...or at least make a statement!


Here's the idea. Once 2012 is out of the way, and there're no "prophecies" to get in the way, there would be an event advertised. Well in advance, the event is advertised and theists are challenged to pray as much as they want to affect the outcome. This event would be a test of prayer. This is how it might work:


Imagine a large perspex box, say 2m x 2m. The floor of the box is covered, to a depth of a foot or two, with dry wood. A block of ice is laid on top of this, then the box is sealed. A countdown or time limit is given, and the audience watches. The challenge that the theists prayed for is: If (any) God is real, let him burn the wood to ash while leaving the ice intact.

Of course this isn't possible, but if a god exists, if he wants people to know it, and if he answers prayer, there is no logical reason why it shouldn't happen.


So, ideally, when people see that this should have happened but didn't, they'll realise that prayer doesn't work. Ideally though, the test would be something that can also be shown to be possible through scientific means.


Down side is, they'll probably just come up with excuses..

Views: 109

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If only it were as simple as that. But unfortunately we are dealing with people who would rather pray over their children than take them to the doctor, and when the child dies they still just say "his will be done".

If failed prayers could do anything, religion would have been dead millennia ago

So, this is all that it would take for you to believe in God?


More importantly, you are willing to try to test God's test, with a test.


Remember, God is testing everyone to believe in Him by faith alone.


Consider these facts (and lets just take them as fact for arguments sake.) lets see there was:

  • A bush that was on fire, but did not burn.
  • The Red Sea parted.
  • Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed when he died.
  • People turned to salt.
  • The city of Saddam & Gomorrah being destroyed.
  • Flooding of the world*
  • Turning water into wine.
  • Protecting your first born by splashing lambs blood in the front doorway.
  • A person being swallowed by a whale, and lived to tell about it.
  • I know there are hundreds more examples I am missing...

and still people are saying "prove it"


Shoot, even Christ was to have healed the deaf, made the crippled walk, and raise the dead.  And still he was crucified!  Instead of asking for him to start a HMO.


With the right tools, I bet I could burn the wood, without disturbing the ice, but that would not make me a God.


This reminds me of the joke of how a biker made it to heaven:

Three people died and went to the pearly gates.  A baker, a pizza-maker, and a biker.

Saint Peter said were not in the book of life; but told them if they could give the devil a task, which he could not perform.  The person would get into heaven.


So they met the devil, and the Devil said "who wants to go first?"


The Baker said "make 10,000 cakes, and eat them in 10 seconds."

The Devil promptly made the cakes, and swollowed them whole.  Finishing them in time.

The Baker burst into flames, and disappeared.


The Pizza-maker stepped forward, and said "make 20,000 pizzas, and eat them in 5 seconds"

The Devil promptly made the pizzas, and swollowed them whole.  Finishing them in time.

The Pizza-maker burst into flames, and disappeared.


The Devil then eyes the biker, and said "you are next."

The biker lifted his leg while farting, and said "catch that, and paint it purple!"

The biker then went to heaven.



*Remember the story of Noah ended with the covenant that God will not destroy Earth with water again, it will be by fire.  I predict that the fire could very well be due to our sun becoming a red giant someday, and as far as we know, they did not know the sun will become a red giant thousands of years (hopefully) in the future.


Let's see, you suggest that the proof of 'god' is a bunch of fairy tales and a good Vegas magic act?  So if Chris Angel picks up a copy of Brother's Grimm and tells you he is a god you would believe him?

Unless you were there, these things did not happen?


That is my point.


If a pile of wood under a block of ice burned, without disturbing the ice, and I had witnessed it.  You would have the same disbelief as you do now.  So why bother?



Well, am I supposed to have faith in god or am I supposed to have faith in you?  If I have faith in you, then should I also have faith in people like Harold Camping?  Whom should I have faith in and in whom should I not have faith?

There is a warning to watch out for false prophets, and so it is healthy to not to blindly believe just anyone. 


Just it is not healthy to be completely unconvincing.

Or run away from the subject altogether.


I think that anyone who ever been around for a while knows that the Bible says that "no one knows the hour, or the day of His coming" Even if they never stepped in church.


So, anyone hearing Camping would have immediately known he was a false prophet.


Even George Norry saw through that, and refused to accept money for advertising on his show.  Because he knew it would have been equivalent to being a partner in the fraud.  George kept an open mind, and let them air their belief.


