How about a Miracle!

[Sender]

Someone in a post a couple of weeks ago said something along the line of "all it would take is just one miracle" to convince people God does in fact exist.

So let me ask ALL of you...what kind of miracle would it take to get you on your knees and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Healing someone from AIDS or cancer as a result of laying on of hands in the name of Jesus.? Healing a blindman by restoring his sight by the same way? What? Or would no miracle get you to believe. I am curious and serious, and sincerely would like to see diferent opinions on what it would take. Thanks in advance.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Because Einstein didn’t know about black holes, you know more than he did??!!! Really? That is your measure of who knows more….1 subject!!

There is or was an interesting post once on line. Someone posted the test grade school or middle school children had to pass in order to graduate a century ago or so. The interesting part is that most university students today couldn’t pass it. I guess that makes Americans 2 generations ago smarter because they knew more.

You have not established a reason for any morals from evolution. You write just as if the point has been made. Greater minds have tried and failed. That’s because if the highest value is survival, you have the jungle. There are no morals if the only value is surviving. If you cannot provide an intelligent connection, then don’t retreat to ad hominem as I can provide a logical reason why no morals emerge in an evolutionary world. I get it whereas you still need to show you do.

Because Einstein didn't know about Black Holes is just an example. He didn't know what the other side of the moon looked like either, or about DNA or what the surface of mars was like. It is about the increased amount on information we have can enable us to answer questions those earlier thinkers couldn't. It's the same with Morality. Understanding of instinctive behavior looks now like the way of undersatanding morality as a product of evolution, biological and then social.

Ok, so answer please where morality is derived from evolution, please?

It doesn't matter if we don't know all the answers and mechanisms, but that is the line of research and it has meant the 'God' hasn't been the answer for a long time.

I’ve asked many atheists this question and never got an answer that matches reality. So, so far. God is still the best answer. Waiting for the other.

Your insistence that only the basic biological arms -race is the only thing we now have is short -sighted. Society has added to that basic instinct or drive that Biology dealt us. We can think enough to reason things out and no, we do not need to postulate a god (name your own) to do that for us.

Then please give reasons.

I won't comment on your finger -pointing more than to say that you have to do some catching up on what the argument actually is before any meaningful discussion can take place.

Then please make it clear. So far no answers as to why there are morals if we evolved. Just see if you can find a link.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Trying to derive morals from the theory of evolution is really a fruitless attempt as the foundation for the theory, the only value, is that the species survive. All else can be sacrificed towards that end. This is seen n the animal or insect world. But these worlds are known for their lack of morals. There are no moral expectations from bugs or animals. When they eat their young so they survive, we understand this although it actually ought not to happen at all in evolutionary biology. Eating the next generation flies in the face of species survival.

You aren’t forthcoming in presenting a foundation in biology for morals but the only attempt is known. To survive, humans (only humans oddly enough) developed morals. This is supposed to aid in the survival of the species.

There are two problems. One is that most morals work totally against survival because an action IS moral insofar as it does NOT benefit the survival of the subject. A hero or brave man actually risks his life or well-being for a person or even principle. That’s the opposite of evolution. One can describe most if not all of the virtues this way. Doing something that mainly ensures your survival or that of your offspring is not particularly ethical or virtuous. It’s self-interest.

Second, the supposed instinct for mankind to survive is not a motive we’ve ever seen in people. No one says they did xyz so mankind survives. Except for the flood, mankind never faced extinction in any case. If a person would explain their actions with “I wanted mankind to survive” we would not believe him. It sounds fake. And yet it’s the only answer evolutionary theory has.

It is generally seen survival is thwarted by morals not aided. Moral men are known to have died rather than do wrong. And no one’s survival was insured by this choice and they don’t say “I give up my life so the human race survives.” They say they make the choice (that threatens survival) because the other option is morally wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Trying to derive morals from the theory of evolution is really a fruitless attempt as the foundation for the theory, the only value, is that the species survive. All else can be sacrificed towards that end. This is seen n the animal or insect world. But these worlds are known for their lack of morals. There are no moral expectations from bugs or animals. When they eat their young so they survive, we understand this although it actually ought not to happen at all in evolutionary biology. Eating the next generation flies in the face of species survival.

You aren’t forthcoming in presenting a foundation in biology for morals but the only attempt is known. To survive, humans (only humans oddly enough) developed morals. This is supposed to aid in the survival of the species.

