Prove to me.... ( Archived) (622)

Ok, you keep changing the criteria. Now you want to see someone who is rotting in an apt as being brought back to life. Perhaps you could give more specific criteria that you want to see occur that would give you proof of God's existence and don't change from that if someone does give you an answer that it has occurred. Once you have established that criteria and someone gives you the proof, you would have to concede to the existence of God,eh? And that would be based on your own statement that you made. If not, then there would be no need to develop any criteria.

So far you have gone from criteria of just the general raising of the dead to now saying a couple of days to low temps and now to rotting corpses in room temp to :"Breaking any recorded medical records for length of time that someone was clinically dead. That would fall into the realm of "defying medical science" as you stated."

It's not fair to keep changing your criteria when you are given an explanation everytime. Please be very specific with something we can both agree on and then it will be easier to see if indeed anything has occurred to date or whether we will both be watching for the news of events in the future relating to our topic. Either way, it's for both of us to find the common ground and go from there. Sound fair to you? So do you want to include several variables or literally only stick to the one variable of time, in the "Breaking any recorded medical records for length of time that someone was clinically dead?" If you only want the variable of time, then it's OK with me. Just be specific to state what you know to be the longest time someone was clinically dead that has been revived so we have a common understanding of the specific variable of the amount of time you are talking about.

But one thing we should probably agree on is that there are things that science cannot explain. If that is stated in a medical article, would that be a possibility that a supernatural type of occurance may be attributed to something akin to explaining an act of God's doing?

I probably won't get back to you today as I have a busy weekend that I am preparing for now. Look forwards to dialoging with you and hopefully we will both give this subject some thought.

But the contradictions were directed at you on two different threads and then you claimed that they were never even brought up. I gave you the option of choosing whichever contradiction you wanted. You refused and so I chose "Is Jesus God."

Yes, but let me post my rspnse to LILLYLADY first. Do you see what I mean however?

???



As explained previously, a person can be resuscitated MUCH later IF they are frozen or their body temperature is significantly reduced. Was that unclear? I am stating in order for it to "defy medical science" wouldn’t it have to indeed accomplish that feat? Those were your own words.



See last post.



Again see last post. You mentioned a baby that was revived after 8 minutes. Hardly proof. I never changed my criteria and don’t understand what you mean by that at tall.




See last post. I stated that my criteria would be a body that had been clinically deceased LONGER than all known medical accounts and STILL revived. Not a cadaver that has been frozen. This was all made very clear in my last post unless you just didn’t bother to read it. I’m not sure? It’s perplexing.



Exactly.

"Breaking any recorded medical records for length of time that someone was clinically dead. That would fall into the realm of "defying medical science" as you stated."

Precisely. If medical science recognized the occurrence and has witnessed it before and has a physiological explanation, can you thusly explain why it would still be considered "supernatural” and substantiate the existence of “some god”?



I never "changed criteria." I asked you to offer evidence that fell outside of the range of physiological conditions such as hypothermia or extreme cold. You only offered a baby that was revived after 8 minutes and we know this to be quite possible.



I was unaware you did not understand. Perhaps now you have read both posts?



I asked you to locate that article on the old woman as I wanted to see what had occurred there exactly. Any luck finding that?



Okay you seem to attribute infants being resuscitated after 8 minutes as being a “supernatural” occurrence in some respect and I don’t. My mom is a retired labor and delivery nurse and she would also beg to differ on that account. They often would be forced to “bag the babies” and breathe for them if they were born clinically dead. They some times called this a “jump start.”



You can look it up online. I’m not certain. That would be important and also what explanations medical science had to offer and what the exact circumstances had been. All of these factors are relevant in substantiating the legitimacy of something like this. Wouldn’t you agree?

Con.



That’s up to you. The ball is in your court obviously. I also mentioned the "god factor." If a body was raised from the dead, every religious sect in the known world would attempt to claim responsibility and announce that it was "their god." That is, if the phenomena occurred outside of human control, i.e. no human present to perform such a miracle.



I would think time and circumstance and who is performing the miracle (human or not). Those would be rational considerations.




All I ask is that you READ my posts clearly. I would appreciate it. Oh, and one other question I need to ask. If as you claim, these examples that you have given (the 8 minute mark baby and the old lady) clearly substantiate your positive assertion that a god (of some determination) exists, then why do we still have Atheists and Agnostics on the face of the earth and why do their numbers grow daily?

Okay here you are simply supplying another passage stating that Jesus is god but still not addressing the contradiction (or why it is there). Here is another passage which denies that Jesus is God.

Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?



And another passage where Jesus clearly states that he is NOT god and his father is "greater than him."

"My Father is greater than I."

.

But are those passages not in conflict with one another?



This is actually a decent attempt at an explanation from an apologetist. The only problem I have with it is it is not based on any passages actually taken from the bible. It sounds as if they are trying to conjure up an excuse for why the bible contradicts itself several times.

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

I took the liberty of quoting the actual passage. Did Jesus die "by the grace of God" or "apart from God"? There are good reasons for thinking that the latter ... was the original reading of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clearly that is open to interpretation. I’m not rejecting their claim but it also sounds a bit like they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.



"Modern Christian scholars reject this idea not because it is difficult to understand but because it cannot be meaningfully expressed. The doctrine cannot be stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is impossible for Jesus to have been perfect man and perfect God at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite and infinite at the same time, that he was fallible and infallible at the same time. This cannot be."

If I had to make a determination to my own satisfaction based on the bible, I would declare that Jesus existed but was a human and not divine in any way. In fact similar to the Buddha.