Search results

The difference being that humans are limited to observation of the natural world—that is, all that we can know and is of this universe. If you are going to assert to know something that can't be known by reason, then you must prove it somehow.

I am going to die no matter what I choose to believe or do with my life. The rest is just filler.

If God created man from dust (Gen. 2:7) there should be no dust. The thing is, apes and humans came from a common ancestor—apes did not "turn into" humans. The common ancestor HAS disappeared, meaning only apes and humans exist.

Just curious. I know that as far as the Catholic Church, they don't see any conflict, as Pope John Paul II points out: I think the two ideas can co-exist in Christianity, if you allow for God to be the origin of the soul regardless of the origin on the physical body. Thoughts?

Pax vobiscum.

My bad. Then I guess I'll burn in hell. But of course, so will you. You use knowledge, you take advantage of knowledge… see you in hell!

If that's the case, I find it very hard to believe he would judge me for using the reason he himself gave me. Besides, I'm wagering on the flying spaghetti monster. He promised me eternal italian food in the afterlife. If he doesn't exist, oh well. If he does, more food for me! Side note —...

No, it's not how science deals with the "supernatural." I agree that there are things we can't explain, yet. In your opinion, that means it must be a god. Any good scientist would say that it simply means we don't possess the knowledge or ability to test it. That's why I mentioned "god of the...

Then we are fundamentally at odds. You claim its up to me to disprove something that, by definition, is without evidence, and not within the natural realm that your god apparently created. I say you have to prove your claims of the supernatural because its exactly that — supernatural. The...

Did the Church declare this miracle to be true? Then why do you believe it? And yes, only 2 miracles are required. But that doesn't stop them from recognizing many others. Maybe you need to read about the saints more, the stories and legends are full of apparent miracles, many more than 2 apiece.

So that's your excuse? Oh, we'll ignore the MEDICAL MIRACLE in favor of less interesting crap. I'm not buying it. Regardless, one is not required to believe in private revelations or private miracles, this is something the Church teaches. No, it's not my job. You are making the positive...

Care to share these medical reports you must necessarily have if you're going to assert so firmly you believe the doctors? Oh wait, you can't. The only sources for this story are religious in nature. If this "miracle" is so grand, there would be much more information available, and the Vatican...

The problem with YOUR explanation is you lack knowledge of the anatomy of the eye. The pupil is the hole in the iris. If she lacks pupils this means she has no irises. If she did have irises, she would therefore have pupils. If you watch the videos of her, when she takes the glasses off, her...

For the record, the conclusion I have come to is that she likely has aniridia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniridia). In the video i saw of her (youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ju4HeobGM) she is wearing sunglasses and has trouble with her eyes when she takes them off, likely due to the sensitivity to...

I've done plenty of my own research. The reason I keep asking for evidence from you is because you need to learn to provide reasonable evidence to back up your wild claims and not just assume the other person is the one who has to not only find the proof for you but then provide their own...

If you are going to claim someone made a blind girl with no pupils see, you ought to be able to cite sources to back that up. Its not up to me to go search out every story. If you are going to throw that out there with no evidence or source, I can rightfully dismiss it and give it no further...

Sources? I'd love to learn more.

Mummification can happen naturally through desiccation of tissues. There are many factors that affect the rate of decay of bodies. The FACT remains, however, that there are no truly incorrupt corpses, only ones that appear to have less decay than others.

Seems reasonable. Thank you for that explanation. I think you will find that in most cases these "incorrupt" bodies are actually well preserved by mummification, and are usually covered in a wax mask to cover the undesirable features of the corpse.

I mean in the sense that you have a relationship with him, like one would have with a parent or a friend.