Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Should We Thank God For Scientific Discoveries?

172 replies

headinhands · 12/08/2013 22:12

Hello Daftme

You say we should thank god for scientific advancements. I say what makes you think they have anything to do with god?

OP posts:
curlew · 13/08/2013 16:24

"curlew I have not pursued this scientifically, as I have said I am content with my faith.

Miracles are, by definition, supernatural. However all that means is that they do not conform to the 'laws of nature' which we don't fully understand yet.

How can we prove or disprove something we don't understand? We can only believe or deny it has happened."

So what constitutes a miracle then?

austenozzy · 13/08/2013 16:25

Riiight. So we should discount all of the discoveries and studies mentioned in the article because you're concerned that the data-sets used therein might not be large enough to yield statistics that are reliably representative? Next stop: god did it.

You're claiming the spiritual cause of these things. You made the claim, the burden of evidence is upon you, not me. Still waiting.

austenozzy · 13/08/2013 16:28

curlew - here's a miracle for you. Can't be explained, so we can guess who created this!

www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2008/10/CARROT%20PEEN.jpg

daftdame · 13/08/2013 16:31

The general definition of miracle is an event that is supernatural, it surpasses all known human knowledge.

austenozzy · 13/08/2013 16:34

So is it a known unknown, or an unknown unknown, seeing as it's not a known known? ;-)

(Who was the american politician who came out with all that?)

daftdame · 13/08/2013 16:35

austen I carry no burden.

I speak about my belief concerning my Faith, which is faith that is, believed but not proven...

daftdame · 13/08/2013 16:39

austen The answer to your question is it could be both.

curlew · 13/08/2013 16:42

Daftdame- tell me about a miracle that's happened in the last 50 years.

austenozzy · 13/08/2013 16:46

Has the last-but-one Pope been made a saint yet? Here are the miracles he performed - after death, so he must've been a good un - in order to be made a saint:

news.sky.com/story/1110665/pope-john-paul-ii-to-become-a-saint

daftdame · 13/08/2013 17:00

Miracles have to be believed really...they are a mystery, what proof would you require?

austenozzy · 13/08/2013 17:13

Well, in the case of the nun that was 'cured' by a dead pope, I would like to see evidence that she was actually sick in the first place (currently not the case, it seems). If it then can be shown that she had been cured (and not spontaneously free of the disease as can happen with cancer and AIDS, for example), then that's a strong contender!

daftdame · 13/08/2013 17:20

austenozzzy How do you show someone is cured and not spontaneously free of disease?

headinhands · 13/08/2013 17:44

It's an oldie but a goody but how come you never hear of amputees having their limbs spontaneously regrow? In the future, if and when science makes this possible, that's when god will start doing it I guess.

OP posts:
curlew · 13/08/2013 17:59

"austenozzzy How do you show someone is cured and not spontaneously free of disease?"

Well, being cured of a disease that doesn't have a history of spontaneous remissions would be a good start.........

headinhands · 13/08/2013 18:06

daftdame. So when a baby dies that's been prayed for its because the baby didn't have sufficient faith? Confused

OP posts:
daftdame · 13/08/2013 18:07

I bet the people with the disease would be very thankful to be cured, whether the disease had a history of spontaneous remissions or not!

daftdame · 13/08/2013 18:12

headinhands As I said before death can be merciful if someone is suffering.

curlew · 13/08/2013 18:18

Ah. No prospect of any serious conversation or debate here. What a shame.

headinhands · 13/08/2013 18:20

As I said before death can be merciful if someone is suffering.

Wouldn't healing them be more merciful?

You're in front of a dying person, they are riddled with cancer. You have a cure that can restore them to full health. Give me scenarios where it's more merciful to not give them the cure.

OP posts:
daftdame · 13/08/2013 18:26

Hey, what can I say? Christianity involves faith it not about debating.

I came onto the thread because headinhands said she'd love to discuss the Bible with me on a new thread. I have spoken about the Bible and my faith.

HTH.

curlew · 13/08/2013 18:29

"Hey, what can I say? Christianity involves faith it not about debating."

Jesus seemed up for a good debate........

curlew · 13/08/2013 18:30

And He wasn't all that keen on blind faith either.

daftdame · 13/08/2013 18:34

headinhands If a person is 'weak in faith', not used to exercising their faith muscle if you like, fear could get the better of them, especially if they are in pain or very weak. They might not even know God is willing to heal them, I believe He is. There is not always someone with powerful enough faith, to enable them to use the faith they have, to receive healing. I do not believe God wants us to suffer.

daftdame · 13/08/2013 18:36

curlew But I suspect you do not agree with Jesus either...please correct me if I'm wrong.

headinhands · 13/08/2013 18:48

So getting back to this theoretical dying baby. They have to have enough faith to be healed? Or does the person in need of healing not need faith themselves?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread