Religion and Logics

[chriscase]

Sure, but what gave you the impression I want to provide evidence for God in this discussion?

It was more of a charitable interpretation, really, that you'd be willing to back up your assertions with reasons. More to the point, you'd have to define what you mean by God more clearly.

[basics]

conon394,

The main difference between the God of the Bible and all those others is that the others are the product of man's imagination due to his fall from grace. His religion came about by him deifying Nimrod who was proclaimed to be a god and the fear from not following him was death by violence and that's not faith. The God of the Bible offers man life, not death, because Jesus Christ took man's separation from God and tore it up with His blood on a cross, something explained as real faith on the part of Christ delivered to all them that believe on Him through the regenerative powers of God. What have any of the others got to offer?

[strategist.com]

He is either ignorant or dishonest. He's set the rules of the debate to favor his position from the start. He's implying that any phenomenon can have incontrovertible evidence, that all humans are simply obligated to accept as undeniable proof of objective reality, and if you can't provide this evidence then you lose the debate. Which is either dishonesty or ignorance of what evidence and [the human understanding of] truth are.

There is overwhelming evidence based on rigorous studies to refute the claims of various religions. It is you who is either ignorant or dishonest.

Knowledge is mostly faith. Faith is belief based on evidence. You've provided him plenty of evidence. Strategist is going to extreme lengths to dismiss the evidence; as long as it isn't 100% certain that God did it, Strategist says, it is proper to dismiss the evidence as delusional wishful thinking.

Based on what evidence exactly? As far as I can see none of the theists here provided compelling evidence and instead rely on anecdotes (probably in which some information have been omitted) which I have refuted with very likely explanations. Frankly, it is poor exercise of logic and as such it is not me who who is doing it but rather the theists themselves who are demonstrating it.

He would not impose this ridiculously strict standard to any other matter besides religious faith.

What you just said demonstrates the theist mentality of burying one's head and basically demanding unquestioning obedience. No matters in life are too sacred to be subjected to scrutiny and enquiry and not doing so means one is being wilfully ignorant. If I tell you that there are bars of golds that will make you rich beneath the sea cliff and you can find them only if you jump, would you do it without any questions asked?

I mean there is nothing wrong with that per se. Different people can have different approaches and rules for interpreting reality. I just dislike this recent brand of obnoxious antitheism, that pretends atheism is "skeptical", "rational", "reality-based", while religious people are nothing but dumb Neanderthals who worship books written by illiterate cavemen. They only reveal their ignorance and bigotry when they spout that nonsense in public.

You know, at least I didn't resort to ad hominems as many atheists do. Obviously by dismantling the tenets of religion that you felt part of your identity is attacked and you responded to calling me obnoxious. I didn't mean to be one but when there is overwhelming evidence that contradict religious beliefs then I have no reason to hold back and be apologetic when reality is flying on the face of everyone. A spade is a spade. Theists rationalize a lot and try to make some room to wiggle but inevitably these rationalizations contradict themselves and fundamentally illogical. Don't even get me started with contradictions in the Bible but for the sake of the argument, a Christian might say that he/she believes in evolution but that god only gave it a little push and let life transform on its own; it doesn't make sense whatsoever because the Bible clearly stated that god made humans out of clay after his own image. This contradicts the principle of evolution by natural selection and DNA testing shows all life forms share many of the DNA sequences with each other. Now as I mentioned, and which you probably dismissed, even other religions have different accounts of the creation of the universe. So which one is the logical explanation and which one isn't? Clearly creation stories and the theory of evolution are fundamentally incompatible. Yet theists from within their own respective religious bubble argue and make rationalizations how their religion is correct and how apparently their beliefs corresponds objectively with what science discovered when clearly it doesn't. Hence, one cannot have both worlds. Either one blindly accepts a story that has been handed down and convoluted throughout the ages or one accepts scientific findings that will remain consistent even if all data are destroyed and the research was repeated again. You can't call yourself rational by using epistemological arguments alone to justify your position but dismiss objective and empirical data that fly on everyone's faces. I was a religious person mind you and I have come to realized that either I accept reality or not.

