for There is God1/3/2004 c1 quill947
your first problem in your theory is that your awsoming the earth was the first thing. earth has been proven to be not the oldest chunk of rock around. there fore even if we use your ever action must have been cause by something it is likly cause by one of those damn rock flying around.
next point miracles such as the parting of the red sea or easily ignored as that the text that this is contained in was written after the story having undergone a good many years of oral revision.
your first problem in your theory is that your awsoming the earth was the first thing. earth has been proven to be not the oldest chunk of rock around. there fore even if we use your ever action must have been cause by something it is likly cause by one of those damn rock flying around.
next point miracles such as the parting of the red sea or easily ignored as that the text that this is contained in was written after the story having undergone a good many years of oral revision.
12/26/2003 c1 
133S.C. Preclarus Noctis
Oh! I absolutley agree with this! There IS a GOD! And I'm glad that you wrote this..because I was trying to find a good essay..and I have..You got straight to the point! And miracles are real! =]]
Good job.
^.^
133S.C. Preclarus NoctisOh! I absolutley agree with this! There IS a GOD! And I'm glad that you wrote this..because I was trying to find a good essay..and I have..You got straight to the point! And miracles are real! =]]
Good job.
^.^
12/14/2003 c1 126lili brik
well, i believe in god too,but if i was an atheist , i wouldn't be convinced by your essay.
126lili brikwell, i believe in god too,but if i was an atheist , i wouldn't be convinced by your essay.
12/13/2003 c1 6MrFlames
I am God. The Internet is my Bible. The Bible says that the Bible is correct, and that I am God. Therefore, I am God. As proof of my validity, I will allow you to see my words on this screen. The phenomenon of a "screen" is a miracle, because you cannot explain how it works.
This is your argument. Since I am God, I now say that I win. Therefore, I win.
6MrFlamesI am God. The Internet is my Bible. The Bible says that the Bible is correct, and that I am God. Therefore, I am God. As proof of my validity, I will allow you to see my words on this screen. The phenomenon of a "screen" is a miracle, because you cannot explain how it works.
This is your argument. Since I am God, I now say that I win. Therefore, I win.
12/13/2003 c1 6Rinderwahn
Sorry, buddy. I'm an atheist and there's nothing you can say to change that. God's a myth. Whoop-de-doo.
6RinderwahnSorry, buddy. I'm an atheist and there's nothing you can say to change that. God's a myth. Whoop-de-doo.
12/13/2003 c1 24Nemen
Normally, I'd write a scathing review of this; not because I disagree with the conclusion, but because the reasoning is faulty beyond all belief. However, as the last person beat me to it, I believe I'll go the other way. I'll tell you where you made your mistakes, and I'll even be as nice as I know how to be while doing it.
First, your definition of miracles. The first example, something that goes against the known laws of physics, works. The second, however, doesn't count as a miracle. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's magical (or miraculous, there's very little difference). Winning the lottery when your house is about to be repossessed is very lucky. However, with the number of people in the world playing the lottery and with homes about to be repossessed, it has to happen to SOMEBODY, by probability, and it's not a miracle when it does happen. Also, you forgot to mention how, exactly, you can determine if something goes against the laws of physics, or is simply unlikely. Unless you have a board of qualified physicists and mathematicians reviewing the miracles that are reported, you can't be sure which kind of "miracle" it is, can you? I know this is a big thing over a small technicality, but STILL...
"There are massive, reliable testimonies of miracles across many times, places and cultures. Any objective analysis of these stories would find it difficult to dismiss them outright."
That statement is true until you take into consideration that 99.99% of all miracles happen when the person is alone, or unstable to begin with. That's not a miracle, those are called hallucinations. Consult your nearest psychiatrist for details.
The other guy let this go, but I won't: not everything has a cause. You are assuming that the universe has a meaning and a purpose, that it's rational and that each painting has an artist. While I won't go so far as to state outright that that's wrong, since it would probably send you into seizures to picture a universe without meaning, I WILL say that there's no reason to assume a meaning for the universe when none is indicated.
You're proven the validity of the bible? And you've forgotten to mention it to anybody? I'm crushed! (That, my boy, was sarcasm. If the bible has been proven true, so have all the fictious works on this site)
The timing of the wind...how to explain that...wait, here's an idea! IT'S A MYTH! I don't have to explain why the Cyclopes (Homer, The Oddyssey) have only one eye, because that's just a myth. I don't have to explain why, exaclty, Zeus throws lighting bolts and not laser beams because it's just a myth. Same in this scenario.
