Fair enough. Sounds like the jury is still out then.
Sorry if it comes across as nitpicking but there is a reason. Many Christian apologists say ALL men have knowledge of God and base this belief on a Bible verse. It appears the Paraha would invalidate that notion. If you’re not one that uses that argument, that’s fine.
shrug You are entitled to your opinion.
It depends what words you use for your search. When you first mentioned studies in support of the efficacy of prayer, I googled study, prayer, scientific and my returns were not promising, most buts being about the lack of efficacy of prayer. Then when you provided your search terms, I found a couple of studies in support of the efficacy of prayer.
Sometimes it isn’t as easy as googling. Anyway, I’m glad you pointed me to some other studies. Thanks!
Strictly speaking, the verse in question says God’s law is written on the heart’s of men. Some may take this to mean God as well, but the verse references the law of God.
You’re the one throwing a hissy fit because people are asking you for sources regarding your claims. If you spent less energy being dramatic maybe you could put that energy to passing on a link instead of bringing every thread down to the mud
It would have been magnitudes more simple for you to provide the link than your post after of post kicking and screaming
To a troll lib, a hissy fit is just someone disagreeing with you.
Troll someone else. It doesn’t’ work on me.
I explained why I wouldn’t comply with the request in simple, rational terms.
You like being wrong, eh?
I think this is the verse used by some apologetics to claim all humans know of God’s existence:
Romans 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
You waltz in call everyone trolls and cascade them for asking you to provide a source for your claims. And you’re calling us trolls. Ok lol
You still havent provided a link. I guess it must be easier to kick and scream than to supply a link.
“Hunt”? You make it sound like its work lol
Paul is referencing Judaism here, a nation who saw God’s great works, yet some still denied him. The Romans would have at least heard of God, and Paul uses the watchmaker’s argument here: If there is a creation there must be a creator. In the next chapter, Paul speaks of the law being written on everyone’s heart.
Where the two come together is in Paul’s use of the term “Wrath of God.” It is helpful to know that while Paul uses this term (Wrath of God) he does not say that God is angry. Quite the contrary. The term “Wrath of God” comes from Old Testament prophets and its basic meaning is that world was built on a foundation of moral order. When this moral order is abused or not observed, bad things happen.
Since this thread addresses the concept that both believer and non-believers are usually moral, we can easily see the other’s argument: Non-believers can argue that as society evolved, so did morality. Believers present the argument that God’s intolerance of sin is seen because a society tends to eventually fall apart when it fails to observe moral law.
(Note: I have no patience for a sentiment of there is no good or evil, only thinking makes it so; or the argument there is no absolute morality.)
No “patience”? That’s not very open minded
Would you murder, rape and steal if there was no absolute morality, or no notion of objective good and evil?
The question shows that the thorny problem of morality doesn’t go away by assuming a deity as it’s source.
I beg to differ, it explains me.
But thank you for reading the reason.
I do not believe that your question is in any way in keeping with the spirit of the RF.
Furthermore, if you cannot be specific you are not actually contributing.
Please try asking a proper question.
You’re the one who said vaguely that physics enhances the Bible. Please tell me which passages are enhanced by physics without the need of heavy interpretation / injection of meaning.
It actually “explains” nothing more than this is the story you tell yourself about your path to belief in a deity.
It may even be…if the Christian deity exists…truly what happened.
But there’s simply no way to know objectively…and thus is a story for you and for those who already believe as you do.
Which is fine…you were posting in response to another believer when you posited that argument…so I suspect you realize as a persuasive argument for non-believers, it is quite lacking.
There is no RF “spirit” here.
Maybe under the old format there was some spirit. Here it’s just another political-forum free-for-all.