Oh and by the way, to those who thinks I am dismissing miraculous anecdotes as nothing, they could be nothing after all. Humans tend to give meaning to meaningless patterns after all which is hardwired to our brain as part of our survival instinct. Now I am not a Richard Dawkins fan but he is spot on with this social experiment demonstrating that coincidences are meaningless.



Now I have a feeling that I will have to reiterate everything I said including having to refer back to my original comment...

[Prodromos]

But the problem you have is not just the Atheist, but the agnostic. The question has already been asked why should I not pray to Athena? Or be Shinto. Do you feel all faith is equivalent or can you prove your one god is right one. That for me is the problem. I accept people have faith but distressingly it leads to both ISIS and Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, saints and crusades (where people are blandly killed because god will know his own) I find it difficult to cultivate faith in any religion.
If the truth is so evident is seems to to fail in the breech.

Based on what evidence exactly? As far as I can see none of the theists here provided compelling evidence and instead rely on anecdotes (probably in which some information have been omitted) which I have refuted with very likely explanations. Frankly, it is poor exercise of logic and as such it is not me who who is doing it but rather the theists themselves who are demonstrating it.

What you just said demonstrates the theist mentality of burying one's head and basically demanding unquestioning obedience. No matters in life are too sacred to be subjected to scrutiny and enquiry and not doing so means one is being wilfully ignorant. If I tell you that there are bars of golds that will make you rich beneath the sea cliff and you can find them only if you jump, would you do it without any questions asked?

It was more of a charitable interpretation, really, that you'd be willing to back up your assertions with reasons. More to the point, you'd have to define what you mean by God more clearly.

You're being charitable toward me but unfortunately the feeling isn't mutual. I think the only people who'd believe are those willing to believe. If you are unwilling to believe, then absolutely nothing I could say, that is allowed under forum rules, could ever change your mind. You pretend to be neutral observers, examining religious evidence with an open mind and coming away unconvinced. In reality, you have a bias in favor of denying God, and therefore an interest in dismissing all the evidence as insufficient, as this thread has demonstrated.

Again, it is either ignorant or dishonest, to pretend that there exists any evidence that is 100% undeniable proof of a event. There is always room to deny the evidence as unconvincing, and ultimately, you can simply retreat to solipsism.

Therefore I have precisely no interest in providing you with more evidence for God. As Sarah Palin might say, "thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere."

However, I will say this. There seems a widespread inability among atheists to differentiate between God and gods. I hope this clears the confusion.

God, Gods, and Fairies by David Bentley Hart

There's only two key paragraphs, but I recommend you read it all.

[basics]

strategist.com,

Information such as what?

[strategist.com]

I am not going to address the first few paragraphs because I and others have already addressed them. As I have guessed, you're begging the questions over and over that were already addressed to turn this into a circular debate to mentally exhaust skeptics and unbelievers.

However, I will say this. There seems a widespread inability among atheists to differentiate between God and gods. I hope this clears the confusion.

God, Gods, and Fairies by David Bentley Hart

It doesn't matter what defines and differentiates between "God" or "gods". The crux of the debate is the logical basis of religion. All religions claim legitimacy on both historical and scientific basis but ultimately the basis of religious claims on both grounds are already debunked by science.

[sumskilz]

It doesn't matter what defines and differentiates between "God" or "gods". The crux of the debate is the logical basis of religion. All religions claim legitimacy on both historical and scientific basis but ultimately the basis of religious claims on both grounds are already debunked by science.

The belief in God as outlined in that article, doesn't rely on historical or scientific claims.

[basics]

strategist.com,

What exactly have I said or ommitted that would confuse any skeptics or unbelievers? Your'e the one who is casting aspertions on my experiences which I have related here on many occasions. I mean to flaunt a guy who programmed monkeys on a computer to say what he wanted is not the kind of character one would seek out if one wanted to know God. So, just as you guess that's about all that can be said for you because you can only guess that God doesn't exist not having anything in the way of evidence for it. Where is your proof?

[Prodromos]

It doesn't matter what defines and differentiates between "God" or "gods". The crux of the debate is the logical basis of religion. All religions claim legitimacy on both historical and scientific basis but ultimately the basis of religious claims on both grounds are already debunked by science.

I've only discussed general theism here, not any specific religion. I hope your argument is better than, "this religion made a false claim, therefore all spirituality and religions are false and debunked by science."