Belief in miracles by faith still continues? If you mean the placebo effect (if you think something will happen to you, then odds are it will. An example would be a patient with a headache who's given a pill and told that it will cure his headache. The pill is a fake. The patient takes the pill, and his headache goes away. Placebo effect proved!) then yes, belief in THAT continues. Belief in faith healings exists only in churches. And, perhaps, in a few asylums, I'm not quite sure
"...the gene would not start growing and the earth would not start revolving without any motivational force."
Why not?
Thing is, buddy boy, we CAN explain all these miracles. It's simple. You discard all of the ones that happened when the person was alone. You then discard all the ones that involve a single person being able to see something (angel, Mary, you name it) and nobody else being able to see it. You have perhaps three cases left. You examine those, and discover that they are simply natural phenomena that the viewers did not understand. The End.
Here you go, here're my views. You're free to ignore them and label me a blasphemous atheist as you wish.
Oh, and you may not believe this, but I TRIED to be nice. I really did! I refrained from insulting you outright, didn't I?
24NemenNormally, I'd write a scathing review of this; not because I disagree with the conclusion, but because the reasoning is faulty beyond all belief. However, as the last person beat me to it, I believe I'll go the other way. I'll tell you where you made your mistakes, and I'll even be as nice as I know how to be while doing it.
First, your definition of miracles. The first example, something that goes against the known laws of physics, works. The second, however, doesn't count as a miracle. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's magical (or miraculous, there's very little difference). Winning the lottery when your house is about to be repossessed is very lucky. However, with the number of people in the world playing the lottery and with homes about to be repossessed, it has to happen to SOMEBODY, by probability, and it's not a miracle when it does happen. Also, you forgot to mention how, exactly, you can determine if something goes against the laws of physics, or is simply unlikely. Unless you have a board of qualified physicists and mathematicians reviewing the miracles that are reported, you can't be sure which kind of "miracle" it is, can you? I know this is a big thing over a small technicality, but STILL...
"There are massive, reliable testimonies of miracles across many times, places and cultures. Any objective analysis of these stories would find it difficult to dismiss them outright."
That statement is true until you take into consideration that 99.99% of all miracles happen when the person is alone, or unstable to begin with. That's not a miracle, those are called hallucinations. Consult your nearest psychiatrist for details.
The other guy let this go, but I won't: not everything has a cause. You are assuming that the universe has a meaning and a purpose, that it's rational and that each painting has an artist. While I won't go so far as to state outright that that's wrong, since it would probably send you into seizures to picture a universe without meaning, I WILL say that there's no reason to assume a meaning for the universe when none is indicated.
You're proven the validity of the bible? And you've forgotten to mention it to anybody? I'm crushed! (That, my boy, was sarcasm. If the bible has been proven true, so have all the fictious works on this site)
The timing of the wind...how to explain that...wait, here's an idea! IT'S A MYTH! I don't have to explain why the Cyclopes (Homer, The Oddyssey) have only one eye, because that's just a myth. I don't have to explain why, exaclty, Zeus throws lighting bolts and not laser beams because it's just a myth. Same in this scenario.
Belief in miracles by faith still continues? If you mean the placebo effect (if you think something will happen to you, then odds are it will. An example would be a patient with a headache who's given a pill and told that it will cure his headache. The pill is a fake. The patient takes the pill, and his headache goes away. Placebo effect proved!) then yes, belief in THAT continues. Belief in faith healings exists only in churches. And, perhaps, in a few asylums, I'm not quite sure
"...the gene would not start growing and the earth would not start revolving without any motivational force."
Why not?
Thing is, buddy boy, we CAN explain all these miracles. It's simple. You discard all of the ones that happened when the person was alone. You then discard all the ones that involve a single person being able to see something (angel, Mary, you name it) and nobody else being able to see it. You have perhaps three cases left. You examine those, and discover that they are simply natural phenomena that the viewers did not understand. The End.
Here you go, here're my views. You're free to ignore them and label me a blasphemous atheist as you wish.
Oh, and you may not believe this, but I TRIED to be nice. I really did! I refrained from insulting you outright, didn't I?