There are two problems. One is that most morals work totally against survival because an action IS moral insofar as it does NOT benefit the survival of the subject. A hero or brave man actually risks his life or well-being for a person or even principle. That’s the opposite of evolution. One can describe most if not all of the virtues this way. Doing something that mainly ensures your survival or that of your offspring is not particularly ethical or virtuous. It’s self-interest.

Second, the supposed instinct for mankind to survive is not a motive we’ve ever seen in people. No one says they did xyz so mankind survives. Except for the flood, mankind never faced extinction in any case. If a person would explain their actions with “I wanted mankind to survive” we would not believe him. It sounds fake. And yet it’s the only answer evolutionary theory has.

It is generally seen survival is thwarted by morals not aided. Moral men are known to have died rather than do wrong. And no one’s survival was insured by this choice and they don’t say “I give up my life so the human race survives.” They say they make the choice (that threatens survival) because the other option is morally wrong.

You have something to learn about evolution and about morals. Have you even thought that one way a species survives is co-operation? Not only with pack, family and tribe, but sometimes with other species. The principles of reciprocity is the basis of ethical empathy and is one of the traits that benefits everyone, rather than competition to dominate. The instinct is there, but human reasoning enables us to think about it and about empathy with others even if we have no immediate benefit from it.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Trying to derive morals from the theory of evolution is really a fruitless attempt as the foundation for the theory, the only value, is that the species survive. All else can be sacrificed towards that end. This is seen n the animal or insect world. But these worlds are known for their lack of morals. There are no moral expectations from bugs or animals. When they eat their young so they survive, we understand this although it actually ought not to happen at all in evolutionary biology. Eating the next generation flies in the face of species survival.

You aren’t forthcoming in presenting a foundation in biology for morals but the only attempt is known. To survive, humans (only humans oddly enough) developed morals. This is supposed to aid in the survival of the species.

There are two problems. One is that most morals work totally against survival because an action IS moral insofar as it does NOT benefit the survival of the subject. A hero or brave man actually risks his life or well-being for a person or even principle. That’s the opposite of evolution. One can describe most if not all of the virtues this way. Doing something that mainly ensures your survival or that of your offspring is not particularly ethical or virtuous. It’s self-interest.

Second, the supposed instinct for mankind to survive is not a motive we’ve ever seen in people. No one says they did xyz so mankind survives. Except for the flood, mankind never faced extinction in any case. If a person would explain their actions with “I wanted mankind to survive” we would not believe him. It sounds fake. And yet it’s the only answer evolutionary theory has.

It is generally seen survival is thwarted by morals not aided. Moral men are known to have died rather than do wrong. And no one’s survival was insured by this choice and they don’t say “I give up my life so the human race survives.” They say they make the choice (that threatens survival) because the other option is morally wrong.

You have something to learn about evolution and about morals. Have you even thought that one way a species survives is co-operation? Not only with pack, family and tribe, but sometimes with other species. The principles of reciprocity is the basis of ethical empathy and is one of the traits that benefits everyone, rather than competition to dominate. The instinct is there, but human reasoning enables us to think about it and about empathy with others even if we have no immediate benefit from it.

I cannot recall asking an atheist where morals come from in evolutionary theory without getting an ad hominem answer which demonstrates the lack of ethics believing that theory generates. But if I have “something to learn” why don’t YOU provide that? Teach us where morals come from evolution.

If we evolved reciprocity and ethical empathy, how come there are those who rob, murder, steal and kill to aid their “survival.” What we have “evolved” into was not by choice. So how come we didn’t evolve into creatures in whom reciprocity and ethical empathy are a trademark? How come we are afraid of walking down dark streets in many cities if people all have empathy same as they “evolved” two eyes?

No evolutionists actually believe this and venture into high crime areas trusting that empathy and reciprocity keeps them safe.
And that’s what I mean by the observation that evolutionary theory doesn’t match real life.

And if you cannot explain your thoughts, getting a youtube video to explain your thoughts is not acceptable. You should do your own thinking. I’m not in a discussion with her.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Trying to derive morals from the theory of evolution is really a fruitless attempt as the foundation for the theory, the only value, is that the species survive. All else can be sacrificed towards that end. This is seen n the animal or insect world. But these worlds are known for their lack of morals. There are no moral expectations from bugs or animals. When they eat their young so they survive, we understand this although it actually ought not to happen at all in evolutionary biology. Eating the next generation flies in the face of species survival.

You aren’t forthcoming in presenting a foundation in biology for morals but the only attempt is known. To survive, humans (only humans oddly enough) developed morals. This is supposed to aid in the survival of the species.