Because that would be illogical.

[basics]

strategist.com,

Let's put God in place of religion and tell me how science has debunked Him?

[strategist.com]

What exactly have I said or ommitted that would confuse any skeptics or unbelievers? Your'e the one who is casting aspertions on my experiences which I have related here on many occasions.

You never answered my question how old the baby was at the time of the event and I have already mentioned the possible reason. As for the Nimrod incident, you could pray to anyone and attribute the sudden restart of engine to anyone whom you've prayed to.

Let's put God in place of religion and tell me how science has debunked Him?

If I remember correctly, I have posted a link in another thread answering a similar question of yours, which was that the parting of the Red Sea never happened. Moreover, I have already mentioned that the theory of evolution and the existence of DNA debunks creation stories, specifically contrary to the explicit account of the bible that god made humans from from the get-go and instantaneously. There are more examples which I am sure you could easily find on the Internet, if you wish to do so, therefore I am not going to delve into it. I am not going to waste more time addressing the circular logics, this is typically what happens to any religious debates.

[Sogdog]

Religion, as in monotheism, as in the spawn of and including Judaism, stopped being logical the moment a naked man and a naked rib-woman took dietary advice from a talking snake!

You are all welcome.

[basics]

Religion, as in monotheism, as in the spawn of and including Judaism, stopped being logical the moment a naked man and a naked rib-woman took dietary advice from a talking snake!

You are all welcome.

Sogdog,

Well there you are, you may not have it all but certainly a smidgeon of the truth. Who told you it was a snake? The Scriptures say serpent which had the ability to talk. Have you never seen youtube videos of other animals that can give a good impression of uttering human language? Had a budgie that you couldn't shut up. You see before the fall of man who is to say that all or many of the animals in the garden couldn't linguistically communicate with one another? We just don't know because we aren't told but whatever these abilities were that all changed when the curse was laid on creation.

[Sogdog]

Sogdog,

Well there you are, you may not have it all but certainly a smidgeon of the truth. Who told you it was a snake? The Scriptures say serpent which had the ability to talk. Have you never seen youtube videos of other animals that can give a good impression of uttering human language? Had a budgie that you couldn't shut up. You see before the fall of man who is to say that all or many of the animals in the garden couldn't linguistically communicate with one another? We just don't know because we aren't told but whatever these abilities were that all changed when the curse was laid on creation.

Snake/serpent. Tomato/tomatoe. It's a joke, it's illogical.

[chriscase]

You're being charitable toward me but unfortunately the feeling isn't mutual. I think the only people who'd believe are those willing to believe. If you are unwilling to believe, then absolutely nothing I could say, that is allowed under forum rules, could ever change your mind. You pretend to be neutral observers, examining religious evidence with an open mind and coming away unconvinced. In reality, you have a bias in favor of denying God, and therefore an interest in dismissing all the evidence as insufficient, as this thread has demonstrated.

Again, it is either ignorant or dishonest, to pretend that there exists any evidence that is 100% undeniable proof of a event. There is always room to deny the evidence as unconvincing, and ultimately, you can simply retreat to solipsism.

Therefore I have precisely no interest in providing you with more evidence for God. As Sarah Palin might say, "thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere."

However, I will say this. There seems a widespread inability among atheists to differentiate between God and gods. I hope this clears the confusion.

God, Gods, and Fairies by David Bentley Hart

There's only two key paragraphs, but I recommend you read it all.

So is this the definition of God you are working from?

Dr. Legend's Source

...the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things...

...neither some particular thing posed over against the created universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a being, at least not in the way that a tree, a clock, or a god is; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are. He is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things live and move and have their being. He may be said to be “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of finite things, but also may be called “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity underlying all things.

I wonder why you would say there is anything this God can't do. Why can't this god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?

A while back you mentioned a statistic:

The only reason belief in the supernatural seems wrong to you, is because you believe it isn't real. I think you'll find that 90% of the population feel the same way about your disbelief.

Let's assume that your statistic is correct. Of that 90%, how many would cite your definition of God if asked to provide one? And how many would agree with you and Aquinas that God cannot do anything that produces a paradox? I wager the intersection of your supporters in all these questions would turn out to be a significantly reduced number. So ad populum is liable to fail you in most situations other than the most vague. Besides, you know it's a fallacy in any case. You really ought to avoid those whilst arguing that your religious belief is consistent with logic.

