Leonardo said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Leonardo said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
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.
Yeah, same for mermaids, leprechauns, and unicorns. People claim to have seen them.
Oh, but they're not real!
There's a difference between saying something is not real and saying it is impossible.
Potato potato. (really doesn't work in writing ;P )
Alright, impossible. Angels are supposed to be supernatural beings, right? No such thing as the supernatural. There. Impossible.
I think it's pointless debating this, but it is only your belief that the supernatural does not exist, as it is mine that it does.
RicOlie_2 said:
...
So, you're totally ok with a man of faith basically saying to his doctor:
- "hey, fuck you, you did nothing for me, the Lord saved me with a miracle!"
- "but we healed you, we put you back together, we gave you iv drips.."
- "magical man came and gave me a shock in the forehead, and my intestines grew back. and no thanks to you!!"
If I was the doctor in question I would fight really hard against my instincts to punch him in the kisser!
I am absolutely not OK with someone saying that. That man didn't say anything like that. He didn't deny the doctors' role, but instead just didn't mention it. Let's use an analogy of the opposite scenario (someone being killed in ancient times). King Example orders the death of Joe. Executioner Bob kills Joe. Would you say King Example or Executioner Bob was responsible for Joe's death? One of Joe's friends later talks about how wrong King Example was to kill Joe. Would you say Joe's friend isn't giving Executioner Bob enough credit for Joe's death?
Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully it is good enough that you can grasp the gist of what I'm trying to say.
I don't understand your analogy, sorry.
That's OK, it wasn't a very good or clear one. My point is just that a person can credit someone with an action that they weren't directly responsible for (but the action came about because of that person), and not mention the person directly responsible, without being accused of not giving the person directly responsible enough credit. Hopefully that is clearer. If not, perhaps I can attempt a better, real-world, analogy.