PDA

View Full Version : Proof of God (Previously Moderated)



Phrost
22nd October 04, 07:07 PM
This thread is for the discussion of empirical evidence supporting the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God.

This thread will be moderated so as to keep it on-topic, and free from derailment.

Ground Rules:

1. Cite sources, preferably with URLs so that they can be referenced.

2. Limit evidence to that which actually is evidence. Semantics and circular arguments do not count as evidence.

For the purposes of this discussion we will be using Kant's definition of "empirical" evidence as that which can be proven only by (objective) experience". Meaning your personal "conversations with God" are irrelevant as they are subjective.

3. Arguments must be free from logical fallacies, a list of which can be found here:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Again, this thread will be moderated in the interest of facilitating mature discussion between the interested parties.

Go.

imported_Blazer
22nd October 04, 07:11 PM
in the "proof" of god can we discuss the shortcomings of other creation threoys as proof?

Phrost
22nd October 04, 07:30 PM
No. This thread is for those who believe in "god" to prove his existence to those of us who require evidence before we accept things as true.

imported_Blazer
22nd October 04, 08:14 PM
No. This thread is for those who believe in "god" to prove his existence to those of us who require evidence before we accept things as true.

............... its hard to argue with just emperical facts, and not pointing out the competitions unemperical facts.

Thespis
22nd October 04, 08:49 PM
You still don't get it. Evidence does not have to be something measured. In this case it isn't even something that can be measured. However, that does not mean it isn't there unless you limit your thinking. If you understand much of the bible, God has no interest in "proving his existence". It's about personal experience and perception based on faith. I realize it seems unpractical from your experience. How does one measure feelings, miracles, and that which is beyond the human mind to grasp? Why does it have to be measured to be true?

There have been plenty of miraculous recoveries by people who have been sick when the doctors fully expected the patient to die from their illness. They could not explain the recovery or find any evidence of what or why it happened. Yet the patient has a clean bill of health with no sign of the illness. There it is staring them in the face flying in the face of human reason. They can't explain it, but it is true despite what can or can't be explained.

That's some pretty limited critical thinking and very arrogant (not to mention ridiculous) to suggest that something can only be true if it can be proven empirically and grasped by the human mind.

Phrost
22nd October 04, 09:28 PM
You still don't get it. Evidence does not have to be something measured. In this case it isn't even something that can be measured.

The very definition of evidence is something that can be measured. If you cannot prove it exists, then you need to stop suggesting it does, or concede that your views are irrational and are not based in anything other than your desire that they be true.



However, that does not mean it isn't there unless you limit your thinking. If you understand much of the bible, God has no interest in "proving his existence". It's about personal experience and perception based on faith. I realize it seems unpractical from your experience. How does one measure feelings, miracles, and that which is beyond the human mind to grasp? Why does it have to be measured to be true?

Because:

a.) Rational people expect proof of something when they're told to take it seriously.

and

b.) if it is intangible, unquantifiable, then it is more than likely subjective, if not just a product of a combination of imagination and emotion.

Faith is not evidence of anything other than itself.



There have been plenty of miraculous recoveries by people who have been sick when the doctors fully expected the patient to die from their illness. They could not explain the recovery or find any evidence of what or why it happened. Yet the patient has a clean bill of health with no sign of the illness. There it is staring them in the face flying in the face of human reason. They can't explain it, but it is true despite what can or can't be explained.


None of which represent anything other than unexplained phenomena, and not proof of an all-powerful, all knowing, benevolent god. They're just unexplained.

I'd suggest you recuse yourself from this discussion. You obviously have no proof of your beliefs, nor any intention whatsoever to provide any.

I'll wait for Chantress to respond.

Phrost
22nd October 04, 09:39 PM
Please keep your posts related to the topic.

Morley
22nd October 04, 09:59 PM
God has no interest in "proving his existence".
Un-true. According to the bible he "demands" that you worship "him"...Sounds like he is very interested in proving his existance...if you believe in him

Energiser
23rd October 04, 02:06 AM
Fine, i'll keep my post on topic.

1) this thread is fundamentally stupid.

2) Faith and Proof are mutually exclusive.

Zaxum
23rd October 04, 03:37 AM
I think all of your threads that you post are very interesting, Phrack, excluding this one, however. There really isn't any way to prove God exists just by saying, "Oh me and the big G-Dog were throwing back a few brews talking a muck about the dawn before time and shizniet, holmes!" What you're obviously looking for is some substancial evidence that God exists.. and I'll tell you what. I've been waiting my whole life for some kind of evidence or even a 'sign' that he's up there. Something that will renew my faith and give me a push knowing that my faith in him is 'correct' or is going in the right direction. Thing is, I've never got it.

But I still believe he exists. Hate to go into anything that might be a fallacy, but certain events in my life have bolstered my faith, even though I've experienced no phenomina that would prove to me that there is an almighty watching over every little thing I do. I just believe he's there. Noone in this world is obliged to prove anything to anyone.. why should God? He is what he is, doing what he does, when he does it, because he is who he is. That's that.

Chantress
23rd October 04, 03:54 AM
Proof #1: The Empty Tomb

Historically speaking, there was a tomb that's contents were so important it was guarded by Roman soldiers under penalty of death if anyone got in or out of the tomb. Strangely enough, that tomb is empty today because the person it contained left it of his own power. That person would be Jesus Christ. Over 500 people saw him after the ressurection. The contemporary critics even acknowledged him. Josephus writes in his "Antiquities" , "and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, upon his impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him." This was written by Jew, who would have considered himself at odds with the cause of Christ.

Clark Pinnock writes, "The certainty of the apostles was founded on their experiences in the factual realm. To them Jesus showed Himself alive 'by many infallible proofs' (Acts 1:3). The term Luke (a doctor) uses is tekmerion, which indicates a demonstrable proof. The disciples came to their Easter faith through inescapable empirical evidence available to them, and available to us through their written testimony. It is important for us, in an age that calls for evidence to sustain the Christian claim, to answer the call with appropriate historical considerations."

Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn wrote "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it.

Is God a fraud? Highly unlikely. If that were the case, then the contemporaries of the Bible authors would have written the authors off as lunatics and the people would not have so readily followed. There was no motivation in the first century to become a Christian. As a matter of fact there was a lot of reasons not to. First the Jews would want to kill you, and if they didnt make it, the Romans werent far behind.

Lastly, if you are truely interested in a great source of evidences...buy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631/qid=1098521613/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-5564789-7556929?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

That is also my source material for this post.

Phrost
23rd October 04, 04:31 AM
Wow, you're up late, Chantress. Getting ready for Sunday School tomorrow? (Said with perfect innocence and a lack of "dickosity", despite how that comes across in text.)

I'll respond to your post tomorrow, thanks for your reply, with all sincerity.

Phrost
23rd October 04, 05:06 AM
Please start a seperate thread if you'd like to discuss issues outside of the scope of the conversation as detailed in the first post. The title of the topic specifically begins with the note that this thread is moderated.

Whether or not you like this makes no difference to me. This is the last time I will post a courtesy message about this. You're not fucking five-year-olds, you can understand plain English, and CTC is not a Democracy... so you don't get a vote on whether or not this thread is moderated.

Zith
23rd October 04, 11:16 AM
what I don't understand is how you can ask for empirical evidence that god exists, knowing full well there is none.. this argument CAN'T be won by either side, so why bother?

Phrost
23rd October 04, 11:54 AM
I wasn't the one who suggested there was the evidence.

And as Flare said in another thread, it would be a life-changing event for many of us to be shown said evidence.

imported_Blazer
23rd October 04, 12:02 PM
Problem is the bible is there it has all of what it says in it. But its soooooooo open to interpretation. The problem with science is it is also open to interpretation, they admit a lot of carbon dating they do has a high chance of being flawed for example (off by a few years a few hundred thousand even)

Empirical facts are unnecessary for some to have faith, just like some will take the word of a scientist (which is from a man probably who gets money for making a discovery and job depends on it)<O:p</O:p

Using scientific theory and observation, ok I observe when I feel bad and I pray, I feel better I sometimes feel a presence even? To prove to you that there is a presence I would need to be hooked up to an EEG (brainwave monitor) and have some various radiation detection equipment or whatever they think might be able to detect a presence. I can’t do that and I don’t have the time to sift through sites to find out if some scientist who’s probably bias (towards science or god, who knows) has a “fact” that proves jesus/god exists.

<O:p</O:pI could find various sites claiming for some scientific reason Jesus could have existed but they would just be theories (or unreliable), and like I said some science is a theory, and if you atheist scientists would view gods’ existence as a possible theory it would be fine.

<O:p</O:p
Proving god with empirical data would require finding obscure websites of like that one dude who was doing archeology in a boat in the middle east and found out there was a city under the deep water meaning there was a flood there, if your that interested in God and the only way you can prove god exists to yourself you would brave to be more open then you appear to be, to the existence of god, because a lot of science using empirical evidence and proving it with scientific theory and observation, can be viewed with an equal lack of faith because of you not wanting there to be a god.
<O:p</O:p
I'm not the religious nut your afraid of I’d list how my personal beliefs and variation of Christianity is different then what you seem so whole heartedly against, but I would want to know if you would find that relevant first.
<O:p</O:p
If you want to take this as you cant prove god exists in the way you want it to, so be it, but if you want look for sites with science where it involves god yourself, because there’s to much shit to sift through.

Zith
23rd October 04, 12:03 PM
Phrack, I know you didn't suggest there was evidence -- and for what its worth I agree with you, but I just don't think this is an argument that can be won by either side. People have their beliefs and they most likely will keep them.

Phrost
23rd October 04, 12:14 PM
Proof #1: The Empty Tomb

Historically speaking, there was a tomb that's contents were so important it was guarded by Roman soldiers under penalty of death if anyone got in or out of the tomb. Strangely enough, that tomb is empty today because the person it contained left it of his own power. That person would be Jesus Christ. Over 500 people saw him after the ressurection. The contemporary critics even acknowledged him. Josephus writes in his "Antiquities" , "and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, upon his impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him." This was written by Jew, who would have considered himself at odds with the cause of Christ.

Clark Pinnock writes, "The certainty of the apostles was founded on their experiences in the factual realm. To them Jesus showed Himself alive 'by many infallible proofs' (Acts 1:3). The term Luke (a doctor) uses is tekmerion, which indicates a demonstrable proof. The disciples came to their Easter faith through inescapable empirical evidence available to them, and available to us through their written testimony. It is important for us, in an age that calls for evidence to sustain the Christian claim, to answer the call with appropriate historical considerations."

Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn wrote "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it.

Is God a fraud? Highly unlikely. If that were the case, then the contemporaries of the Bible authors would have written the authors off as lunatics and the people would not have so readily followed. There was no motivation in the first century to become a Christian. As a matter of fact there was a lot of reasons not to. First the Jews would want to kill you, and if they didnt make it, the Romans werent far behind.

Lastly, if you are truely interested in a great source of evidences...buy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631/qid=1098521613/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-5564789-7556929?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

That is also my source material for this post.

Again, thanks for your response.

But none of what you've said constitutes empirical evidence of the existence of "God".

Proving (which you haven't yet done) the existence of a historical Jesus does not prove he was an omnipotent being. There are as many if not more historical references to Appolonius of Tyana, a messianic figure whos disciples claimed could cure the sick, raise the dead, and was the son of god.

By your logic, Appolonius would also be a form of YHVH.

I'm sorry, but as I said, this isn't proof of the existence of an all-powerful diety. At best, it's an anedotally-based argument for the existence of a messianic preacher around the first century.

A footnote, it's difficult to verify much of history, with which many historians will agree. The archaeological record is the primary means by which tales and stories of antiquity are verified. We know how the citizens of Pompeii and Herculaneum lived because we have direct evidence of them. We know Homer's Troy was a real city because of the work of Schliemann and physical evidence of the city.

