That's your problem right there. Anything is not possible. It isn't possible for you to produce an elephant from an orifice of your choosing. It isn't possible for you to fly to the moon under your own power. It isn't possible for you to have a cup of tea with Napoleon.

Im saying in the realm of the spiritual and the supernatural, anything is possible. it's possible for us to appreciate fine music and express ourselves where snails cant, so who's to say that there arent higher beings than us?

Who's to say that there aren't higher beings than those higher beings? And higher than those? And higher than those? Infinite regressions all over again. The problem is not hypothesising a deity to explain our existence as long as you can come up with some kind of explanation to support it's own existence. he problem is adding all this excess baggage.


And what rules did god set for himself, and how do you know that he did?

Sorry, i ment to say PERHAPS he set some rules for himself.

And im talking about the ultimately higher being; there are probably beings in between, but by deffinition, the ultimate deity is God.

their again is another thing their is no real proof of gods existence except in stories and things and again u cant just say their COULD be a things in between cause their again is no proof so wht u ar trying to say Jik is tht u are thinking ahead without smelling the coffe u are saying wht Could happen but is no proof

...that made zero sense due to the mispelling... but i'll try to respond.

There is some proof, but it isnt quite deffinitive. however, there's no proof against it.

No spelling mistakes i just made it shorter saves time. anyway i didnt say I was against I was saying tht Their is no solid proof of almighty god and things

Punctuation would really help you out a bit, mate. Unfortunately, Jik's responses shows that he hasn't really read and/or absorbed anything Vasu or I've said thus far. We're really spinning our wheels at this point.

Yeah, he's gone back to saying "There's no proof against it, so it could be true, and I know of no other explanation, so it must be true."

yeah thats true and Hrae i am just shortening the words their is no punctuation prob. any way Jik isnt really get wht the ppl ar saying

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Remember this is Mature Discussions and don't spam. And also try keep on topic. I know this thread went off topic once, but it was still carrying on a good discussion.

*sigh* not true. im saying there that there IS proof towards a God, but there isnt any real conclusive evidence. there are minor things that suggest his existance, such as the aforementioned Our Lady of Guadalupe, and perhaps the healing of a sick one who seemed on the brink of death, but all of them could be simply dismissed as "Freak Accidents" by some, and therefore not be truely accepted. im saying that there's evidence in this life, just none that conclusively gives us a yes or no answer.

And as for rice writing, the images are extremely complex. here's a quote from wikipedia:


"Photographers and ophthalmologists have reported images reflected in the eyes of the Virgin.[40][41] In 1929 and 1951 photographers found a figure reflected in the Virgin's eyes; upon inspection they said that the reflection was tripled in what is called the Purkinje effect. This effect is commonly found in human eyes.[38] The ophthalmologist Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann later enlarged the image of the Virgin's eyes by 2500x magnification and said he saw not only the aforementioned single figure, but rather images of all the witnesses present when the tilma was shown to the Bishop in 1531. Tonsmann also reported seeing a small family—mother, father, and a group of children—in the center of the Virgin's eyes.[38] In response to the eye miracles, Joe Nickell and John F. Fischer wrote in Skeptical Inquirer that images seen in the Virgin's eyes are the result of the human tendency to form familiar shapes from random patterns, much like a psychologist's inkblots—a phenomenon known as religious pareidolia.[42]
Richard Kuhn, who received the 1938 Nobel Chemistry prize, is said to have analyzed a sample of the fabric in 1936 and said the tint on the fabric was not from a known mineral, vegetable, or animal source.[38] In 1979 Philip Serna Callahan studied the icon with infrared light and stated that portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle appeared to have been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no apparent brush strokes.[43]"

And yes, i read the skeptic's claims, but if multiple people have seen it, it's slightly more probably a work of the eyes, not the imagination.

Sounds very similar to ghost-hunter's claimed recordings of the whispering and murmurs of ghosts. They record sounds in ''haunted'' locations which people hear as unexplainable voices and mutterings.


Listeners however who are not told what they are supposed to hear, hear nothing at all. The individual is smart. The group is not.

But no one is grouping up and examining these eyes all at once. they all are allowed to observe it with a microscope, and see what they will.

