opponent stupid, he won't actually have to come up with a proper point. He does it in ever single debate he takes part in, whether on religion, economics, climate, ... it's the real sign of an immature debater that they rely on discrediting their opponent rather than their position. It's like watching a politician or a climatologist.

I bow out usually because debating with a cretin makes me a cretin too. But since you insist I'll take on your extremely illogical points, in following posts.