And while Josephus writing about a Jewish community leader by the name of Jeheshua at the same time as is suggested Jesus roamed Palestine might suggest the possibility that there was a historical Jesus if, if a tomb or other major, tangible evidence can be found to support it, it still does not prove that he was God or that the Judeo Christian YHVH exists. It's entirely more likely, based on the lack of evidence, and assuming there was a historical Jesus, that he was a charismatic reformer to whom a gullible group of acolytes attributed supernatural events much as they did to King Arthur.

In fact, there is more evidence to support the existence of King Arthur than there is supporting Jesus.

To add to this, even if we had an archaeologically verifiable "Tomb" in which Jesus holed up for three days in whatever state, the lack of a body is not proof of anything outside of a body not being there. Dozens of missing mummies in Egyptian tombs do not constitute proof that the Egyptians rose from the dead any more than an empty tomb proven to be that of a historical Jesus would prove his resurrection.

I'm still waiting for empirical evidence proving your God exists.

Phrost
23rd October 04, 12:15 PM
Phrack, I know you didn't suggest there was evidence -- and for what its worth I agree with you, but I just don't think this is an argument that can be won by either side. People have their beliefs and they most likely will keep them.

That's fine. I'm not trying to force anyone to renounce their beliefs.

I just want an explicit acknowledgement that they're not based on evidence or reason, because it's been stated that this is the case.

Xesor
23rd October 04, 01:19 PM
"
The Tavern (1 Viewing)
This forum is unmoderated. Anything goes, frequent brawls break out here. The content is not suitable to be view by anyone. Ever. Really. We mean it. We do. Don't make us show you."

Chantress
23rd October 04, 08:20 PM
Again, thanks for your response.

But none of what you've said constitutes empirical evidence of the existence of "God".

Proving (which you haven't yet done) the existence of a historical Jesus does not prove he was an omnipotent being. There are as many if not more historical references to Appolonius of Tyana, a messianic figure whos disciples claimed could cure the sick, raise the dead, and was the son of god.

By your logic, Appolonius would also be a form of YHVH.

I'm sorry, but as I said, this isn't proof of the existence of an all-powerful diety. At best, it's an anedotally-based argument for the existence of a messianic preacher around the first century.

A footnote, it's difficult to verify much of history, with which many historians will agree. The archaeological record is the primary means by which tales and stories of antiquity are verified. We know how the citizens of Pompeii and Herculaneum lived because we have direct evidence of them. We know Homer's Troy was a real city because of the work of Schliemann and physical evidence of the city.

And while Josephus writing about a Jewish community leader by the name of Jeheshua at the same time as is suggested Jesus roamed Palestine might suggest the possibility that there was a historical Jesus if, if a tomb or other major, tangible evidence can be found to support it, it still does not prove that he was God or that the Judeo Christian YHVH exists. It's entirely more likely, based on the lack of evidence, and assuming there was a historical Jesus, that he was a charismatic reformer to whom a gullible group of acolytes attributed supernatural events much as they did to King Arthur.

In fact, there is more evidence to support the existence of King Arthur than there is supporting Jesus.

To add to this, even if we had an archaeologically verifiable "Tomb" in which Jesus holed up for three days in whatever state, the lack of a body is not proof of anything outside of a body not being there. Dozens of missing mummies in Egyptian tombs do not constitute proof that the Egyptians rose from the dead any more than an empty tomb proven to be that of a historical Jesus would prove his resurrection.

I'm still waiting for empirical evidence proving your God exists.


Thanks for your reply. You forgot one thing in your response. Any kind of evidence to show that mine is not true. I quoted a historian contemporary with the time of the events in question. He was one that would have taken up a negative position and he even asserts that this Jesus was in fact raised on the third day.

As far as Appolonius of Tyana, it took me 15 minutes of internet research to find historical inconsistencies and exaggerations about this character. From my readings thus far(I will be doing more) this man is no more than a fairy tell. He may have existed, but he sure did not do all that was written about him.

One of my sources: http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollonius/apollonius02.html

Thus far, there is nothing to support your side at all. Are we to believe your position simply because you hold it? You present no evidence, no sources, and no substance to debunk my point. Why would anyone believe so uncompelling of a case?

Phrost
24th October 04, 01:55 PM
You're claiming God exists, the burden of proof is on you.

You cannot throw out a few bits about whether or not Jesus existed as a person, and expect that a.) they're taken as empirical evidence of God's existence, and b.) I am required to prove them wrong.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

All this said, do not misunderstand me; I'd love for you to be right just as much as I'd like those letters from Ed McMahon that say I "could have already won 10 Million Dollars" to be true.

But in both cases, I won't let my desire that they be true supercede my reason. I expect tangible proof that the 10 Million is mine before I go about spending it. Most Christians would be the same way, except when it comes to God.

So once and for all, proof that a historical Jesus existed does not constitute proof of God. Try another approach. I'll settle for a giant "Made in Heaven" tag sticking out of the North Pole, but I suspect it'll be harder than that.

Andorion
24th October 04, 03:15 PM
you understand much of the bible, God has no interest in "proving his existence". It's about personal experience and perception based on faith.

Phrack, I know you're a smart guy, but you can't seem to get this through your head - asking for evidence or discussing proof with a religious zealot is absolutely futile. There's a reason it's called "blind faith", and the main doctrine is to not ask questions or listen to reason. Just drop it, and accept that they're brainwashed and misguided, maybe shed a tear for their complete misunderstanding of their existence or maybe laugh about it, but leave it at that.

imported_Blazer
24th October 04, 03:15 PM
you seem to have a need to prove he doesn't exist to people who think he does. You do this by asking them to prove their faith when the definition of faith is -

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

this thread is totally self serving. Christianity is BASED on faith, and that faith is derived from facts that we cannot experience because we don't have someone who was alive from 2000 years ago to tell us a first hand account in modern English.

Halfrican
24th October 04, 03:18 PM
Darwinism is also "faith," there are some things that can back up evolution, but not on a rediculous scale that disregards god. There are also things that back up god, but people that want to believe in evolution will disregard that as faked.


An excavation permit to dig into the ark has never been issued by the Turkish government, preventing thorough documentation of the site. Future plans to excavate the ark mandate a building must first be constructed over the entire 515 ft. long structure, with the entire project estimated to cost $3-4 million. The money has yet to be raised. Partial documentation of this site has periodically appeared on The 700 Club, 20/20, The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, CNN, Encounters, and various local Christian TV stations

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arklife1.jpg
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arklife2.jpg
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arklife3.jpg
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/narkvisitsign.jpg
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/vertribs.jpg

That is what is believed to be Noah's Ark in the mountains of Ararat in Turkey. Turkey protects it as a historical landmark and won't let anyone excavate the site.

Halfrican
24th October 04, 04:16 PM
With a background in chemistry I found the balls of sulfur to be the most exciting discovery of all. I was able to gather up several balls of various sizes, some the size of a thumbnail, others as big as an egg. Actually thousands of these balls of sulfur have been found and collected. Except here in these ruins, sulfur balls like these are very rare. It's almost as if the evidence that proves the biblical account has been miraculously preserved along with the site itself.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvbrim2.JPG
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvbrim.JPG

When one knows what to look for, the structure of a city becomes obvious, walls, streets, ziggurats, even sphinx-like shapes are easily discernable. And the dimensions of these ruins are more in line with what might truly be called a city. The largest being Sodom which is in fact located near Mt. Sidom and covers more than 140 acres.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvruins2.JPG
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvruins3zig.JPG


"Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens" Genesis 19:24. "Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly" II Peter 2:6
Brimstone = Sulfur

After reading the description of the destruction of these cities from the Bible, you get a picture of what you would expect to find. It would be a place where there is ash, sulfur, evidence of burning. It would be a place uninhabited where nothing would grow.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/dead_sea_sw2.jpg
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/dead_sea2.jpg

Even though these discoveries seem to go against the prevailing wisdom, the locations and the archaeological and scientific evidence appears to be quite compelling. Certainly this theory places Zoar close enough to Sodom to give Lot and his family time enough to reach it safely. And the depth and prevalence of the ash fits the description of the destruction. But there is still that pesky idea of sulfur falling from the sky.

Phrost
24th October 04, 05:12 PM
Thanks Plexor, that's more of a step towards what I'm looking for in this thread.

And to the rest of you, arguments do not constitute evidence. If you want to discuss the merits of this thread, do it in a seperate one.

Thanks.

Chantress
25th October 04, 09:15 AM
If you want historical proof of the empty tomb of the Christ, you can travel to Jerusalem and see it for yourself. If historically, Jesus existed, and historically he was raised from the dead after being pronounced deceased for over 48 hours, then logically something or someone supernatural must have been involved. Also when one corroborates the things claimed in the Bible about history with archeology one finds that the book is accurate with regards to even specific people that ruled small provinces during specific dates. The historical crucifiction and ressurrection should be sufficient proof for all time that not only did Jesus exist, but that God does as well.

Sithray
25th October 04, 12:16 PM
Many historians and archeologists have proven quite a bit of what the bible contains. Science confirms that the timetable of life forming on the earth is accurate, and certain scientific views expressed in the bible were not able to be known for thousands of years.

If parts of the bible are fact and proven as such *and those parts say the rest of the book is fact*, you must deduce that the bible is a factual book. Hence, the bible is proof that god exists.

**Edited in.

Phrost
25th October 04, 02:36 PM
If you want historical proof of the empty tomb of the Christ, you can travel to Jerusalem and see it for yourself. If historically, Jesus existed, and historically he was raised from the dead after being pronounced deceased for over 48 hours, then logically something or someone supernatural must have been involved. Also when one corroborates the things claimed in the Bible about history with archeology one finds that the book is accurate with regards to even specific people that ruled small provinces during specific dates. The historical crucifiction and ressurrection should be sufficient proof for all time that not only did Jesus exist, but that God does as well.


You obviously aren't reading what I've written.

Even if the tomb is attributed to Jesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, the fact that there is no body in it is proof of nothing. It's entirely possible for him to have been crucified, died, and have the body stolen by his disciples, or a million other scenarios.

Again, it doesn't prove he came back from the dead any more than missing mummies in Egypt prove they did.

Chantress
25th October 04, 02:43 PM
You obviously aren't reading what I've written.

Even if the tomb is attributed to Jesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, the fact that there is no body in it is proof of nothing. It's entirely possible for him to have been crucified, died, and have the body stolen by his disciples, or a million other scenarios.

Again, it doesn't prove he came back from the dead any more than missing mummies in Egypt prove they did.

No, I understand what you are saying. The problem with it is this. The body wasnt stolen. Historically speaking, from the source that I cited, he was resurrected. He even appeared to over 500 people after his ressurection. You are correct when you say there are a million scenarios that could have taken place, but only one did. If his body was stolen, why would a Jewish Historian not write about such knowledge, when instead he acknolwedged his resurrection. It is not the empty tomb alone that proves it, it is the fact that people were eyewitnesses of it and recorded it as happening. Recorded eye witness testimony, the only stronger evidence that could be supplied is for you to actually be an eyewitness. Since you live about 2000 years after the event took place, the testimony of the people who lived in that day will have to do. Do you doubt that John Wilkes Boothe shot Abe Lincoln? That is a far more trivial matter, but I would suspect that you trust history in that respect. There is no difference here.

Chantress
25th October 04, 02:48 PM
Christianity is BASED on faith, and that faith is derived from facts that we cannot experience because we don't have someone who was alive from 2000 years ago to tell us a first hand account in modern English.

I must take issue with this statment. We do, and it is the Bible who was written by eyewitnesses. We trust eye witness testimony for just about all the history we are taught. Wether it is the people who examined the evidence first hand or the people who witnessed the events, we use it to shape our view of history.

Phrost
25th October 04, 03:23 PM
So basically what you're saying is we can never know exactly what happened in history. I'll agree with you... we have to make certain assumptions about things. But the difference between a critical thinking, rational person, and a believer is that the rational person acknowledges assumptions for what they are while the believer stresses that they're fact.