I have heard a comment that gives some credit to Camping.  The likelihood that more Bibles have been opened due to his wacky prediction, than any other statement made.



Ok, but then recently the Catholic church came to the conclusion that there is no limbo anymore, or perhaps that there never had been.  So that's kind of awkward, because one would hope that the true prophet had some consistency to his/her story, you know?


Even the C of E - the first church to decide that the Catholics were wrong because a King wanted to shag a younger wife or some such shit - recently came to the conclusion that there is no hell anymore, or perhaps that there never had been.  That kind of muddles that consistency thing again.


Now I know there are a lot of newer Churches, but then a lot of them formed for fairly arbitrary reasons: like the ones that formed to cater to the growing openly gay population who didn't want to be condemned to hell.  The problem there is I sort of have to wonder why, if any of these have the true message, they didn't start up a long time ago - you know, assuming god was trying to put forth a credible image and all.


One thing that sort of plagues me is the question of bacon.  Jesus said he was here to fulfill the law, which would sort of go to upholding the prohibition on pork.  Paul, on the other hand, seems to have overridden that.  Now I would sort of expect Jesus to trump Paul on such matters, but it seems like a lot of Christians eat bacon.  I would hate to give up bacon, but I would prefer not to go to hell either.  Does that mean the C of E is for me?


Can you clear any of these things up?

Oh good, more bibles being opened means more atheists will be reborn. After all the number one reason for atheism is studying the scriptures. Maybe you should read more of the bible yourself. 

On "running away from the subject all together" I think you're a bit off there. What do you think we discuss here 99% of the time? Soccer?

So what about the cases where the Bibble directly contradicts itself? Which verse is the word of Gawd and which is the false prophecy? Anyone who reads it critically has to conclude it's completely unreliable for any perspective on history, morality or even good writing.

"Consider these facts (and lets just take them as fact for arguments sake.)"

No, I will not take them as facts, unless you can produce reliable witnesses, evidence, or some method by which they can be reproduced. Really, I'll say it again. Prove it. If you don't understand what counts as proof, then go away. You don't have the tools to hold a debate with rational people.

" Consider these facts (and lets just take them as fact for arguments sake)..."

This is not how fact works. In order to present an argument for your side, you need to know the definition of the words you use.

The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concep.

Your facts are not facts at all. They can not be tested, they can not be proved. So, no, for arguments sake we can not just accept them as fact. What you have here is a list of events that can not be confirmed, have no evidence to support them and to the average idiot sound silly. I mean if your neighbor came to you and said "My bush was on fire and I heard the voice of god!" but then the bush he was referring to wasn't even singed, don't you think you'd take a few steps away from your neighbor? You'd probably even go back home and think "that guy has lost his mind! Nice fellow, but WOW!"
 Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. 

"More importantly, you are willing to try to test God's test, with a test?"

Well yes. That's what science is all about. We do focus our tests to make science confirm what we want it to confirm. A scientist who becomes fixated on proving a hypothesis loses their impartiality and credibility. 

Science does not set out to prove what we already know. It is used to find out what we think we know, or what we may not know. We do not know for sure that god (of any religion) exists. We do not know that your "facts" are fact. Especially not scientific fact. They are nice stories (well the ones you listed anyway) but the story of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy are just as nice. And yet, there's no evidence for those either. A child goes about finding out the truth about Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy because of doubt. The begin to reason that it seems unlikely for such characters to exist. They take what they know, compare it with what they don't know, compare that to the evidence and make a hypothesis based on their findings. But even that doesn't constitute a fact. 

Which brings us right back to where we started.... no, we can not take your statements as fact. Therefore the rest of your argument falls through the cracks as well.

Science is the new religion?


My point was not whether they occurred, or not.  My point is that these things were to have been documented, and the reaction to the "miracles" were also documented.


I have yet to hear anyone say... if I saw that, I would believe!


No one disbelieves the reactions, but they do disbelieve the miracles.



There aren't miracles in this world. Prayers do not get answered. And you need to read what religion means again. 

The tail of the Little Mermaid is documented. Does that mean it is fact? No. It is fiction. Just a book. (Or a movie). Just because you write something down, it does not become fact.

Court cases are not won on pure sight. They require evidence to back up the witnesses. You lack both.



© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service