There are two problems. One is that most morals work totally against survival because an action IS moral insofar as it does NOT benefit the survival of the subject. A hero or brave man actually risks his life or well-being for a person or even principle. That’s the opposite of evolution. One can describe most if not all of the virtues this way. Doing something that mainly ensures your survival or that of your offspring is not particularly ethical or virtuous. It’s self-interest.

Second, the supposed instinct for mankind to survive is not a motive we’ve ever seen in people. No one says they did xyz so mankind survives. Except for the flood, mankind never faced extinction in any case. If a person would explain their actions with “I wanted mankind to survive” we would not believe him. It sounds fake. And yet it’s the only answer evolutionary theory has.

It is generally seen survival is thwarted by morals not aided. Moral men are known to have died rather than do wrong. And no one’s survival was insured by this choice and they don’t say “I give up my life so the human race survives.” They say they make the choice (that threatens survival) because the other option is morally wrong.

You have something to learn about evolution and about morals. Have you even thought that one way a species survives is co-operation? Not only with pack, family and tribe, but sometimes with other species. The principles of reciprocity is the basis of ethical empathy and is one of the traits that benefits everyone, rather than competition to dominate. The instinct is there, but human reasoning enables us to think about it and about empathy with others even if we have no immediate benefit from it.

I cannot recall asking an atheist where morals come from in evolutionary theory without getting an ad hominem answer which demonstrates the lack of ethics believing that theory generates. But if I have “something to learn” why don’t YOU provide that? Teach us where morals come from evolution.

If we evolved reciprocity and ethical empathy, how come there are those who rob, murder, steal and kill to aid their “survival.” What we have “evolved” into was not by choice. So how come we didn’t evolve into creatures in whom reciprocity and ethical empathy are a trademark? How come we are afraid of walking down dark streets in many cities if people all have empathy same as they “evolved” two eyes?

No evolutionists actually believe this and venture into high crime areas trusting that empathy and reciprocity keeps them safe.
And that’s what I mean by the observation that evolutionary theory doesn’t match real life.

And if you cannot explain your thoughts, getting a youtube video to explain your thoughts is not acceptable. You should do your own thinking. I’m not in a discussion with her.

You may raise a lot of points about the origins of Life, the universe, Consciousness, and indeed religion, art and culture and not get good and informed answers, partly because study on that seems hardly to have begun and partly because most people, atheist or not, do not study the subjects. And never mind ad hominems, Bible - apologists dish pleanty of those out to atheists, believe me.

What I'm suggesting is that there are enough clues and information that popping a god in there and a placeholder for an unknown will not do any more.

You ask why there are bad survival instinct as well as good. To repeat myself, perhaps, survival pushed individual, group and species aggression as well as individual, group and even species co -operation, whatever enables a survival advantage. It is human reasoning and more complex society that takes co-operation and empathy further than just instinct. The instinct to war is evident, the realisation that peace even with our opponents is better is not instinct but ethical reasoning, and is doing better with the hand that evolution dealt us. I need hardly comment on the silly example of walking into a fraught area armed only with humanist empathy. I might also suggest walking into a danger area armed only with Bible verses and try your luck.

To sum up, your argument and thinking is unsound all the way through. Humanist ideas about morals and ethics goes back even before the discovery of DNA and provided an alternative to 'god'. It was net necessary to have everything explained, but only an alternative hypothesis, but of course Theist apologetics always tries to poke holes in an atheist apologetic and pretend that is every single thing cannot be explained and proven to the hilt, that invalidates the hypothesis. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And I have explained enough of a case that the video is more of a makeweight showing that appeal to piranha pack co -operation rather supports evolutionary ethics than God commanding 'Thou shalt not eat each other'. So I make no apology whatsoever for the video and rather you should apologise for trying to score a point by complaining about it.

Finally, the elephant in the room. Dismissal and rejection, whether sound or not, isn't the point as neither of us are likely to convince the other. It is the case being made,and just to avoid all doubt, rejection and dismissal does not win the case.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Trying to derive morals from the theory of evolution is really a fruitless attempt as the foundation for the theory, the only value, is that the species survive. All else can be sacrificed towards that end. This is seen n the animal or insect world. But these worlds are known for their lack of morals. There are no moral expectations from bugs or animals. When they eat their young so they survive, we understand this although it actually ought not to happen at all in evolutionary biology. Eating the next generation flies in the face of species survival.

You aren’t forthcoming in presenting a foundation in biology for morals but the only attempt is known. To survive, humans (only humans oddly enough) developed morals. This is supposed to aid in the survival of the species.