None of that constitutes evidence that Jesus was God. I don't know where the disconnect in your thinking is, but "eyewitness" accounts from believers in texts that are completely uncritical and subjective do not confirm anything.

John Wilkes Booth shooting Lincoln is not a relevant analogy. Lincoln being God because his body is missing from his tomb would be a more relevant analogy, and I'm sure you'd agree this would be a ridiculous assumption.

In the case of Lincoln, I don't have to come to a conclusion that requires a supernatural event. Either JWB shot Lincoln, or he didn't. In the case of Jesus, you expect me to use church documents and scripture as evidence.

So your strongest evidence is:

a.) Lack of a body in a tomb that is not verifiable as having belonged to Jesus.

b.) Eyewitness accounts recorded in Christian scripture.

c.) Your insistance.

You simply don't have a case yet.

If you want to go ahead and concede that your Faith in Christianity does not require the same evidentiary standards you would in taking a check from a stranger, that's fine. Just please stop insisting that there are facts backing up the existence of an omnipotent being, much less your particular flavor of one.

joen00b
25th October 04, 03:31 PM
Empirical evidence (http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html) bwahahahahahahah!

Phrost
25th October 04, 03:40 PM
Yep.

Another example of the "circular support" for Christian beliefs.

"I believe in God because he's in the Bible and it says he's real".

Or in this case:

I believe the flood really happened and dinosaurs survived the flood because the bible mentioned something that was somewhat like a dinosaur.

joen00b
25th October 04, 03:51 PM
Humor is lost on Phrack... and he's still making kissy faces at me!

It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before humans came into being. What that means it is some kook attempting to make excuses for an obvious evolutionary's viwepoint. You see, according to Creationists, if Dinosaurs existed, then God had to have created them. But, they can't work on an evolutionary timetable, as that gives in to the evolutionary belief, so they then go with "Noah had to have saved them even though it doesn't necessarily say they were on the ark."

I really thought you would have picked up on that one, sheesh!

Halfrican
25th October 04, 03:57 PM
No, I understand what you are saying. The problem with it is this. The body wasnt stolen. Historically speaking, from the source that I cited, he was resurrected. He even appeared to over 500 people after his ressurection. You are correct when you say there are a million scenarios that could have taken place, but only one did. If his body was stolen, why would a Jewish Historian not write about such knowledge, when instead he acknolwedged his resurrection


So basically what you're saying is we can never know exactly what happened in history.

.......huh?? I don't know who's reply you read Phrack, but it wasn't Chantress's. You are fighting a losing battle. I don't know if it's the fact that you want to feel your life of rebelling god is justified, or if you just like to fight with people over topics that will never come to rest. Either way, you're making yourself look retarded.

Halfrican
25th October 04, 04:00 PM
It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before humans came into being!

No, there is absolutely no valid proof of this. In fact everything in science that starts off with "millions of years ago..." is some scientists unproven fairy tale. There is however proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that carbon dating is 100% inaccurate on very old material.

Flare
25th October 04, 04:03 PM
The body wasnt stolen. Historically speaking, from the source that I cited, he was resurrected. He even appeared to over 500 people after his ressurection. You are correct when you say there are a million scenarios that could have taken place, but only one did.

You're missing one obvious scenario. How likely it is (or isn't) is immaterial, as there's no way to verify it. However, who says he was dead when he was entombed? There are many conditions that can simulate death... the history of wakes is just to avoid similar circumstances, where one is buried/burned/entombed before they are actually dead. It's quite probable that, being crucified for days in the elements could bring Jesus very close to death... then entombed, out of the elements, perhaps even aided by his followers, he was restored to some semblance of health and reappeared. There's your ressurection, with nothing more than reasonably common human biological responses to certain stimuli and situations. No divine intervention needed to produce a ressurection.

I'm not say that happened - but it's a possible explanation, and doesn't require divine intervention. There are plenty of other explanations, if indeed things even happened the way the bible says it did.

Halfrican
25th October 04, 04:11 PM
What is it that happens to people that causes them a complete lack of faith, did you have a wife that cheated on you? Did somebody you loved and cared for die so you assume the bible is "terminally flawed" because God coudln't allow something like that to happen? Who knows, but why you feel the need to put up a sad attempt to annihilate others faith is something i will never understand, also it will never work. You are arguing purely for your own entertainment/justification.

Flare
25th October 04, 04:41 PM
What is it with religious nuts who think something must have happened to someone for them to reject the irrational idea of "faith in God?"

Nothing traumatic has happened to me that would have caused me to lose faith in God. I just grew up and didn't need an imaginary friend that protected me. I was able to do it for myself and take responsibility for my actions. I didn't, and don't need hand holding to get through life. I can't speak for Phrack, Andorion or the other people - maybe they've had something traumatic happen... but in my case, my parents are still together, never fought, never had a girlfriend (or wife) cheat on me. Had a few people try to kill me, but I didn't take it personally, because they wern't trying to kill me, personally.

Is it really that hard to believe that some people are capable of rational thought on the subject, and given that no evidence exists, actually come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist due to lack of evidence?

Chantress
25th October 04, 04:52 PM
You're missing one obvious scenario. How likely it is (or isn't) is immaterial, as there's no way to verify it. However, who says he was dead when he was entombed? There are many conditions that can simulate death... the history of wakes is just to avoid similar circumstances, where one is buried/burned/entombed before they are actually dead. It's quite probable that, being crucified for days in the elements could bring Jesus very close to death... then entombed, out of the elements, perhaps even aided by his followers, he was restored to some semblance of health and reappeared. There's your ressurection, with nothing more than reasonably common human biological responses to certain stimuli and situations. No divine intervention needed to produce a ressurection.

I'm not say that happened - but it's a possible explanation, and doesn't require divine intervention. There are plenty of other explanations, if indeed things even happened the way the bible says it did.


So what you are saying is that it is possible for a man to be beaten so badly that there is no skin left on his back. A crown of thorns driven into his skull. Nails put through his wrists and feet. A spear thrust into his side. Suffer from all of these wounds untreated for a period greater than 48 hours and survive? And you dont believe in God? No offense meant, but it isnt me who looks crazy for what I believe after reading that.

Flare
25th October 04, 04:58 PM
So what you are saying is that it is possible for a man to be beaten so badly that there is no skin left on his back. A crown of thorns driven into his skull. Nails put through his wrists and feet. A spear thrust into his side. Suffer from all of these wounds untreated for a period greater than 48 hours and survive? And you dont believe in God? No offense meant, but it isnt me who looks crazy for what I believe after reading that.

Umm... that's exactly what I'm saying. I can cite a number of modern day (and verifiable) examples of equal trauma that people survive through. Hell, they make movies about crazy crap like that. It's not hard to believe at all that someone could survive something like that and be in a near death comatose state. It happens all the time in the world even to this day.

Please note, I said "someone could survive" not "everyone/anyone could survive." If THAT is your "proof" of a God, then you really are on shakey ground.

Is it extraordinary? Yep! Is it divine? Not even remotely.

Andorion
25th October 04, 05:42 PM
http://www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk/index.php?act=main&code=01&type=00&topic_id=1630

Thespis, there are "miraculous" things that happen all the time, and they happen to christians, muslims, puppy dogs and even atheists. Stop giving your imagination so much credit, your imagination didn't save THIS (http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/graphics/carwreck.mpg) guy's life, it was the dent made in the one car by the other car when they collided.

~Berj

Sithray
25th October 04, 05:58 PM
Dinosoaur's did not survive the flood, and were probably dead long before man ever showed up. Behemoth was a hippo, and leviathan was a crocodile.

Phleg
25th October 04, 06:27 PM
Phrack; in your original post, you referenced a website containing common logical fallacies. Nothin' against you, but one of them seemed kind of poignantly ironic.


From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false

Flare
25th October 04, 07:21 PM
I'll leave it with a couple questions...
1) Where does our sense of morality come from?
2) Even if most religion was simply made up, where does man's conception that there's any reason to think something bigger might be out there come from?
3) If man's idea of something bigger comes from lack of scientific knowledge to explain it thousands of years ago, why does religion persist today in the face of or in conjuction with scientific knowledge?
4) What scientific facts contradict the Bible anywhere? (If you choose to answer this one, at least give some explanation.)
5) If you can answer all of the above somewhat coherently, where does YOUR morality come from in spite of religion or some subconscious sense of a higher power?


Heh, these are easy to answer. This is your basis for your faith?

1. Morality is a perfectly logical survival instinct. Even monkies have a sense of morality, are you saying they have a soul and are going to heaven? As far as I know, God supposedly only created man with a soul. So where do monkies morality come from? It's a process of higher thought and species survival, and very easily explainable.

2. Is this really a question you're asking? It's one of the oldest and most thouroughly debunked ones of them all. In a nutshell: Man creates tools. Man sees a superior tool lying in the forest, thus man attributes that the tool was created by someone superior to himself, even if they do not know who that someone is. Man sees the world, so assumes that it was created by someone, obviously much more powerful. Same scenario, just on a grander scale... the fallacy here is a casual fallacy. Just because one event appears related to another does not make them related. Like I said, one of the oldest in the book.

3. Why? Because most people don't think for themselves and want/need/crave the comfort that comes from the fact that they have a father figure that is protecting them. One that is watching over them. Most people are not alpha's, and thus will follow the "herd." Just look at fads and fashions. Same thing, just on a larger scale again. Do you honestly believe the Christianity you know today is anything even remotely like it was 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago? You are deluding yourself to a ridiculous degree if you do.

4. Not sure exactly what you're asking here. You'll need to elaborate a bit. There's all sorts of scientific facts that contradict the bible... like, oh say, ressurection, the exestince of a supreme being, etc... I assume you're looking for something more specific though, but I'm not sure what.

5. Mine? Mine comes from experience. Again, we have a species survival instinct to back that up. Please see the response to your next passage for an elaboration on this.


It goes against human nature to be selfless and demonstrate love for another putting aside selfish desires. It can not be quantifiably measured. It is intangible. Obviously it is very subjective and emotional, but it is still real. Can you prove it exists? No. You can see a lot of evidence of it though when somebody sacrifices themself in some fashion for the sake of somebody they love.

You keep saying this, and it's just outright false. Love, hate, anger, happiness, sadness, any emotion you care to name can be a) identified within the brain, and b) generated with electrical stimulation in the brain. There's nothing mystical or magical about it. It's biochemical reactions to outside stimuli. It can be quantified, measured and it's very tangible. Love, hate, anger, etc... are not subjective at all. Your reaction towards these are "subjective" in the sense that all your past experience will produce a particular reaction to a given stimuli, but given enough data, you can easily predict what your reaction will be to any given situation. Currently, this works *very* well when averaging reactions over a large number of people - it's not as accurate when dealing with smaller numbers or individuals... but it's only a matter of time before we can predict to nearly infinite accuracy the reactions a person will given to any specific stimuli. Go read up on group behavior.

There's a whole industry formed around predicting people... it's called marketing. You better believe all of those emotions can be cataloged, measured and quantified. Billions of dollars don't just go to nothing every here in the US alone.


My views are not based simply on me wanting them to be true. No matter how much you insist otherwise, that does not make it so. There is plenty in this world that defies reason, and if you seriously think otherwise, then you are extremely warped. When I've heard story after story about miraculous events that have happened to various people, when I've been witness to some of these stories firsthand, when many of these stories fly in the face of reason, when I consider the ordered and balanced universe around us and all that it takes to keep progressing in harmony.. it seems irrational to me to consider anything but that it comes from the hand of a divine being who is in control.

This is another wonderful fallacy that religious people always fall into. They think that the world is so beautiful and perfectly suited to them that it just *must* have been created by a higher power for them specifically. I mean, look at a sunset, how beautiful! The trees and flowers smell so nice! The air is a perfect mix of nitrogen and oxygen for me to breath! How could it not be created by someone just for me?