That was the most inconsequential part of the whole post... xD


More in reply to this part of your post, what you see and what's really there aren't always the same thing.

Agreed, but if multiple sources agree with it, it's a bit more credible than some random hobo on a street corner screaming "I SEE IMAGES IN A LADY'S EYES DOOD."

and what about the fact that it was also made of an unidentifiable substance, as said by the nobel prize winning chemist?

I can get multiple hobos saying the same thing and they too would be multiple sources. Need much more than ''multiple'' people saying the same thing.


.

So the fact that he won the prize a few years later makes him less intelligent?

and true. i digress that point.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let us assume that these paintings were by a supernatural being. Now how does that correlate to every other assumption made in the Bible? Benevolence? Omnipotence? Omniscience? This is not "evidence".

It was unidentifiable in 1936. Science marches on. I suggest reading the material he references: http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html

No, I just mean that we might have more resources available to us now, here in the 21st-Century.

Note that the refference you cited is obviously biased to a certain degree... "The Skeptical Inquirer"...

Regardless, what about the fact that it's stayed quite well preserved regardless of the severe amount of time it's been through? a full 500 or so years... most clothes have been destroyed by then.

And speaking of preserved people, why is it, then, that many saints who died long long ago still have their bodies in perfect condition, untouched by decay or rot?


Ah, sorry, i just thought that since you bolded that one phrase that you meant that, all apologies x.x

Tell you what...I'll be generous. As soon as we get a confirmed, documented case of an amputee being healed, I'll allow that miracles exist.

Perhaps not amputees, but people who are dying of sickness just randomly come back from the brink at times.

why did you ignore my response to your post, though?

Probably the same reason you ignored my post...

Which one are you referring to?

I'm supposed to be surprised that a well-looked after piece of clothing still exists?

I'd also like to know what "preserved" specimins you're talking about. I can't recall ever reading any sort of analysis of remains, DNA or otherwise, on the supposed saints corpses.

This one.

Yeah, because it's 500 years old, and most replicas of it wear out after a few years.

Here's pictures of the remains... i sincerely doubt that they switch out the bodies every couple of days. not many people look that much alike.

http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt...ruptBodies.htm


didnt see it, sorry. and it proves that the being exists, and has some form of power since he did in fact create those things. It doesnt prove omnipotence, but it proves that Christianity is on to something, since it's a picture of Mary.

Reminds me of my vists to Mdm. Tussuds.

Im sorry, but im not informed on what those things are... explain, please?

Wax figures.

http://www.madametussauds.com/

Ah, i see.

But these are real bodies, so i see no connection...

And you know this because the same people that are perpetuating the miracle idea tell it to you?

Acctually, i've read that they haven't officially declared it a miracle or spoken out on it... im not quite sure though, im still trying to find some information on it.

EDIT: apparently a FEW have a bit of wax on them, because of a bit of decay, but most have none. If they were out to fool us all, would they not say that NONE were wax, and cover it up?

You have a point Jik, (about Christianity being up to something) because almost every rumour has a grain of truth. However, I don't really know how to argue with you at this point. When I presented the absolute omnipotence point, I showed that it was impossible. You don't really have to be an expert to see an impossibility when it stares at you in the face, and yet you dodge the point by saying maybe a knowledgeable priest can answer it. I think you need to get some answers before jumping into a faith.

you've brought up several of those kinds of points... are you addressing the point about the compatability between absolute omnipotence and omnicience, or the "if he was omnipotent and omnicient he would make us do the right thing" point? or perhaps another one?

"If a voice in your head told you to change the world, What would everyone ELSE say?"

That guy's crazy.

"If a group of people told you to drink the kool-aid, Would you?"

No

"If a mysterious being that you could neither prove nor disprove the existence of told you to live your life in the most boring fashion and make you do all these good things, Would you?"

Would you?

I find that the world is not half and half with christianity. Rather, christians are a dying breed, succumbing to the day to day temptations we have born out of out corrupted heads.
So let me ask you people jus this once.

Would you?
Fall out into the sky, trusting that there's water below? Jump forward, thinking there's enough space to land, without falling. It's called faith, and we've all had some hand in it's destruction.

That's just my two cents.

hm... so are you saying that we've all had a part in the destruction of faith, and morals? or something im not grasping?