There are two problems. One is that most morals work totally against survival because an action IS moral insofar as it does NOT benefit the survival of the subject. A hero or brave man actually risks his life or well-being for a person or even principle. That’s the opposite of evolution. One can describe most if not all of the virtues this way. Doing something that mainly ensures your survival or that of your offspring is not particularly ethical or virtuous. It’s self-interest.

Second, the supposed instinct for mankind to survive is not a motive we’ve ever seen in people. No one says they did xyz so mankind survives. Except for the flood, mankind never faced extinction in any case. If a person would explain their actions with “I wanted mankind to survive” we would not believe him. It sounds fake. And yet it’s the only answer evolutionary theory has.

It is generally seen survival is thwarted by morals not aided. Moral men are known to have died rather than do wrong. And no one’s survival was insured by this choice and they don’t say “I give up my life so the human race survives.” They say they make the choice (that threatens survival) because the other option is morally wrong.

You have something to learn about evolution and about morals. Have you even thought that one way a species survives is co-operation? Not only with pack, family and tribe, but sometimes with other species. The principles of reciprocity is the basis of ethical empathy and is one of the traits that benefits everyone, rather than competition to dominate. The instinct is there, but human reasoning enables us to think about it and about empathy with others even if we have no immediate benefit from it.

I cannot recall asking an atheist where morals come from in evolutionary theory without getting an ad hominem answer which demonstrates the lack of ethics believing that theory generates. But if I have “something to learn” why don’t YOU provide that? Teach us where morals come from evolution.

If we evolved reciprocity and ethical empathy, how come there are those who rob, murder, steal and kill to aid their “survival.” What we have “evolved” into was not by choice. So how come we didn’t evolve into creatures in whom reciprocity and ethical empathy are a trademark? How come we are afraid of walking down dark streets in many cities if people all have empathy same as they “evolved” two eyes?

No evolutionists actually believe this and venture into high crime areas trusting that empathy and reciprocity keeps them safe.
And that’s what I mean by the observation that evolutionary theory doesn’t match real life.

And if you cannot explain your thoughts, getting a youtube video to explain your thoughts is not acceptable. You should do your own thinking. I’m not in a discussion with her.

You may raise a lot of points about the origins of Life, the universe, Consciousness, and indeed religion, art and culture and not get good and informed answers, partly because study on that seems hardly to have begun and partly because most people, atheist or not, do not study the subjects. And never mind ad hominems, Bible - apologists dish pleanty of those out to atheists, believe me.

I actually didn’t raise those things. You must be confusing me with someone else.

And yes, especially those believers who adhere to themselves going to heaven no matter how they behave can behave quite badly. But I’m not one of them. An example: I said we could end the discussion. You said that I could run away. See the difference between the Christian honoring the atheist and the atheist demeaning the Christian there?

What I'm suggesting is that there are enough clues and information that popping a god in there and a placeholder for an unknown will not do any more.

Like what?

You ask why there are bad survival instinct as well as good.

Where did I say that?

To repeat myself, perhaps, survival pushed individual, group and species aggression as well as individual, group and even species co -operation, whatever enables a survival advantage. It is human reasoning and more complex society that takes co-operation and empathy further than just instinct. The instinct to war is evident, the realisation that peace even with our opponents is better is not instinct but ethical reasoning, and is doing better with the hand that evolution dealt us. I need hardly comment on the silly example of walking into a fraught area armed only with humanist empathy. I might also suggest walking into a danger area armed only with Bible verses and try your luck.

These are made up excuses for why the real world fails to match the theory.

To sum up, your argument and thinking is unsound all the way through.

It’s very sound which is why you cannot actually refute the argument.

Humanist ideas about morals and ethics goes back even before the discovery of DNA and provided an alternative to 'god'. It was net necessary to have everything explained, but only an alternative hypothesis, but of course Theist apologetics always tries to poke holes in an atheist apologetic and pretend that is every single thing cannot be explained and proven to the hilt, that invalidates the hypothesis. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And I have explained enough of a case that the video is more of a makeweight showing that appeal to piranha pack co -operation rather supports evolutionary ethics than God commanding 'Thou shalt not eat each other'. So I make no apology whatsoever for the video and rather you should apologise for trying to score a point by complaining about it.

Finally, the elephant in the room. Dismissal and rejection, whether sound or not, isn't the point as neither of us are likely to convince the other. It is the case being made,and just to avoid all doubt, rejection and dismissal does not win the case.