Let me paint a different picture with a broad brush. If you want more information on this syndrome, I will see if I can track down some links:

How logical do you think it would be for evolution to produce a creature that is not perfectly suited to it's environment? Of course the world fits you perfectly; you evolved to fit it, it's a perfect match. Of course things are beautiful to you, you evolved to appreciate those things. The air you breathe is what you evolved to breathe; it wasn't created for you, you changed to suit your environment. The smell of the trees and flowers wern't created for you, you evolved to appreciate them, or identify them as being safe. Things that smell bad are generally NOT safe for humans, do you think this is a coincidence?

You say you've heard stories of miraculous events, witnessed them, etc... Yet, many "miraculous" that are attributed to God are explained away later... sometimes centuries later - yet they are always explained. They were miraculous at one time, but they are no longer miraculous... so that miracle is not invalid? Heh... yeaaahhhh, ok. You gotta love a religion that modifies what constitutes proof as the bar of knowledge keeps going up and up and up. If your God is all powerful and all knowing, why can we continually explain away "his work" as time progresses? Why does he not create something that could/would/should be perfectly explainable by 2000 year old standards, but is not.

Why do we not see a floating stone? Why do we not see a burning bush that is never consumed? Why do we not see ANY tangible evidence of him? Not one SHRED of tangible, verifiable or reproducable evidence? Not a single, solitary shred. Not one. Is he that implacable that he can not provide even the smallest, tiniest thing to his followers as evidence to show the non-believers? Or is it just simply that he doesn't exist?

Hmm, which is the simplier explanation?

Phleg
25th October 04, 07:43 PM
There is plenty in this world that defies reason, and if you seriously think otherwise, then you are extremely warped.

Non-sequitur.

Chantress
26th October 04, 12:40 AM
Umm... that's exactly what I'm saying. I can cite a number of modern day (and verifiable) examples of equal trauma that people survive through. Hell, they make movies about crazy crap like that. It's not hard to believe at all that someone could survive something like that and be in a near death comatose state. It happens all the time in the world even to this day.

Please note, I said "someone could survive" not "everyone/anyone could survive." If THAT is your "proof" of a God, then you really are on shakey ground.

Is it extraordinary? Yep! Is it divine? Not even remotely.

I challenge you to find me one case, other than Jesus, who survived 48 hours after their blood had already separated into water and blood. It isnt possible.

Morley
26th October 04, 02:09 AM
Umm... that's exactly what I'm saying. I can cite a number of modern day (and verifiable) examples of equal trauma that people survive through.
Hanoi Hilton anyone? Many of them survived by sheer force of will, they would not lay down and die for the V.C.

Thespis
26th October 04, 03:08 AM
Heh, these are easy to answer. This is your basis for your faith?
No, it isn't my basis for faith. I was merely curious about how the questions would be answered from a perspective of somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of God. I do thank you for taking the time to answer. I don't think some of your conclusions follow, but that's from my perspective, and I can see at least where you're coming from.


1. Morality is a perfectly logical survival instinct. Even monkies have a sense of morality, are you saying they have a soul and are going to heaven? As far as I know, God supposedly only created man with a soul. So where do monkies morality come from? It's a process of higher thought and species survival, and very easily explainable.
Hehe, no I'm not saying monkeys have a soul. I'm just saying the higher thought you refer to doesn't have any logical explanation of where it comes from.


2. Is this really a question you're asking? It's one of the oldest and most thouroughly debunked ones of them all. In a nutshell: Man creates tools. Man sees a superior tool lying in the forest, thus man attributes that the tool was created by someone superior to himself, even if they do not know who that someone is. Man sees the world, so assumes that it was created by someone, obviously much more powerful. Same scenario, just on a grander scale... the fallacy here is a casual fallacy. Just because one event appears related to another does not make them related. Like I said, one of the oldest in the book.
I can see that being a possibility, but I still can't find any logical, rational, or even scientific explanation for the source of the spark of life in organic material. In other words, the power source. Yes, it's a combination of food, air, sunshine, blood, heartbeat, etc., but how this complex formula was formed from some chaotic beginning that we have no rational scientific explanation for is beyond my "limited understanding". I see life of the universe, planet, and organisms as a delicate balance. A "big bang" explosion without some organized design behind it seems like a very sketchy source of life. Science can explain a lot these days, but there are some things it hasn't explained and won't ever explain.


3. Why? Because most people don't think for themselves and want/need/crave the comfort that comes from the fact that they have a father figure that is protecting them. One that is watching over them. Most people are not alpha's, and thus will follow the "herd." Just look at fads and fashions. Same thing, just on a larger scale again. Do you honestly believe the Christianity you know today is anything even remotely like it was 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago? You are deluding yourself to a ridiculous degree if you do.
Choosing to accept the existence of God doesn't mean people aren't thinking for themselves. They have to think about their "reasons" for choosing to believe in God. Contrary to popular CTC belief, there is no way I'd accept the "existence of God" without some kind of "evidence". The point of debate though, is that what me and others see as evidence is not defined the way Phrack defines it. That's what I refer to when I talk about personal experience. It's a combination of many things that supports that "evidence".

I admit I've had doubts from time to time in the past, but when I think about everything, and as my life has went on, there is so much I've experienced which only makes my faith stronger. This isn't some whim with me going through the motions "just in case". As far as Christianity being different, yes it is, sort of. The core foundation remains the same, but people, interpretations, and culture all change which influences some of it.


4. Not sure exactly what you're asking here. You'll need to elaborate a bit. There's all sorts of scientific facts that contradict the bible... like, oh say, ressurection, the exestince of a supreme being, etc... I assume you're looking for something more specific though, but I'm not sure what.
Hehe, sorry yes I should have elaborated. Miracles by definition are things that contradict the "laws" of the universe. If God is real and is the source of creation, then of course he has the power to override those as needed, heh. That's off topic though. I meant scientific evidence contradicting that stated events occured. I don't mean evidence of what is or isn't physically possible by normal understanding of possible. Not sure this is coming out right, but I meant specific evidence demonstrating that events claimed to have happened indeed did not. For example, there is evidence suggesting the possibility that the Red Sea really was parted by God through Moses, and yes many "miracles" often have natural explanations, albeit rare. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168
http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/936/top/t_11445.htm
http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htm


5. Mine? Mine comes from experience. Again, we have a species survival instinct to back that up. Please see the response to your next passage for an elaboration on this.

You keep saying this, and it's just outright false. Love, hate, anger, happiness, sadness, any emotion you care to name can be a) identified within the brain, and b) generated with electrical stimulation in the brain. There's nothing mystical or magical about it. It's biochemical reactions to outside stimuli. It can be quantified, measured and it's very tangible. Love, hate, anger, etc... are not subjective at all. Your reaction towards these are "subjective" in the sense that all your past experience will produce a particular reaction to a given stimuli, but given enough data, you can easily predict what your reaction will be to any given situation. Currently, this works *very* well when averaging reactions over a large number of people - it's not as accurate when dealing with smaller numbers or individuals... but it's only a matter of time before we can predict to nearly infinite accuracy the reactions a person will given to any specific stimuli. Go read up on group behavior.

There's a whole industry formed around predicting people... it's called marketing. You better believe all of those emotions can be cataloged, measured and quantified. Billions of dollars don't just go to nothing every here in the US alone.
This comes across like circular reasoning. Many thought processes, etc produce measureable brain stimulation, i.e. electronic impulses. As such, if you stimulate certain areas of the brain electronically, you can manufacture certain emotions. I'm not debating that. What I'm referring to is a person's sense of justice, right / wrong, decisions made about love. It isn't a chemical or electrical impulse to choose to stand by a mate when selfish human nature might incline someone to walk away. It is a chosen commitment to love that person regardless of circumstances. Two people will often react very differently to the exact same stimulation because of different personal experience, but we all have a general sense of right & wrong.

For something so complex, it seems a bit far fetched to imagine it being the result of an accident leading to creation and the forming of a finely tuned delicate balance. If it makes sense to you though and you can live with that, I hope it turns out well for you. I agree about the marketing point to an extent. It's the result of research based on human desire and what stimulates it. I guess what I'm really referring to is the source of human nature and what sets us apart from animals with physically similar "brain power".


This is another wonderful fallacy that religious people always fall into. They think that the world is so beautiful and perfectly suited to them that it just *must* have been created by a higher power for them specifically. I mean, look at a sunset, how beautiful! The trees and flowers smell so nice! The air is a perfect mix of nitrogen and oxygen for me to breath! How could it not be created by someone just for me?

Let me paint a different picture with a broad brush. If you want more information on this syndrome, I will see if I can track down some links:

How logical do you think it would be for evolution to produce a creature that is not perfectly suited to it's environment? Of course the world fits you perfectly; you evolved to fit it, it's a perfect match. Of course things are beautiful to you, you evolved to appreciate those things. The air you breathe is what you evolved to breathe; it wasn't created for you, you changed to suit your environment. The smell of the trees and flowers wern't created for you, you evolved to appreciate them, or identify them as being safe. Things that smell bad are generally NOT safe for humans, do you think this is a coincidence?
For starters, I wasn't referring to beauty in nature or appreciation for it as evidence of a divine being. Your above argument can work both ways. The problem with what you say here is that there is no evidence that we ever did not fit the world or our environment. Yes our bodies can change slightly or adapt in small ways to suit various climates or lifestyles better. I could just as easily say God created the balance that exists. Neither of us can "prove" our claim. The smell thing, key word is generally, because people show a fair amount of disparity on what smells they approve of or disapprove of. There are plenty of odorless or virtually odorless things that are very bad for you, just as there are pleasant smelling things that are bad for you.


You say you've heard stories of miraculous events, witnessed them, etc... Yet, many "miraculous" that are attributed to God are explained away later... sometimes centuries later - yet they are always explained. They were miraculous at one time, but they are no longer miraculous... so that miracle is not invalid? Heh... yeaaahhhh, ok. You gotta love a religion that modifies what constitutes proof as the bar of knowledge keeps going up and up and up. If your God is all powerful and all knowing, why can we continually explain away "his work" as time progresses? Why does he not create something that could/would/should be perfectly explainable by 2000 year old standards, but is not.
This one made me laugh a bit. I'd say most, if not all, of the Biblical miracles are still pretty miraculous. Joshua's "sun standing still" event could conceivably be explained rationally as these sources indicate, but they still haven't been sorted out yet. Neither has the sea parting as mentioned earlier, and a number of other Biblical miracles. http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html
http://www.truthquest.ws/still.htm
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/questions/astronomyandbible.asp Phrack and Chantress might find the books mentioned at the end of this last article interesting.


Why do we not see a floating stone? Why do we not see a burning bush that is never consumed? Why do we not see ANY tangible evidence of him? Not one SHRED of tangible, verifiable or reproducable evidence? Not a single, solitary shred. Not one. Is he that implacable that he can not provide even the smallest, tiniest thing to his followers as evidence to show the non-believers? Or is it just simply that he doesn't exist?

Hmm, which is the simplier explanation?
Some people have their tangible evidence. I have mine. Apparently many non-believers find some "evidence" at least enough to satisfy them, or there'd never be converts to Christianity. Reproduceable evidence is another matter. Throughout the Bible, it is clearly stated that a relationship with God is a personal experience. According to the Old Testament, the Israelites and plenty of their enemies received plenty of firsthand tangible evidence, and yet even then selfish human nature often took over despite them knowing God was real.

I imagine if I happened to be the all powerful God of the universe, I'd be a bit frustrated by that. Hence the changes that take place and the way it works in the New Testament. Your proposed "formula" didn't work so God took a new route in the way things work, hence the personal relationship / experience I keep referring to. This change is the reason for Christ's birth and death / ressurection. Hehe, I know all of this sounds nutty to many of you.

