RicOlie_2 said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rusfefmQDEs
Out of curiosity, what is the atheist explanation for things like this? Or do you just ignore these things and assume that there will be a scientific explanation in the future?
You're asking, what's the explanation for an idiot who had climbed under a heavy and obviously dangerous truck that is held up by a single flimsy jack, who is suffering massive bloodloss, internal injury and going into extreme shock hallucinates two Angels kneeling to his left and to his right in the exact same position as the two Paramedics were kneeling? (Paramedics who were metaphorically "Angels of Mercy").
Why do you assume that he could have known the jack might fail?
I didn't, I just know I wouldn't be crazy enough to climb under a ten-ton truck that is balanced on a single jack the size of a penny. That would be inviting death and or serious injury.
I value my life, maybe he didn't as he thought God would save it (Joke).
RicOlie_2 said:
That of course doesn't even cover why he imagines God would torture him under a truck causing him agony the like of which he couldn't believe, then putting him into hospital for two months making his families lives a living nightmare. Also running up huge medical bills, depriving his family of his income and distracting the Doctors from helping other people. If God really wanted to help him, he would have stopped the truck falling on him in the first place.
This comes from a misunderstanding of the true nature of God. God allows suffering because he allows free will. It is mostly people who cause the suffering, not him. Suffering, however, is good according to Catholic doctrine because it helps atone for sins and is also good for the character. From what I gather, this man's faith was strengthened by his experience, which would explain why God might have allowed it. After all, it is the soul that really matters, not the body (though the body has value too, of course).
It's not for you to determine "the true nature of God", even the Pope would be over reaching on that one IMO. But again I say his faith was strengthed because of his own self-obsession in that he assumes God thought his life was worth bothering to save... rather than just putting his visions down to blood-loss, delrium and shock. If I was in that ammount of pain, panic and shock, I'd think there had been something wrong if I hadn't seen Angels!
RicOlie_2 said:
So everything up to the recuperating has an obvious explanation after even a few seconds of rational thought. As to God giving him back a little (But not all of his intestine for some bizarre reason) I offer mostly scepticism. He could have imbelished the Angel story to add weight to his claims, since as I note above it's easily explained away. Remember that this guy has launched a succesful book writing career off the back of this story. The profits of which is probably how he is paying the huge medical bills that God lumbered him with. Also it's how he is providing for his family now that God has taken away his livelihood.
I agree with the first part of that. He could have made embellishments to the story and there is no way of proving that everything happened the way he said it did. However, there are many, many testimonies like this, and they are usually similar to each other.
Who says that God took away his livelihood? Temporarily of course, but might he not be back at his job now that he has recovered?
Quite right I was making an assumption that he wasn't fit for work after recuperating (Although I'd guess he wasn't). But he did lose about a year of pay and gain all the medical bills, as I said.
RicOlie_2 said:
If you look at these problems the same way Sherlock Holmes would...
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Using that logic, it's pretty easy to realise that since Angels are impossible, there are hundreds of possible explanations.
Except that there is absolutely no way to determine whether Angels are impossible.
You are missing the point of Holmes' logical assertion. i.e. 'The hound of the Baskervilles': Holmes instantly assumes a hound-from-hell is impossible allowing him to immediately deduce all the possible real explanations. Everyone else in that book (Including us the reader in all likelyhood) entertains the possibility (However remote) that the hound could be supernatural, clouding our reasoning.
Going by the tone of your original post, you took his story at face value (Since you questioned how there could possibly be any other explanation). However, I did not instantly assume it was genuine and was therefore able to examine the case with a fresh mind. Even with my very limited knowledge of both the incident in question and medicine, I was able to come up with a raft of possible explanations within minutes.
RicOlie_2 said:
A final note: If his prayers worked, how come they didn't for the other hundred thousand people that also died while praying for salvation on that day? It comes down to arrogance I guess (Sorry if this sounds harsh). That he'd believe that out of all the other much more deserving, blameless (He wasn't blameless the incident was his own stupid fault) and deeply good people that had their prayers ignored, he alone was chosen by God as being special among all the peoples of man.
The incident may have been partly his fault, though it seems like an accident to me. Remember, if God and heaven are real, then it is the soul that matters. If people pray for salvation, they get that when they go to heaven. I'm guessing you just used the wrong word, but I'm not sure what you meant. As I wrote, God allows suffering for purification. God doesn't usually help people because they are deserving. He also doesn't answer prayers that aren't beneficial to a person's salvation.
OED definition of the word 'salvation'...
1: Preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss:
"They try to sell it to us as economic salvation"
1.1: (one's salvation) a source or means of being saved from harm, ruin, or loss:
"His only salvation was to outfly the enemy"
2: Theology - deliverance from sin and its consequences, believed by Christians to be brought about by faith in Christ: the Christian gospel of salvation for all mankind.
^ The first is what it means, the second is what you believe it to mean. You keep suggesting I and others have made silly "mistakes" in our posts which comes across as quite patronising (Especially when you are infact incorrect yourself), I'm sure it is not your intent to do so. I let it go the first few times but thought it time to mention that.
That aside, can you explain that out of the thousands(?) of other people on the planet who suffered painful (Near fatal) accidents on that day (Or any day), who also prayed to God, he alone got a little help (While for everyone else it was "Tough sh*t"). I'm sure you could point to a hundred other cases of Angels appearing but I could point to a hundred-billion where they didn't.
This is the kind of story that only confirms by belief in the non-existence of God.
I don't think it is evidence against God's existence. I think it is evidence, albeit weak, for the existence of God.
For me, it is a story of the kind of crazy stuff the human mind can dream up when it is pushed to the limits. If it was a story of a totally rational and sober man seeing Angels, it would be less easy to dismiss.