Let’s move on. We’ve reach a point where further discussion is useless. Reality is not a part of your theory. Whatever is, evolution did it no matter if it violates the survival or not. And I’m weary of you accusing me of saying things I never ever said not to mention your posts are very long.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]

Trying to derive morals from the theory of evolution is really a fruitless attempt as the foundation for the theory, the only value, is that the species survive. All else can be sacrificed towards that end. This is seen n the animal or insect world. But these worlds are known for their lack of morals. There are no moral expectations from bugs or animals. When they eat their young so they survive, we understand this although it actually ought not to happen at all in evolutionary biology. Eating the next generation flies in the face of species survival.

You aren’t forthcoming in presenting a foundation in biology for morals but the only attempt is known. To survive, humans (only humans oddly enough) developed morals. This is supposed to aid in the survival of the species.

There are two problems. One is that most morals work totally against survival because an action IS moral insofar as it does NOT benefit the survival of the subject. A hero or brave man actually risks his life or well-being for a person or even principle. That’s the opposite of evolution. One can describe most if not all of the virtues this way. Doing something that mainly ensures your survival or that of your offspring is not particularly ethical or virtuous. It’s self-interest.

Second, the supposed instinct for mankind to survive is not a motive we’ve ever seen in people. No one says they did xyz so mankind survives. Except for the flood, mankind never faced extinction in any case. If a person would explain their actions with “I wanted mankind to survive” we would not believe him. It sounds fake. And yet it’s the only answer evolutionary theory has.

It is generally seen survival is thwarted by morals not aided. Moral men are known to have died rather than do wrong. And no one’s survival was insured by this choice and they don’t say “I give up my life so the human race survives.” They say they make the choice (that threatens survival) because the other option is morally wrong.

You have something to learn about evolution and about morals. Have you even thought that one way a species survives is co-operation? Not only with pack, family and tribe, but sometimes with other species. The principles of reciprocity is the basis of ethical empathy and is one of the traits that benefits everyone, rather than competition to dominate. The instinct is there, but human reasoning enables us to think about it and about empathy with others even if we have no immediate benefit from it.

I cannot recall asking an atheist where morals come from in evolutionary theory without getting an ad hominem answer which demonstrates the lack of ethics believing that theory generates. But if I have “something to learn” why don’t YOU provide that? Teach us where morals come from evolution.

If we evolved reciprocity and ethical empathy, how come there are those who rob, murder, steal and kill to aid their “survival.” What we have “evolved” into was not by choice. So how come we didn’t evolve into creatures in whom reciprocity and ethical empathy are a trademark? How come we are afraid of walking down dark streets in many cities if people all have empathy same as they “evolved” two eyes?

No evolutionists actually believe this and venture into high crime areas trusting that empathy and reciprocity keeps them safe.
And that’s what I mean by the observation that evolutionary theory doesn’t match real life.

And if you cannot explain your thoughts, getting a youtube video to explain your thoughts is not acceptable. You should do your own thinking. I’m not in a discussion with her.

You may raise a lot of points about the origins of Life, the universe, Consciousness, and indeed religion, art and culture and not get good and informed answers, partly because study on that seems hardly to have begun and partly because most people, atheist or not, do not study the subjects. And never mind ad hominems, Bible - apologists dish pleanty of those out to atheists, believe me.

I actually didn’t raise those things. You must be confusing me with someone else.

And yes, especially those believers who adhere to themselves going to heaven no matter how they behave can behave quite badly. But I’m not one of them. An example: I said we could end the discussion. You said that I could run away. See the difference between the Christian honoring the atheist and the atheist demeaning the Christian there?

What I'm suggesting is that there are enough clues and information that popping a god in there and a placeholder for an unknown will not do any more.

Like what?

You ask why there are bad survival instinct as well as good.

Where did I say that?

To repeat myself, perhaps, survival pushed individual, group and species aggression as well as individual, group and even species co -operation, whatever enables a survival advantage. It is human reasoning and more complex society that takes co-operation and empathy further than just instinct. The instinct to war is evident, the realisation that peace even with our opponents is better is not instinct but ethical reasoning, and is doing better with the hand that evolution dealt us. I need hardly comment on the silly example of walking into a fraught area armed only with humanist empathy. I might also suggest walking into a danger area armed only with Bible verses and try your luck.

These are made up excuses for why the real world fails to match the theory.

To sum up, your argument and thinking is unsound all the way through.

It’s very sound which is why you cannot actually refute the argument.