Ultimately it comes down to what I've said a few times to Phrack. If you're so absolutely sure of yourself and aren't afraid of the result, challenge God to "open your eyes" and show you evidence that He is real. The Bible also says that lies and deception are the devil's weapons. If us "religious nuts" are right, those weapons of the devil are your explanation for why the evidence is "less than clear" to non-believers.

I am very happy with my life and have a peace within that surpasses anything I've experienced during my times of doubting in the past. Is it so bad to care enough about people to want to share that with others? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to explain. I have not started any of the religious discussions. I only attempted to discuss the topics involved when they were brought up. If people want to ridicule me for something that so positively impacts my life, the tradeoff is worth it. I don't even consider myself religious. I don't care for many of the traditions and twisted interpretations that some believers impose on Christianity. I do though consider myself a person who believes in God and has a relationship with Him.

Again, thank you Flare for taking the time to reply intelligently and honestly without simply being insulting.

Phrost
26th October 04, 11:22 AM
Phrack; in your original post, you referenced a website containing common logical fallacies. Nothin' against you, but one of them seemed kind of poignantly ironic.

I'm not assuming it to be anything. For me, "God's Existence" is in a quantum state... either he exists, or he doesn't.

But insisting he exists without suffecient evidence is a sign of a weak mind basing its reality off hope instead of reason.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

-Hebrews 11:1

Which pretty much sums up the Christian view on reason and critical thinking.

Flare
26th October 04, 11:23 AM
I challenge you to find me one case, other than Jesus, who survived 48 hours after their blood had already separated into water and blood. It isnt possible.

How do you propose to know the specific condition of Jesus' body during that time? You give me the exact condition he was in... not what a 2000 year old book that is in and of itself questionable in veracity, and I'll give you similar examples. This is the same circular reasoning for the existence of God. The bible says he exists, so he must exist! The bible says Jesus was dead, so he must have been dead!

Come on, I know you can do better than that.


Hanoi Hilton anyone? Many of them survived by sheer force of will, they would not lay down and die for the V.C.

Yes, that's a fine example. I didn't want to bring up the "force of will" arguement, because it could be construed as Gods hand, even though it's the outright tenacity of the individual, and has nothing to do with divine intervention.

Flare
26th October 04, 12:02 PM
Hehe, no I'm not saying monkeys have a soul. I'm just saying the higher thought you refer to doesn't have any logical explanation of where it comes from.

Are you saying that monkies have the capability of higher thought or not? I'm not sure which way you are leaning with, and it has a direct bearing on my response.


I can see that being a possibility, but I still can't find any logical, rational, or even scientific explanation for the source of the spark of life in organic material. In other words, the power source. Yes, it's a combination of food, air, sunshine, blood, heartbeat, etc., but how this complex formula was formed from some chaotic beginning that we have no rational scientific explanation for is beyond my "limited understanding". I see life of the universe, planet, and organisms as a delicate balance. A "big bang" explosion without some organized design behind it seems like a very sketchy source of life. Science can explain a lot these days, but there are some things it hasn't explained and won't ever explain.

Give it time... I fully believe we'll be able to produce unquestionable life ourselves within our lifetime. Do we become gods at that point? According to your interpretation here, we would.

As far as your "delicate" balance goes - of course there's a balance. You wouldn't BE here without that balance. The simple fact that you are here to ask that question is the reason it's balanced so nicely. At the risk of dredging up the old and hideous infinity thread, given enough iterations of a/the universe, you'll eventually come up with one that can ask the question you just asked.

Saying God created the universe just removes the question of ultimate orgin one level. Who created God, then? Did he just spring from nothingness? If so - why must he exist at all, why couldn't the universe have just sprung from the quantum foam, instead of God? Yes, I know, the bible says he's always been and always will be, etc... that's just a cop out.


Choosing to accept the existence of God doesn't mean people aren't thinking for themselves. They have to think about their "reasons" for choosing to believe in God. Contrary to popular CTC belief, there is no way I'd accept the "existence of God" without some kind of "evidence". The point of debate though, is that what me and others see as evidence is not defined the way Phrack defines it. That's what I refer to when I talk about personal experience. It's a combination of many things that supports that "evidence".

That's because he's asking for objective evidence, not subjective. There's not really any such thing as subjective evidence in this context. It has to be a shared "experience" by anyone involved and reproducable, otherwise it's no evidence at all. You "feel" that you have the evidence you need, but it's not evidence, it's just a subjective sense you have that's generated by your internal experience, and has no relation on the outside world.

Again - science can generate religious experiences on command... so what's the difference?


Hehe, sorry yes I should have elaborated. Miracles by definition are things that contradict the "laws" of the universe. If God is real and is the source of creation, then of course he has the power to override those as needed, heh. That's off topic though. I meant scientific evidence contradicting that stated events occured. I don't mean evidence of what is or isn't physically possible by normal understanding of possible. Not sure this is coming out right, but I meant specific evidence demonstrating that events claimed to have happened indeed did not. For example, there is evidence suggesting the possibility that the Red Sea really was parted by God through Moses, and yes many "miracles" often have natural explanations, albeit rare. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33168
http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/936/top/t_11445.htm
http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/red_sea.htm

If we can get an accurate accounting or better yet and observation of what actually happened, then yes, I fully believe they could be explained scientifically (if they happened at all). Like I already said, many "miraculous" and "divine" events have been later explained via scientific means, sometimes centuries later... so once again, I ask you, if they were once divine, then explained away, how do you justify this hypocrisy? If they were divine at the time, they will always remain divine... yet if they are explained away with a more rational explanation, they are no longer divine?!

This is Christianity writ small. It changes to control the people and with the times, or else it will die as a religion. If it was "the truth" it would *never* need to change.




What I'm referring to is a person's sense of justice, right / wrong, decisions made about love. It isn't a chemical or electrical impulse to choose to stand by a mate when selfish human nature might incline someone to walk away. It is a chosen commitment to love that person regardless of circumstances. Two people will often react very differently to the exact same stimulation because of different personal experience, but we all have a general sense of right & wrong.

Of course it's human nature to "stand by your mate." It's a species and genetic survival trait; very real, very explainable. Again, I'll use monkies. They either have a high thought process and thus have a soul, or they don't. The bible states they don't have a soul, and thus aren't divine. Yet they exhibit the same attributes you are claiming are divine. Or is the bible wrong and monkies really do have a soul? If the bible is wrong about that, what else might it be wrong about?


Yes our bodies can change slightly or adapt in small ways to suit various climates or lifestyles better. I could just as easily say God created the balance that exists. Neither of us can "prove" our claim. The smell thing, key word is generally, because people show a fair amount of disparity on what smells they approve of or disapprove of. There are plenty of odorless or virtually odorless things that are very bad for you, just as there are pleasant smelling things that are bad for you.

Actually, yes we will be able to prove it, but probably not in our lifetimes. Give it a few hundred thousand years for proof of evolution, since we are keeping records now. Just hope we don't annihilate ourselves in the meantime.

You basically undermined your entire claim about God... I said generally to see if you'd bite. If God created man, why would he create man in a such a sloppy fashion? Why create such varied abilities, smell being one of them. Why create a throat that is used for consuming food AND breathing, when it would be just as easy and more logical to create two separate passages - then there's no chance of suffocation from swallowing wrong. Why create a nasal passage that drains INTO the throat for an upright human? Monkies drain OUT of the nose, because they walk on all fours most of the time - if humans did not evolve from monkies and were created in their current form, why make such a poor design decision? It makes a lot more sense if we evolved from apes to have our nasal passage draining the way it does. The human body is "designed" very poorly, but it makes perfect sense if you think it evolved. I have a hard time believing that someone that is omnipotent would be such a shoddy designer. Especially someone that can create such a balanced, ordered and beautiful universe. How can he balance all the things that need balancing, but yet can't design a comparitively simple human?


This one made me laugh a bit. I'd say most, if not all, of the Biblical miracles are still pretty miraculous. Joshua's "sun standing still" event could conceivably be explained rationally as these sources indicate, but they still haven't been sorted out yet. Neither has the sea parting as mentioned earlier, and a number of other Biblical miracles. http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/index.html
http://www.truthquest.ws/still.htm
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/questions/astronomyandbible.asp Phrack and Chantress might find the books mentioned at the end of this last article interesting.

These "miracles" are written by people who want you to believe. Why have we never witnessed anything like this when we can critically anaylize and record the event? We haven't because these things simply don't happen, unless there is a logical explanation behind them, and thus don't appear miraculous.


Ultimately it comes down to what I've said a few times to Phrack. If you're so absolutely sure of yourself and aren't afraid of the result, challenge God to "open your eyes" and show you evidence that He is real. The Bible also says that lies and deception are the devil's weapons. If us "religious nuts" are right, those weapons of the devil are your explanation for why the evidence is "less than clear" to non-believers.

I have. And I do again. I've asked many a-times for there to be even the slightest unmistakable sign, and yet there has been nothing. No burning bushes, no floating rocks, no aspects of Himself, nothing. Nada. Not a single thing. Like I said, show me proof and I'll be there, bible in hand.

Something that has always bothered me about the whole scenario of forgiveness of our sins through Jesus, etc... is the fact that God is supposedly omnipotent. So he sent his Son, which is actually just an aspect of himself, to absolve the world of our sins. But why? What's the point? He's omnipotent, he doesn't really suffer if he doesn't wish to - and if he wishes to, he's not really suffering. Since he's omnipotent, why even bother sending an aspect of himself to forgive us, why not just forgive us? Why go through all that pomp and circumstance, lay down these rules, and then NOT FOLLOW UP on it? What a whimsical and capricious God he must be. There are so many things he could do to accomplish his stated (by the bible) goals - yet he does none of those. The only thing(s) he does supposedly do are conveniently the only things that can never be verified. How convenient that is, eh? Mighty cooincidental that the bible was written by man, and things are included in it as proof of his existence that can NEVER be proven by man.


I am very happy with my life and have a peace within that surpasses anything I've experienced during my times of doubting in the past. Is it so bad to care enough about people to want to share that with others? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just trying to explain. I have not started any of the religious discussions. I only attempted to discuss the topics involved when they were brought up.

No, you are welcome to share it with people - under the right circumstances. The public schools, government and my daily life are NOT the right circumstances. That's the only beef I have with ANY religion. You are free to believe as you want, but do NOT push your agenda on me. I'm not saying you personally are, Thespis, but Christianity as a whole is pushing it's morally corrupt agenda on the whole nation (and world) and that's just plain wrong. If Christianity is the truth, it doesn't need to be pushed on anyone, people will come around. If it's not hte truth, then you have no business pushing it. Either way, it's wrong.

Halfrican
26th October 04, 08:16 PM
I would like to see a story of somebody being revived from clinically dead, to say nothing happened, they did not experience what they believe to be a supernatural occurence. A friend of my moms had serious complications during childbirth and was clinically dead for 6mins before being revived, she became catholic immediately after and divorced her husband when he didn't believe what she experienced. I strongly believe these people could be full of shit, but then where is one that didnt' experience anything?

Merauk
26th October 04, 08:21 PM
How do you propose to know the specific condition of Jesus' body during that time?

Obviously you have not seen The Passion.

Halfrican
26th October 04, 08:26 PM
How do you propose to know the specific condition of Jesus' body during that time? You give me the exact condition he was in... not what a 2000 year old book that is in and of itself questionable in veracity


.......So you want proof....from 2000yrs ago.....that is not a 2000yr old book? What the fuck do you want? Last time I checked they didn't have pictures, movies, and there is nobody alive that has seen it, therefore, all you get is a book, sorry.

Merauk
26th October 04, 08:39 PM
.......So you want proof....from 2000yrs ago.....that is not a 2000yr old book? What the fuck do you want? Last time I checked they didn't have pictures, movies, and there is nobody alive that has seen it, therefore, all you get is a book, sorry.