12/13/2003 c1 15Radyn
Here's my rebuttal.
"Firstly, presume God exists"
"Secondly, God performed a miracle;"
"Then, the miracle confirms the existence of God"
These are some pretty big presumptions. In a debate with a halfway-comatose opponent, this wouldn't fly.
"And if they have indeed occurred, then they must have a cause outside our known universe. This cause could only be God."
Bullshit. Explain why these miracles couldn't be manifested by aliens. Or me, for that matter.
"This belief is confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas: "Everything has a cause, something that made it. There must be a First Cause that started everything - God."
See, I have two responses for this. Using a RELIGIOUS FIGURE to prove RELIGION doesn't work. It's like saying math is true because addition is true. Second, the entire statement is faulty. Let's say for a moment (and I'm letting this one slip for the sake of argument) that everything DOES have a cause. Unfortunately, Mr. Aquinas also makes the mistake of automatically assuming that this mythical first cause that started everything is "God". I don't see any analysis, no proof, no support, nothing. His word is therefore as reliable as my mom's.
"Even if the Bible would not be accepted, according to C.S. Lewis, an author on the book of 'Miracles', 'to be caused is not to be proved", however, belief in miracles by faith still continues."
It does? Since when? If you can't answer, this is unwarranted.
"Our opponents might argue that science will someday explain those things, but right now you can't explain them. The best explanation is God, because if God created the world, he created the first tiny particles, as our first speaker mentioned the gene would not start growing and the earth would not start revolving without any motivational force."
No, no, no. Just because science may not be able to prove these so-called miracles doesn't mean you're allowed to automatically jump to God. That's like saying 2+2 isn't 5, so it must be 6.
"If our opponents could not explain all these miracles, then, today's motion must stand."
This is the stupidest burden I've ever heard.
The problem that consistently shows up in your case is that you use the question of miracles to try to prove God. And then since you say that science can't explain those miracles, then God must exist to explain them. That's completely unwarranted, asserted and generally badly presented. If I were judging this, I'd have to circle the "Poor" selection on the top sheet. If I were debating you I'd have been twiddling my thumbs during prep time. Religious resolutions don't make for good debate.
15RadynHere's my rebuttal.
"Firstly, presume God exists"
"Secondly, God performed a miracle;"
"Then, the miracle confirms the existence of God"
These are some pretty big presumptions. In a debate with a halfway-comatose opponent, this wouldn't fly.
"And if they have indeed occurred, then they must have a cause outside our known universe. This cause could only be God."
Bullshit. Explain why these miracles couldn't be manifested by aliens. Or me, for that matter.
"This belief is confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas: "Everything has a cause, something that made it. There must be a First Cause that started everything - God."
See, I have two responses for this. Using a RELIGIOUS FIGURE to prove RELIGION doesn't work. It's like saying math is true because addition is true. Second, the entire statement is faulty. Let's say for a moment (and I'm letting this one slip for the sake of argument) that everything DOES have a cause. Unfortunately, Mr. Aquinas also makes the mistake of automatically assuming that this mythical first cause that started everything is "God". I don't see any analysis, no proof, no support, nothing. His word is therefore as reliable as my mom's.
"Even if the Bible would not be accepted, according to C.S. Lewis, an author on the book of 'Miracles', 'to be caused is not to be proved", however, belief in miracles by faith still continues."
It does? Since when? If you can't answer, this is unwarranted.
"Our opponents might argue that science will someday explain those things, but right now you can't explain them. The best explanation is God, because if God created the world, he created the first tiny particles, as our first speaker mentioned the gene would not start growing and the earth would not start revolving without any motivational force."
No, no, no. Just because science may not be able to prove these so-called miracles doesn't mean you're allowed to automatically jump to God. That's like saying 2+2 isn't 5, so it must be 6.
"If our opponents could not explain all these miracles, then, today's motion must stand."
This is the stupidest burden I've ever heard.
The problem that consistently shows up in your case is that you use the question of miracles to try to prove God. And then since you say that science can't explain those miracles, then God must exist to explain them. That's completely unwarranted, asserted and generally badly presented. If I were judging this, I'd have to circle the "Poor" selection on the top sheet. If I were debating you I'd have been twiddling my thumbs during prep time. Religious resolutions don't make for good debate.