Let's suppose this God is a well defined logical entity, as you say, and its existence can be reasoned about. This means we can use propositional logic to talk about Him. When you look at the definition of the transcendent God, it's clear that He must subsume Himself. Since He encompasses all that exists, if He exists, he must be contained in himself. This leads naturally (by virtue of propositional logic) to ask about the nature of entities that are not contained in themselves, particularly the aggregation of all such entities. If we ask whether the aggregation of all entities that do not contain themselves is contained in itself, we get a Russell's paradox situation. So I am afraid there is something a bit too broad about your definition of God for us to be able to use propositional logic to postulate its existence. Either it does not qualify for existence, or its existence defies logic.

Now as I read your source, he's has already more or less agreed with me on this point. He wants to reserve a special sort of existence for God that has different rules. That's fine with me, because it puts us into agreement. Some "other kind of existence" that isn't a propositional attribute is an entirely different property and falls quite firmly outside the well-defined territory described by the existence property, which settles the question nicely. When we say "X exists," it means specifically that X has the propositional property of existence. Given that God, as the aggregation of all that has this existence property, cannot have the same existence property without producing a logical contradiction, we must conclude that God does not have the propositional existence property, ie., in common parlance, God does not exist.

You may object to this, saying that if God cannot have the existence property at all, neither can we assign it to Him with a negative value, and I agree with this. There are two ways an object of consideration can fail to have a propositional attribute such as existence evaluate as true: it can possess the property with a value of false, i.e., the property is attributable but takes a negative value; or, the object can fail to have the property entirely, thus failing to have the property with a true value. If you find solace in this distinction, it's all yours, but in neither of these cases can the object be said to exist.

You may note the derivation of Russell's paradox does not apply particularly to the propositional attribute of existence. It could just as easily apply to another propositional attribute. The conclusion is that there are many properties attributable to members of a generalized abstract collection of objects that cannot belong to the abstraction itself. And if we take a step back it's perfectly clear that what we are seeing is a consequence of the abstraction process. We make up abstract generalizations all the time, and the inclination to treat representations from different levels of abstraction interchangeably is a category error that produces fatal logical flaws. This is also why the notion that the transcendent aggregation of all that exists might have such human or societal properties as intent, agency, affection, disapproval, legal strictures, food aversions, etc., produces a similar paradox. The aggregation of all that is capable of feeling love cannot itself be capable of feeling love, provided that: 1) the capability to feel love is a propositional property, and 2) we are using standard propositional logic.

I liken this line of thinking to belief in zero. Zero is a useful abstract concept, very helpful in mathematics. It's just nonsense to "believe" in it, talk to it, or insist that it loves you. The transcendent God is a nifty abstraction someone (I vote for some precursor to Plato or Socrates) invented - and they were no doubt pleased with themselves for thinking it up. But it simply does not make sense in the terms we use to describe the world. If this were only taught in a philosophy symposium, I'd have little issue with it, but that's not how it's peddled to our children. You can't have it both ways. Either the Sunday school / revival tent God is a real, present thing that exists and affects the world with agency, or it's made up. If you want to advocate this transcendent / philosophical God as the "real" one you "believe" in, you ought to cut the other ones loose, as well as any pretense to standard logic. Or perhaps you might admit you just like thinking about abstractions, and all of this is simply human invention.

[basics]

Snake/serpent. Tomato/tomatoe. It's a joke, it's illogical.

Sogdog,

What's illogical if Satan using his power to speak through a beast of any sort to a human has the desired effect which in this case it did? After all have we not heard of many people being filled with evil spirits that speak through them and we call priests to exorcise them? So what difference does being an animal make if it is made to do the same thing? It's only illogical if you never have experienced it. My wife and I once went to a Christian meeting where the pastor cried out that there was someone there who had an evil spirit and when he prayed in the name of Jesus for it to come out of that person who happened to be a woman sitting not far behind us the most blood curdling shriek roared out which made the hairs on the back of my head stand up. After that was dealt with the pastor asked for anyone needing healing to raise their hands. Righ in front of us a person held up the most arthritic hands you ever saw. As he prayed again in the name of Jesus the fingers of both hands straightened amid gasps that were coming from other people at having healing to their plights. The strange thing about that meeting was that when I think back on it now all I remember vividly was the unworldly noise that came out of the woman when the name of Jesus was pronounced in the prayer to release her. Yea, to you it may all sound illogical but not to us who know Jesus Christ as our Lord and saviour.