Umm what about............. (http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/splash.htm)

Flare
26th October 04, 10:22 PM
I would like to see a story of somebody being revived from clinically dead, to say nothing happened, they did not experience what they believe to be a supernatural occurence. A friend of my moms had serious complications during childbirth and was clinically dead for 6mins before being revived, she became catholic immediately after and divorced her husband when he didn't believe what she experienced. I strongly believe these people could be full of shit, but then where is one that didnt' experience anything?

Search around, there's plenty of them. Divine experience is a rare occurance in near death situations, not the norm, as you apparently believe. Most people don't have any reccollection of the event at all.


Obviously you have not seen The Passion. You, sir, would be correct.


So you want proof....from 2000yrs ago.....that is not a 2000yr old book? What the fuck do you want? Last time I checked they didn't have pictures, movies, and there is nobody alive that has seen it, therefore, all you get is a book, sorry.

Thank you for admitting there is no proof at all available! Like I said, why haven't we seen any of these miracles or proof in recent history, when we are able to critically analyze them? Oh wait, we have... we've just been able to explain them all via science, thus they aren't miracles anymore!

Halfrican
26th October 04, 10:30 PM
Thank you for admitting there is no proof at all available!

Plenty of proof, in the 2000yr old book. That's like me saying prove to me that Kennedy got shot, but not in the 40yr old video or documents or images! You make less sense then a supernatural being blinking us into existance.

Phrost
26th October 04, 10:47 PM
The book doesn't constitute proof, it's not an objective source.

And when I say "it's not an objective source" I mean, "like reading the North Korean Government's version of Kim Jong Il's service to his country".

Thespis
27th October 04, 06:40 PM
Are you saying that monkies have the capability of higher thought or not? I'm not sure which way you are leaning with, and it has a direct bearing on my response.
I'm saying that there is no scientific explanation for where human higher thought comes from. If you compare a human brain to some other primate brains, you find size has no bearing on performance. You also find that monkies have similar "brain power" capabilities. However, monkies do not demonstrate the same human higher thinking ability to think abstractly or philosophically. What I'm saying is that "I believe" the difference is the monkey lack of a soul.




Give it time... I fully believe we'll be able to produce unquestionable life ourselves within our lifetime. Do we become gods at that point? According to your interpretation here, we would.
You may need to clarify that. Produce life from what? Are you suggesting we'll be able to create organic matter producing a new life from non-organic matter? Scientific law states that matter can neither be created or destroyed, or are you suggesting this will change, thus violating an existing scientific law?


As far as your "delicate" balance goes - of course there's a balance. You wouldn't BE here without that balance. The simple fact that you are here to ask that question is the reason it's balanced so nicely. At the risk of dredging up the old and hideous infinity thread, given enough iterations of a/the universe, you'll eventually come up with one that can ask the question you just asked.

Saying God created the universe just removes the question of ultimate orgin one level. Who created God, then? Did he just spring from nothingness? If so - why must he exist at all, why couldn't the universe have just sprung from the quantum foam, instead of God? Yes, I know, the bible says he's always been and always will be, etc... that's just a cop out.
You can choose the quantum foam idea if you like. Only that violates a few existing scientific laws and is not explained scientifically. My belief obviously doesn't jive with your idea of scientific law either. Moot point.




That's because he's asking for objective evidence, not subjective. There's not really any such thing as subjective evidence in this context. It has to be a shared "experience" by anyone involved and reproducable, otherwise it's no evidence at all. You "feel" that you have the evidence you need, but it's not evidence, it's just a subjective sense you have that's generated by your internal experience, and has no relation on the outside world.

Again - science can generate religious experiences on command... so what's the difference?
The problem with the objective evidence restriction is that there isn't any real objective evidence to prove or disprove claims on either side. Everyone's "evidence" is displayed through the rose colored lenses of their personal experience.




If we can get an accurate accounting or better yet and observation of what actually happened, then yes, I fully believe they could be explained scientifically (if they happened at all). Like I already said, many "miraculous" and "divine" events have been later explained via scientific means, sometimes centuries later... so once again, I ask you, if they were once divine, then explained away, how do you justify this hypocrisy? If they were divine at the time, they will always remain divine... yet if they are explained away with a more rational explanation, they are no longer divine?!

This is Christianity writ small. It changes to control the people and with the times, or else it will die as a religion. If it was "the truth" it would *never* need to change.
Name one of the Biblical miracles that can be "explained away" scientifically. The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't matter from a religious perspective. If God accomplished something perceived to be miraculous, and if he's the creator of the universe and author of its laws, so what if he operated within those scientific laws which were not understood at that time? It's simply a matter of semantics and nothing to do with hypocrisy. If the very laws of the universe are divinely written, our very existence and all that applies to science is divine.




Of course it's human nature to "stand by your mate." It's a species and genetic survival trait; very real, very explainable. Again, I'll use monkies. They either have a high thought process and thus have a soul, or they don't. The bible states they don't have a soul, and thus aren't divine. Yet they exhibit the same attributes you are claiming are divine. Or is the bible wrong and monkies really do have a soul? If the bible is wrong about that, what else might it be wrong about?
Considering the existing divorce rate, I find this argument weak at best. It is not human nature to "stand by your mate" in the face of various difficulties or selfishness. Many do though based on their commitment which is a choice not a feeling.




Actually, yes we will be able to prove it, but probably not in our lifetimes. Give it a few hundred thousand years for proof of evolution, since we are keeping records now. Just hope we don't annihilate ourselves in the meantime.

You basically undermined your entire claim about God... I said generally to see if you'd bite. If God created man, why would he create man in a such a sloppy fashion? Why create such varied abilities, smell being one of them. Why create a throat that is used for consuming food AND breathing, when it would be just as easy and more logical to create two separate passages - then there's no chance of suffocation from swallowing wrong. Why create a nasal passage that drains INTO the throat for an upright human? Monkies drain OUT of the nose, because they walk on all fours most of the time - if humans did not evolve from monkies and were created in their current form, why make such a poor design decision? It makes a lot more sense if we evolved from apes to have our nasal passage draining the way it does. The human body is "designed" very poorly, but it makes perfect sense if you think it evolved. I have a hard time believing that someone that is omnipotent would be such a shoddy designer. Especially someone that can create such a balanced, ordered and beautiful universe. How can he balance all the things that need balancing, but yet can't design a comparitively simple human?
This is your subjective opinion. There is no significant scientific evidence to believe this will ever happen. As for your "sloppy fashion" argument, perhaps you should have researched that one a bit first. The human body design is pretty well done, and I doubt that you or any other could improve on it. God didn't mean for the human body in its existing state to be immortal. Why would he defeat that purpose? However, to contradict your throat argument (which is completely off base by the way), there ARE two separate passages.
http://www.alsa-or.org/treatment/Swallowing.htm

Before swallowing food is chewed and held in the mouth. There is nothing in the throat, the windpipe is open and breathing occurs. When you swallow, the food is pushed into the throat, and the windpipe closes off. Food then slips down the tube at the back leading to the stomach. Because the windpipe is closed, you momentarily stop breathing. Once the food has passed through the throat, the windpipe opens up again and breathing can resume.

If you have any food or drink in your throat when your windpipe is open and you are breathing, there is a chance it could fall into the windpipe. This is experienced as 'going down the wrong way' and coughing usually ensues. Aspiration is when liquids or food do go down the wrong way and are not removed by coughing. A cough is the body's response to 'foreign bodies' entering the airway or windpipe. It is our way of protecting our lungs from getting clogged up and interfering with breathing. Unfortunately, in addition to swallowing problems, ALS symptoms also often include weak respiratory function resulting in an inadequate 'protective' cough.
The human body is designed very well and is designed as intended for its purpose. The human design is far from simple considering we still have a very long way to go in understanding the brain. It is only simple in its efficient function. If you believe in God, you believe things happen for a reason. "Nothing is impossible with God." Many non-believers seem to think if God is real that the earth and people should be absent of disease, pain, suffering, or "evil" happenings. It doesn't work that way, and there's a very good reason why. Our "journey" here is a temporary one. We're travellers here. If you look at it from that angle, a lot of it makes sense.




These "miracles" are written by people who want you to believe. Why have we never witnessed anything like this when we can critically anaylize and record the event? We haven't because these things simply don't happen, unless there is a logical explanation behind them, and thus don't appear miraculous.
My above answers address this one.




I have. And I do again. I've asked many a-times for there to be even the slightest unmistakable sign, and yet there has been nothing. No burning bushes, no floating rocks, no aspects of Himself, nothing. Nada. Not a single thing. Like I said, show me proof and I'll be there, bible in hand.

Something that has always bothered me about the whole scenario of forgiveness of our sins through Jesus, etc... is the fact that God is supposedly omnipotent. So he sent his Son, which is actually just an aspect of himself, to absolve the world of our sins. But why? What's the point? He's omnipotent, he doesn't really suffer if he doesn't wish to - and if he wishes to, he's not really suffering. Since he's omnipotent, why even bother sending an aspect of himself to forgive us, why not just forgive us? Why go through all that pomp and circumstance, lay down these rules, and then NOT FOLLOW UP on it? What a whimsical and capricious God he must be. There are so many things he could do to accomplish his stated (by the bible) goals - yet he does none of those. The only thing(s) he does supposedly do are conveniently the only things that can never be verified. How convenient that is, eh? Mighty cooincidental that the bible was written by man, and things are included in it as proof of his existence that can NEVER be proven by man.
The signs you're looking for are not the kind of evidence I was referring to. Even when God has given people those kind of signs, they demonstrated an amazing capacity for selfishness and an ability to disregard or explain them away anyway. As for sending his Son, it was mostly symbollic to accomodate human understanding, but a perfect sacrifice had to be given to "fulfill" Old Testament law that God had previously established.




No, you are welcome to share it with people - under the right circumstances. The public schools, government and my daily life are NOT the right circumstances. That's the only beef I have with ANY religion. You are free to believe as you want, but do NOT push your agenda on me. I'm not saying you personally are, Thespis, but Christianity as a whole is pushing it's morally corrupt agenda on the whole nation (and world) and that's just plain wrong. If Christianity is the truth, it doesn't need to be pushed on anyone, people will come around. If it's not hte truth, then you have no business pushing it. Either way, it's wrong.
I agree with you completely on this one. It should be a free choice. If people demonstrate curiosity, then Christians should acknowledge and explore that curiosity. They should never try to force their faith on another person or try to "talk them into it". It doesn't work that way. We're merely supposed to "let the light shine" which leads to curiosity. It isn't our job to convince anyone but to simply be a testimony of what God has done for us. God works inside a person to "open their eyes and ears".

Thespis
27th October 04, 06:48 PM
The book doesn't constitute proof, it's not an objective source.

And when I say "it's not an objective source" I mean, "like reading the North Korean Government's version of Kim Jong Il's service to his country".
When something can't be proven or disproven, people will decide what they believe regarding it based on their personal experience. That's why the "objective empirical evidence" doesn't work for either side. How objective would you be in that "book" if you had clear proof staring you in the face? It isn't like they had any other reproduceable means of displaying or preserving their evidence. Hence the "debate" that persists today. 200 years ago, you'd have been laughed into lifelong embarassment for believing man could ever fly. In the future, who's to say what we will or won't discover to be true or false. Certainly neither me or you.

Chantress
2nd November 04, 04:43 PM
The book doesn't constitute proof, it's not an objective source.

And when I say "it's not an objective source" I mean, "like reading the North Korean Government's version of Kim Jong Il's service to his country".


Josephus writes in his "Antiquities" , "and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, upon his impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him." This was written by Jew, who would have considered himself at odds with the cause of Christ.

Third party, objective source, not from the Bible.

My apologies for the late reply, I got this thread confused with the proof of taco thread.

Phrost
2nd November 04, 04:49 PM
I don't want the spinned version of Josephus. I want the direct text, and edition.

For example, see my signature with regards to John Adams.

Halfrican
2nd November 04, 04:51 PM
I found God

Chantress
2nd November 04, 04:54 PM
BAH! For that I will have to go get my copy of Josephus from my mom's house. She is borrowing it. I'll post it in a few days.