Humanist ideas about morals and ethics goes back even before the discovery of DNA and provided an alternative to 'god'. It was net necessary to have everything explained, but only an alternative hypothesis, but of course Theist apologetics always tries to poke holes in an atheist apologetic and pretend that is every single thing cannot be explained and proven to the hilt, that invalidates the hypothesis. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And I have explained enough of a case that the video is more of a makeweight showing that appeal to piranha pack co -operation rather supports evolutionary ethics than God commanding 'Thou shalt not eat each other'. So I make no apology whatsoever for the video and rather you should apologise for trying to score a point by complaining about it.

Finally, the elephant in the room. Dismissal and rejection, whether sound or not, isn't the point as neither of us are likely to convince the other. It is the case being made,and just to avoid all doubt, rejection and dismissal does not win the case.

Let’s move on. We’ve reach a point where further discussion is useless. Reality is not a part of your theory. Whatever is, evolution did it no matter if it violates the survival or not. And I’m weary of you accusing me of saying things I never ever said not to mention your posts are very long.

you touched on good and bad - If we evolved reciprocity and ethical empathy, how come there are those who rob, murder, steal and kill to aid their “survival.” I don't know whether you are confused or trying to be crafty when you say you didn't raise those other matters 'You may raise a lot of points about the origins of Life, the universe, Consciousness, and indeed religion, art and culture and not get good and informed answers" maybe i should have said 'once may raise..' This isn't difficult to follow and I don't know whether there is a comprehension problem or an integrity problem. And I have seen a few ad homs about me in your last few posts.

And yet again it isn't about your denial and running away. If you think that gets you the win, good luck. What it really does is that you leave in place two claims - evolution dunnit ( and i have given examples in animals, let alone humans) and all you did was ask question which I also answered (reasoning the benefits of reciprocity over the instinct to be aggressive and you ignore or dismiss everything and claim I haven't explained anything. It is very much par for the course with Religious apologetics.

Strawman fallacy is of course par for the course. I already mentioned species co -operation and even interspecies co - operation, yet you persistently ignore this and insist it is evolutionary war all the time. You present a false picture of the data in order to support your argument. Co-operation is an evolved instinct for survival as much as competition.

But as I say running away or just denying everything leaves two alternative claims never mind theories aside from any evidence. Just the existence of a counter - claim for morality (instinct plus reason) is enough reason to NOT credit the god -claim (which ever one) and there is no good reason to credit the god -claim through morality.

[The Nice Centurion]

The blind, the lame and the homosexualist are healed here and there all the time, or else a cure for people called to suffer from these things can be easily faked.

What about a lost limb growing fully back within seconds before live audience.
(Not on film, for today CGI could fake that easily.)

Hell, what about a severed head growing back IN SHORT TIME BEFORE LIVE AUDIENCE on a decapitated person and that person living happily ever after.

Why does no one want to answer my questions

Because they know it doesn't happen.

Mark 10:27
“And Iesus looking vpon them, saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/se ... impossible

[TRANSPONDER]

The blind, the lame and the homosexualist are healed here and there all the time, or else a cure for people called to suffer from these things can be easily faked.

What about a lost limb growing fully back within seconds before live audience.
(Not on film, for today CGI could fake that easily.)

Hell, what about a severed head growing back IN SHORT TIME BEFORE LIVE AUDIENCE on a decapitated person and that person living happily ever after.

Why does no one want to answer my questions

Because they know it doesn't happen.

Mark 10:27
“And Iesus looking vpon them, saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/se ... impossible

Yes and Mark 11 (and also Matthew) “Have faith in God. 23For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. 24Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.

We have seen all the excuses, evasions and denial. None of which answer. Sure, God wouldn't agree to a prayer in faith to have California removed and cast into the sea, but there is no reason why clear miracles (not just lucky events credited to a god) in response to prayer wouldn't be as evident as the sun rising and setting, and self -serving excuses and evasions only show that Bible apologists think that their denial of evidence gets them the win. It doesn't - not all the time there are people with open minds looking at both sides rather than Make the Bible Supreme Again denialists ignoring everything other than what they want.

Having the best case is only half the battle We have to have the popular vote or we lose; and dictator knows, having the media outlet is vital. It's why 'Atheists, please shut up and go away' has been the mission statement of Evangelical Christianity ever since the term 'New Atheism'was coined.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57]

You posts are too long and too abusive to answer. But I have come to understand why Jesus said to those listening to his teaching. “he who has ears (to really hear), let him (and not the others) hear (what is said and what it means.)”

See you on another thread. Until then, adieu!