It means quite the opposite actually (Matthew 16:24-25).
No it does not.
What is greater than humanity?
What is sillier than not being able to directly answer a question? I don’t speak guru.
You deny the existence of a higher power.
Who are we accountable to, but other humans?
We are the defendant, judge, and jury.
What else are we, but gods?
Your train of logic has jumped the track because a whole lot of ties seem to be missing.
I don’t know. But, is this question logically equivalent to “Why wouldn’t God make a world in which it was impossible for innocent children to die?”
I’m not sure this question makes sense. How do you know that it’s “never any higher”? We have no basis for comparison. What we actually have is either a universe with a God who sometimes intervenes, or one without, and whichever one of these universes we actually live in, I don’t know what the other one would look like.
It would help if just one innocent child was saved by means that could not be attributed to natural means.
These undoubtedly will not meet your criteria, but
Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9, Mark 5, Luke 8)
St. Anthony of Padua brings a drowned boy back to life
Got anything a little more recent, and not transcribed by true believers? By the way, even if the event happened exactly as believers claim it did, that would not be evidence that any gods existed, let alone the one you believe in.
Then why bring them up at all, other than to imply that my standards of evidence are too strict?
Then what’s the point?
Jesus himself could appear to you personally and tell you that he’s alive, and you would attribute it to some unknown natural cause, a mental lapse, delirium, something.
Faith is a virtue. Cultivate it!
Who didn’t see this argument coming? :rolleyes:
Claiming that if I would reject a centuries-old apocryphal tale I would also reject direct evidence seen by my own eyes is insulting. It ranks right down there with “I have proof…but I refuse to show it to you because you would only reject it!”
You know what evidence was asked for, so you either can come up with it, or you can’t, but don’t give me any “You aren’t worthy to hear it” crap. Your retort holds no water whatsoever until you present it, and then I actually reject it.
My intent was not to insult or to denigrate your worth.
What I gather from our conversations is that you don’t believe in the supernatural. Therefore, anything you observe must necessarily have a natural explanation, no matter how outlandish, unusual, or inexplicable.
I just don’t see how any evidence of the supernatural could possibly persuade you, or how it could even be considered “evidence of the supernatural” in the first place, since the conclusion that “the supernatural does not exist” has already been reached.
Maybe I’m mistaken.
I could also put on some robes, walk up to you, and claim to be Jesus, back from the dead and here to tell you how to live. Would you believe me? What if I did some crazy shit you couldn’t easily explain?
It is certainly great excuse not to have to even try, then claim that I am being unreasonable.
BTW, if some guy in a robe walked up to you and claimed he was Jesus, would you believe him?
My first instinct would be that you need mental health assistance.
But, I guess it depends on what you said and did. If what you said or did contradicted already revealed truth, then you’re an obvious fraud.
I only have accounts of previous apparitions of Jesus to go on.
I guess if Jesus chose to appear to me as “some guy in a robe”, I suppose he could, but generally there’s no mistaking the glorified King of the Universe for “some guy in a robe”.
So you would believe that he was Jesus if he said back to you what you already believe? You do know that successful cons run on that principle-Tell them what they want to hear, and you have them by the balls.
Edited to add: And those that think they are superior and can’t be fooled usually are the easiest to con.
I did try (Post #129).
I wouldn’t say you’re being unreasonable, I would more say close-minded.