Chantress
2nd November 04, 05:01 PM
Or I could google the quote and get the following results.

Many other non-Biblical and non-Christian sources refer to the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, who in writing at the end of the first century A.D. wrote in Antiquities 18.3.3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man; for He was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned Him to the cross, upon His impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved Him from the first did not forsake Him, for He appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about Him. And even now, the race of Christians, so named from Him, had not died out.

Again, Josephus states in Antiquities, 20.9.1:

After the death of the procurator Festus, when Albinus was about to succeed him, the high priest Ananius considered it a favorable opportunity to assemble the Sanhedrin. He therefore caused James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and several others, to appear before this hastily assembled council, and pronounced upon them the sentence of death by stoning. All the wise men and strict observers of the law who were at Jerusalem expressed their disapprobation of this act . . . Some even went to Albinus himself, who had departed to Alexandria, to bring this breach of the law under his observation, and to inform him that Ananius had acted illegally in assembling the Sanhedrin without the Roman authority.


That was from this link.

http://www.anderson-law-firm.com/tta/tta-ch14.htm

Which was also a good read. It puts the crucifixion to the legal test.

Chantress
2nd November 04, 05:05 PM
I would also highly reccomend reading the rest of the pages that are linked at the bottom. It actually appears to be a book of sorts.

Kiko
2nd November 04, 05:52 PM
You really got God confused with a Taco??

Chantress
2nd November 04, 07:20 PM
Actually, I think Phrack used to be a involved with the Methodist church when he was younger, if memory serves me. Which does not necessarily mean that he has ever read the Bible, but I also believes that he said he has read it through about 10 times, if memory serves me.

Chantress
2nd November 04, 07:22 PM
Uhh did Donnely delete his post? Or am I going nutso?

Yeah, the topic in the unmoderated proof of taco thread was going on the same lines as these. When I was reading my reps, I noticed it wasnt the same thread, so came back here and fulfilled the request for futher information.

Phrost
2nd November 04, 07:31 PM
Donnely's post got nuked. It was argumentative and not in line with the parameters set forth in the initial post.

Thespis
2nd November 04, 07:46 PM
[Edited by Phrack for effect]

What part of "Moderated Thread" is hard for you to understand?

Wanna whine about it? Do it in another thread.

Donnely McLeod
2nd November 04, 11:22 PM
Evidence of creation is not a matter of credentials or URLs.

I sit at a computer and think. I pour a glass of tea. I hear the TV. I exist in an organized, non-chaotic, programmed reality. Its weather system, its nature, the universe all joins symbiotically. There is no mystery. The mystery lies in the simplicity of the answer to the complex equations. The workings and interworkings of nature are complex. But the question is not:

Is the universe a product of creation or evolution?

Its not a matter of personal beliefs, religous dogma, scientific dogma or anything else. In this situation there can only be creation or evolution.

If I move into a neighborhood do I assume that the neighborhood:

a) was there before I arrived.
b) came into being as I arrived.
c) both a and b are irrelevant, because the neighborhood had to be built.
d) a, b and c are irrelevant, because the neighborhood evolved by itself.

If I choose "d" as my answer I must provide the burden of proof. If for 50 years I argue that the neighborhood evolved from lumber, mortar and brick at no time would I be able to use the antiquity of my beliefs as it being 'an established truth.'

Therefore the burden of proof is on the people who believe that life came frome lifelessness. Despite the popular belief that evolution is a proven, scientific fact it has never stood on a foundation either of science or of research. It was taken as truth and became an unspoken truth. Regardless of this, it never has provided evidence of its own. Any theory based AFTER this theory can be wholly dismissed as it is BASED on this theory. 150 years of biological research down the tubes because of an unwillingness to start over.

Phrack, mockingly you quoted something ironic to your situation...

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

-Hebrews 11:1



‘The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views, on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.’


The truth of his statement: I have to take on faith that it is this way because no fossils eist to prove it. And they still don't. Unless you count the findings of every limelighter in the past 5 years, each of whom drift into obscurity along with their findings (doesn't help your credibility to shout 'fire' in a theater still expecting the crowd to respond).

You know what the full title of his book was?

On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

And you know what book two fascist and communist dictators over two world wars and the first span of the cold war used in the ethnic warfare?

hunggar_student
20th September 06, 03:43 AM
Good evening, I have been reading through your thread and had intended to wait until I had read all of it to comment.
However, I feel I have to interject one comment for this one.

True, the dinosoaur's did not survive the flood of Noah, but a lot of people and animals did. Here is another instance we can call upon history to verify facts for us. China tells in there history of a flood, creating a wash through the araat range sometime around 2350ish BC which is right on target for the flood of Noah. (yes, I am getting to evedence)

Yes, sience has proven that dinosoaur's existed and have been extinct for around 50million years(give or take a few million years)

The description in Job chapters 40 concerning the behemoth is too descriptive to be a hippo. The behemoth is quoted to "drink up jordan", that is a BIG creature. Also, he is noted as having a tail like a great cedar, a hippo has a tail like a twig. Behemoth is a very nice description of a pleaseosoaurs(spelling??)

The leviathan in chapter 41 shares only one trait in common with a crocodile, which is the glow in the eyes at night. The rest of the description is something that we deal with only in myth and legend and is also symbolic of satan.

The problem with the dinosoaur's being on the boat with Noah is this.
1. The flood of Noah took place only about 2348 to 2350 BC or so while dinosoaur's have been extinct for several million years just to be on the safe side.
2. The boat simply was not large enough to house the size of animal we have skeletons of which is our proof that they existed.

However, this is one instance that scripture and science both agree that very large animals roamed the earth at some point in the distant past. The biggest problem with the debate with science and scripture is the fact that science tells us that this earth is millions of years old, possibly even billions while if we take the common teaching of scripture we can add the generations from Adam to present day and have only about 6,000 years so it looks like creation lost??

UNLESS, one cares to read chapter 1 and chapter 2 of gen and make an ordered list of the events that occured and the order of the events. Then you can see that the man of chapter 2 was not the first man, but rather in gen 1:26 God made man (hebrew awdam, ie; the human race) before he made Eth-Awdam (the man, ie;one single man). You can check this out with a KJV and a strongs concordance.

Also, if you look at the hebrew in the first 3 verses of gen chapter 1 (again use a strongs concordance) you will see that the earth was not Created void and without form, but rather Became as such. A second witness from Gods Word is to be found in the 4th chapter of Jeremiah starting in vers 22 or so, also in Isiah chapter 45 vers 18 where the english word "vain" has been translated from the same hebrew word as "without form" in gen 1:2 stating that God did not create the earth in such a condition.


We all know that the different eveloloutions of man(no, I do not support eveloution, the word is used for demonstration only) that science has proven to exist could not have come about in only 6,000 years. However, if we understand that scripture does not limit this earth to 6,000 years, that obsticle is removed from our thoughts. Only when we read both scripture and science with understanding do they complement each other.

Now for the evedence for the skeptics.

Science tells us that this world froze so fast that mamoth's in the tundra were frozen before they could chew their food or even fall down, evedent by that fact that they have been found, perfectly preserved with buttercup flowers still in there mouths. The passage in Jeremiah gives us a nice description of a world in such a state.

Science tells us that countrys like China, Africa and egypt have had civelizations for over 13,000 years, and man has been on this earth for around 50,000 years(check history of the dakota tribe, mamoth hunters aound that time, though a smaller mamoth, only slightly larger than an african elephant according to remains found so far)
Scripture does not document this, but it no longer denies it when read with understanding.

Above all, look at nature. The complex life forms from man, to trees to the smallest cell of life. No perfect sculpture comes to us with a masters hand on the hammer. For the sun to be in perfect allignment with the planets and other stars to give us the climate for life, for reasoning beings such as mankind to have formed and made this world our home, the evedence of this in its self should show that it could not happen by chance. Nature is your evedence, the fact that science, history and scripture(which many of us count as history) are merging closer every day is only a verification of the evedence you see every day.

May not be the evedence you were looking for, but it is the most current and REAL evedence one could hope for.

Thank you and God bless,,
John Miller.


Dinosoaur's did not survive the flood, and were probably dead long before man ever showed up. Behemoth was a hippo, and leviathan was a crocodile.

DAYoung
20th September 06, 04:02 AM
For the purposes of this discussion we will be using Kant's definition of "empirical" evidence as that which can be proven only by (objective) experience". Meaning your personal "conversations with God" are irrelevant as they are subjective.

I love it. You offer posters Kant's a posteriori to prove God, after Kant himself completely ruled out the possibility of doing so. In fact, Kant held that 'conversations with God' and their moral practicality were more 'real' than any a priori or a posteriori proof of God.

Just for the record, Kant's 'objective' experience is hardly objective, since he refuted knowledge of the noumenal realm. But this is neither here nor there...

Anyway, you're essentially saying: "Prove God. Here's Kant's definition of how I want you to do it. Of course, Kant, one of the West's greatest thinkers, said you couldn't do it, but try anyway."

ICY
20th September 06, 05:40 AM
The book doesn't constitute proof, it's not an objective source.

And when I say "it's not an objective source" I mean, "like reading the North Korean Government's version of Kim Jong Il's service to his country".

This being the case, the entire Bible can be rationalized scientifically. Nowhere near proven, but rationalized. Any time anything is ridiculous, the "lying author" clause comes into effect. I don't think this way, but I used to.


The description in Job chapters 40 concerning the behemoth is too descriptive to be a hippo. The behemoth is quoted to "drink up jordan", that is a BIG creature. Also, he is noted as having a tail like a great cedar, a hippo has a tail like a twig. Behemoth is a very nice description of a pleaseosoaurs(spelling??)

No we don't.


The leviathan in chapter 41 shares only one trait in common with a crocodile, which is the glow in the eyes at night. The rest of the description is something that we deal with only in myth and legend and is also symbolic of satan.

What!? You say the previous scripture, the one right before this one, both of which are part of the same context refers to a real dinosaur, but this is a mythic being...BS.

[email protected]

Doctor X
20th September 06, 05:58 AM
Oh my . . . a lot of claims made contrary to actual evidence, but what is the point arguing posts two years old?

So . . . to recent material:



True, the dinosoaur's did not survive the flood of Noah, but a lot of people and animals did.

That statement contradicts both Noah Flood Myths extant in the Hebrew Bible.


Behemoth is a very nice description of a pleaseosoaurs(spelling??)

See references to Tiamat and the Leviathan. Slicing up a serpant to create the current world is an old motiff.


The leviathan . . . is also symbolic of satan.

The leviathan is not a satan.


1. The flood of Noah took place only about 2348 to 2350 BC or so . . . .

Contradicted by the archaeological evidence.



2. The boat simply was not large enough to house the size of animal we have skeletons of which is our proof that they existed.

But now you have contradicted the biblical flood myths.


However, this is one instance that scripture and science both agree that very large animals roamed the earth at some point in the distant past.

Beowulf kills a dragon. How is any of this relevant?


The biggest problem with the debate with science and scripture is the fact that science tells us that this earth is millions of years old possibly even billions . . . .

Which it is.


. . . while if we take the common teaching of scripture we can add the generations from Adam to present day and have only about 6,000 years so it looks like creation lost??

~10,000 . . . specifically: 9 am on 26 October 4004 BCE.

Believe what the evidence demands.


UNLESS, one cares to read chapter 1 and chapter 2 of gen and make an ordered list of the events that occured. . . .

Two different and irreconcilable creation myths:

The older J story begins:


In the day that YHWH made the earth and skies--when all produce of the field had not yet been in the earth, and all vegetation of the field had not yet grown. . . .

Gen 2:4b-5a

I remove the Redactor additions of "Elohim"--translated as "god"--to YHWH.