[Iskar]

....

Ok, this just got too interesting to not jump in. Before I say anything in particular, let me state in the general direction of all involved, though, that I
a) reject a simplistic literalist approach to scripture,
b) hold that any attempt at producing evidence for the existence of God runs counter to the principle of faith and is ultimately harmful to it,
c) in particular reject any corruption of faith by naive magical thinking and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacies, and
d) hold that properly understood faith as an individually chosen and collectively shared conviction about the transcendent is well compatible with logics and science.

Now, regarding a couple of things in your post chris. I do largely agree with your rejection of Dr. Legend's position and the source he brought up, but I do have a couple of reservations about the logics involved.

The definition given by the source is indeed mostly useless, notionally because it remains incredibly vague, does not really define the words it uses and commits a couple of fallacies, and practically because it contradicts the most widespread Abrahamitic approach to God as being fundamentally personally constituted (which is really the core point for believers to be able to personally, albeit transcendently, relate to God.)

Dr. Legend's Source

...the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things...

...neither some particular thing posed over against the created universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a being, at least not in the way that a tree, a clock, or a god is; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are. He is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things live and move and have their being. He may be said to be “beyond being,” if by “being” one means the totality of finite things, but also may be called “being itself,” in that he is the inexhaustible source of all reality, the absolute upon which the contingent is always utterly dependent, the unity underlying all things.

Take for instance this non-sequitur fallacy: "perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things",
or the usage of "in whom" that is really just a trick, a syntactically correct sentence whose shift to a different grammatical case however has no semantic meaning and is just meant to create the illusion there is a third way of being related to reality beyond being outside it and being part or all of it. The rest is just ascribing implicit personality ("he") to abstract constructs of language ("being", "reality", "the absolute", "unity").
The thing described here is a non-notion and far from any used or usable definition of God.

Let's suppose this God is a well defined logical entity, as you say, and its existence can be reasoned about. This means we can use propositional logic to talk about Him. When you look at the definition of the transcendent God, it's clear that He must subsume Himself. Since He encompasses all that exists, if He exists, he must be contained in himself. This leads naturally (by virtue of propositional logic) to ask about the nature of entities that are not contained in themselves, particularly the aggregation of all such entities. If we ask whether the aggregation of all entities that do not contain themselves is contained in itself, we get a Russell's paradox situation. So I am afraid there is something a bit too broad about your definition of God for us to be able to use propositional logic to postulate its existence. Either it does not qualify for existence, or its existence defies logic.

I don't see how the bolded implication is supposed to work. The existence of the set of all sets that contain themselves (which is a well-defined object) does not imply the existence of the set of all sets that do not contain themselves (which is not a well-defined object, or in more mundane terms, does not exist). Furthermore, a Russel paradox is easily resolved by refining language and passing to higher order logics or type theory. The underlying point of this sort of paradox is really just that not everything we can formulate is a valid object of propositional logics. (This also kills the "create a stone he cannot lift" question: If you start with the premise of an omnipotent being, then "a stone it cannot lift" is not a well-defined object, so you cannot ask about creating it in a logically meaningful way.) I would conclude that this "definition" of God is not contradictory in this part, but still fundamentally meaningless as I wrote above.

Now as I read your source, he's has already more or less agreed with me on this point. He wants to reserve a special sort of existence for God that has different rules. That's fine with me, because it puts us into agreement. Some "other kind of existence" that isn't a propositional attribute is an entirely different property and falls quite firmly outside the well-defined territory described by the existence property, which settles the question nicely. When we say "X exists," it means specifically that X has the propositional property of existence. Given that God, as the aggregation of all that has this existence property, cannot have the same existence property without producing a logical contradiction, we must conclude that God does not have the propositional existence property, ie., in common parlance, God does not exist.

This is the second point, where I need to disagree: Existence is not an attribute, but a premise we use to talk about things. You're committing the mirror mistake of Anselm's ontological proof of God to disprove his existence (a prime example that false reasoning can imply A and notA). Language is really playing another (and very common) prank on us here as most languages do not differentiate between "estar" and "ser" as it would be in Spanish and use the word "nothing" like a noun - grammar and semantics are different things for a reason. If I say "X is red" and "X is not" then both look the same structurally, but "not" is not a qualification of "is", it is its negation. The semantically correct equivalent of writing "X is not" is not writing "X" at all.

I liken this line of thinking to belief in zero. Zero is a useful abstract concept, very helpful in mathematics. It's just nonsense to "believe" in it, talk to it, or insist that it loves you. The transcendent God is a nifty abstraction someone (I vote for some precursor to Plato or Socrates) invented - and they were no doubt pleased with themselves for thinking it up. But it simply does not make sense in the terms we use to describe the world. If this were only taught in a philosophy symposium, I'd have little issue with it, but that's not how it's peddled to our children. You can't have it both ways. Either the Sunday school / revival tent God is a real, present thing that exists and affects the world with agency, or it's made up. If you want to advocate this transcendent / philosophical God as the "real" one you "believe" in, you ought to cut the other ones loose, as well as any pretense to standard logic. Or perhaps you might admit you just like thinking about abstractions, and all of this is simply human invention.

This is an interesting line of thought, but I would caution you about zero. The concept of zero is abstract, but still necessary - if you deny it I can show you that you run into contradictions. I doubt you would assert the same for the concept of God.

The main point of applying logics to God is probably the following: Logics is a human construct. In treating God as a valid object of logical reasoning we already make a premise that is, from the position of faith, mostly untenable (namely that a human system of thought can grasp or put any kind of restrictions on the nature of God). By the Christian doctrine God certainly has a worldly/material aspect, at the very least in the person of Christ, and thus worldly logics should be usable by humans as a way to approach him, but it cannot be used to determine/delimit/qualify him. This of course extends to any attempt at concisely describing God by language - as exemplified by the "definition" in Dr. Legend's source.

[basics]

strategist.com,

I made a reply that the child, Fiona, was around two years of age. Where it has got to I don't know. All I know is that I posted it.

Concerning the parting of the Red Sea how would anyone today know what actually happened way back then? Since the sea is most likely doing what it did before the parting plus the fact that photos of debris from chariots have been taken, that apart what evidence do the so called experts have to say that it never happened.

But, I'll give you an example, a small example from my own experience. Every morning I take the dog out for his first walk of the day so the first task is to see how I need to be dressed in accordance with the weather conditions. For a while I could get soaked as one does when it's pouring so I asked God eventually to stop the rain. He didn't but what He did was create a dry bubble around us, me and the dog, meaning that we got back home dry. On the occasion when I didn't ask I got wet. That still stands but not only for the rain but also the wind. You see God is not short when it comes to answering the prayers of His people old or young. And just to add another little piece of information, because the dog was jumping in and out of wet grass his belly was wet whereas his top dry.

[Sogdog]

Sogdog,

What's illogical if Satan using his power to speak through a beast of any sort to a human has the desired effect which in this case it did? After all have we not heard of many people being filled with evil spirits that speak through them and we call priests to exorcise them? So what difference does being an animal make if it is made to do the same thing? It's only illogical if you never have experienced it. My wife and I once went to a Christian meeting where the pastor cried out that there was someone there who had an evil spirit and when he prayed in the name of Jesus for it to come out of that person who happened to be a woman sitting not far behind us the most blood curdling shriek roared out which made the hairs on the back of my head stand up. After that was dealt with the pastor asked for anyone needing healing to raise their hands. Righ in front of us a person held up the most arthritic hands you ever saw. As he prayed again in the name of Jesus the fingers of both hands straightened amid gasps that were coming from other people at having healing to their plights. The strange thing about that meeting was that when I think back on it now all I remember vividly was the unworldly noise that came out of the woman when the name of Jesus was pronounced in the prayer to release her. Yea, to you it may all sound illogical but not to us who know Jesus Christ as our Lord and saviour.

yadda yadda. Still illogical

[basics]

yadda yadda. Still illogical

Sogdog,

But still true.