Here you have the locative view of religion--ground HERE, sky ABOVE. No mention of anything beyond that. Certainly no mention of YHWH creating the universe which will include where he exists. I refer'd to "the Song of Moses"--more properly "Song of the Sea," possibly the oldest composition in the Hebrew Bible (Cross; Friedman, 2003), preserved in Exod 15:2-18 asks in verse 11, "Who among the gods is like you, YHWH?" This verse assumes the existence of other gods and considers YHWH greater than them. It is preserved in the J text. So, did YHWH create the land of the gods?

One cannot ignore a passage which shows YHWH as subordinate to El. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 describes how when El Elyon--"El the Most High," parceled out the nations between his sons, YHWH received Israel as his portion. Later scribes tried to change this meaning. Day, Smith, and Schmidt note the textual evidence establishes the preferred reading of "sons of God"--more properly "gods": bene elohim rather than the Massoretic text's "sons of Israel"--bene yisra' el. Curiously, Friedman tries to preserve the now discredited reading. Thus:


When El the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
When he separated humanity,
He fixed the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of sons of gods.
For YHWH's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.

As, Schmidt notes:


The relevant Septuagint and Qumran readings of Deut 32:8-9 describe how the Most High or the Canaanite high god, El . . . had allotted to each of the nations one of the members of his pantheon or "sons of El" (la ynb). . . . Deut 32:9 also reveals that YHWH was once viewed as an independent, but subordinate, deity to El and was assigned by El to Jacob/Israel. In other words, the tradition suggests that YHWH was once viewed as a deity possessing equal or lower rank and power to that of the astral gods.

Did YHWH create the divine pantheon, or, particularly El to whom he was subordinate? No biblical, or extra-biblical, source supports such a belief. A sherd found in excavations of the Jewish Quarter dated in the 7th century BCE demonstrates the importance of an El deity in Jerusalem: l qn 'rs "El, creator of the earth," (Keel).

The later P creation myth is textually based on Psalm 104, which has remarkable parallels to the 14th century BCE Akhenaten's "Hymn to the Sun," (Day).


At the time when Elohim created/separated the skies and the earth when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the spirit of Elohim was hovering on the face of the water. . . .

Gen 1:1-2

On earlier sources and this "deep," Day notes that:


. . . the Priestly creation account in Genesis 1, where it has often been thought that tehom 'deep' in Gen. 1.2 is a reminiscence of the name of Tiamat. . . . However, in general, since the discovery of the Ugaritic [Canaanite texts from Ugarit.--Ed.] texts from 1929 onwards, it has become generally accepted that the Old Testament's references to a divine conflict with a dragon and the sea are an echo of Canaanite rather than Babylonian mythology.

"Creation myth" is a bit of a misnomer. Gods do not so much create as reorder to their devices. Hence the pre-existing "waters of the deep." Where was Elohim hanging about prior to his work?! The primary action in earlier creation myths is the physical separation of earth from the skies. After reviewing these, Westermann notes:


This background makes it worthwhile considering the thesis that the Hebrew word for creation by God [Cannot render Hebrew Font: Aleph-Resh-Bet--Ed.], has the original basic meaning of "divide" or "separate," E. Dantinne, "Creation et S&#233;paration," Le Mus&#233;on, 74 (1961). He begins with the passages Josh 17:15, 18; Ezek 23:47 . . . where the verb means "cut off" or "cut in pieces."

The "creations" or "reorderings" do not, in any fashion, imply a making of anything more than the locative conceptions of earth and immediately above sky. EVERYTHING ELSE pre-existed.

. . . why I save this stuff. Imagine if I had to re-type it each time.


You can check this out with a KJV and a strongs concordance.

Toss both in the waste basket. Harmonization and eisegesis. KJV is based on bad textual witnesses. We have a better understanding of the language and better witnesses. Strong's is not useful.


Also, if you look at the hebrew in the first 3 verses of gen chapter 1 . . . you will see that the earth was not Created void and without form, but rather Became as such.

No, as above, the Earth was separated from the sky.

I deal with Jeremiah in the other thread.


(no, I do not support eveloution, the word is used for demonstration only)

You cannot fight facts, son. I do not support Nicole Kidman getting remarried and not being my sex slave. Reality, however. . . .


Only when we read both scripture and science with understanding do they complement each other.

Only when you misread the texts and try to force them to fit science--which you cannot, actually--can you do this. This starts with the assumption that the text must be "t3h r34l" and then massaging, altering, misquoting, wrecking them to save this assumption.


Science tells us that this world froze so fast that mamoth's in the tundra were frozen before they could chew their food or even fall down, evedent by that fact that they have been found, perfectly preserved with buttercup flowers still in there mouths.

Consider Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

I am not sure what your next two paragraphs contribute.


Above all, look at nature. The complex life forms from man, to trees to the smallest cell of life. No perfect sculpture comes to us with a masters hand on the hammer.

Life is hardly perfect. Retina are backwards. Upright posture is bad for the back. Talk to women about menstruation.

To wit, I offer this by way of epithalamium:

The Good[(Sic)--Ed.] Doctor's Prodigiously Pretentiously Pomposely Pespicaciously Pedagogical Pediatric Pontine Tumor Proof

Science involves the explanation of observations. Theory produces predictions that must hold else the theory proves incorrect or incomplete. If a rock is dropped from a building aimed at John Kerry's head yet stops 13.27 inches above it, a physicist would have to explain this in light of the current theory of gravity. Perchance all of the hot air eminating [Stop that!--Ed.].

Right. Nothing like a real observation. So here is a real observation that requires explanation. Children and adolescents develop a rather nasty tumor of the brain stem, particularly the metencephalon, or pons. It is infiltrative and not amenable to surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. The latter two therapies merely prolong the decline.

The decline? As with real estate, the watchword for the central nervous system is "location!" The tumor destroys the descending voluntary pathways and centers for the cranial nerves which enervate facial musculature whilst preserving the sensory pathways. The child progressively losses control of her body up to her eye muscles which allows some rudimentary communication. Since the trigger for consciousness is located in the more rostral ventral midbrain or mesencephalon, she remains conscious throughout the months of decline. During this deterioration, she retains sensation and consciousness. She feels every ulcer, every pain; she remains completely aware of her condition and decline.

Eventually, on a tracheostomy, she will succumb usually to an infection.

This is not only a real case, it is all too frequent.

This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it. Notice that I do not attack the death--people die. Perhaps she was destined to be the next Celine Dion. . . . It is the extent and severity of the suffering that renders it Unjustified Suffering. What did the child do to deserve it? Consider then why Josef Mengele passed easily from a stroke while swimming. Why did he apparently deserve a far easier passage?

Perhaps imagine a Heaven and a Hell--dream up a reward and punishment that will somehow magically balance the books, so to write? The problem remains the extent and severity of the suffering. If die she must, far quicker and less-severe methods do end a tyke's existence. Forced listening of country-western music, for example. Children do, unfortunately, ask what the did wrong to be punished by such a condition. What "reward" balances it? Is it greater than that obtained by children who die of leukemia, car accidents, and falling masonry? Why? Furthermore, that one imagines a Mengele horribly tortured throughout eternity--something involving fish hooks and Patsy Cline--does not justify the extensive and severe suffering of the child. Finally, if some grand argumentum ad ignorantium of a "reward" exists, why do not the children who die of the less-horrible leukemia and steam rollers deserve it?

Since No Alleviation of her suffering occured, we are left with Five Possible Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.] regarding deities:

1. No Deity Exists
2. A Deity Exists and He is Evil
3. A Deity Exists and He is Incompetent
4. A Deity Exists and He is Irrelevant
5. A Deity Exists and He is Some Combination of 2-4


you are, of course, free to choose from any one of the Five.

--J.D.

References:

Cross FM. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674091760/qid=1127768929/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1979842-3348819?v=glance&s=books). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Day J. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (http://www.continuumbooks.com/Books/detail.aspx?ReturnURL=/Search/default.aspx&CountryID=2&ImprintID=2&BookID=120076). London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663). 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530693/qid=1089618275/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8697961-1966443?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.

Keel O, Uehlinger C. Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080062789X/qid=1142385438/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-7618147-9277739?s=books&v=glance&n=283155). Thomas H. Trapp trans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.

Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841619/qid=1127768620/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1979842-3348819?v=glance&s=books). Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Smith MS. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080283972X/qid=1127768115/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1979842-3348819?v=glance&s=books), 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Westermann C. Genesis: An Introduction (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080062582X/qid=1127768363/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-1979842-3348819?v=glance&s=books). Scullion JJ, trans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

ICY
20th September 06, 06:13 AM
Only when you misread the texts and try to force them to fit science--which you cannot, actually--can you do this.

You can, IMO, but you need to take the perspective of the author and other crap into account. You could call that "forcing" but that's not what it is.


This is a case of Unjustified Suffering unless you or anyone else can find some manner in which to justify it.

The unjustified suffering crap is pathetic. Ask yourself...why would God give a shit about you, or anyone else, individually. It's like saying if you have an ant colony and one ant dies there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Bullshit arguement to the core.

Doctor X
20th September 06, 06:33 AM
You can, IMO, but you need to take the perspective of the author and other crap into account. You could call that "forcing" but that's not what it is.

The "forcing" ignores the individual authors and their social concerns, which was rather my point.


The unjustified suffering crap is pathetic.

For its victims, it is indeed, but it remains a fact requiring explanation.


Ask yourself...why would God give a shit about you, or anyone else, individually. It's like saying if you have an ant colony and one ant dies there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Bullshit arguement to the core.

Hardly, since you have just argued for Irrelevant at best and Evil at worst.

--J.D.

ICY
20th September 06, 07:41 AM
You can be uncaring without being evil. Stepping on bugs doesn't make me evil, I just don't care about bugs. There are plenty of them. Just like people would be to God.


I'm not arguing for the existance of God here, I just don't want you to use faulty logic in the case for sanity. Don't discredit the truth by attaching your opinions to it, let it speak for itself. You're debating scripture instead of simply puting the onus on the claimants to prove their claims. Who cares what God would be like? That's irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Doctor X
20th September 06, 07:45 AM
You can be uncaring without being evil.

Irrelevant and/or Incompetent


I'm not arguing for the existance of God here, I just don't want you to use faulty logic in the case for sanity.

You have continuously demonstrated the soundness of the argument.


You're debating scripture instead of simply puting the onus on the claimants to prove their claims.

Different situation, different argument.


Who cares what God would be like? That's irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Deciding whether or not to worship an Evil, Irrelevant, and/or Incompetent deity remains relevant.

--J.D.

ICY
20th September 06, 08:11 AM
Not to this thread.

CannibalCrowley
20th September 06, 10:24 AM
I don't want the spinned version of Josephus. I want the direct text, and edition.

Don't bother with his writings, they aren't first hand. A good portion of it is just him retelling stories from the Torah and other historians.

Edited to add: here's an online version http://www.interhack.net/projects/library/antiquities-jews/

Doctor X
20th September 06, 12:31 PM
Not to this thread.

Wrong again.

--J.D.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 12:32 PM
Only evidence I've ever had of God was the complexity of the universe. Everytime I learn or see something new, it's just astounding. I think to myself "There has to be a God, right?" But guess what? I never get an answer. So... science FTW!

kungfujew
20th September 06, 04:51 PM
Haven't finished reading the thread, but here's a general question to throw out there: All of the "evidence" that has been presented by those who believe in God and feel that belief is worth defending has been of miraculous events that took place either in obscure, undeveloped villages in the middle of nowhere, or took place centuries or millenia before there was an accurate written record or an apparatus of verification of events besides the Catholic Church (also I'm sure the Orthodox church has a litany of varied miracles that have happened to its followers, I thought God was pickier than that). My question is then:
Why has God stopped talking? Why have the great miracles ceased? Yes, an old woman somewhere in Nicaragua may have claimed to be rid of a heart condition; but why has fire not rained from the sky on the wicked? Why hasn't there been waves of frogs and locusts afflicting God's enemies, when it is often the poorest and most devout that suffer the most from disease and pestilence. Where are the parted seas and the endless nights? Is it not strange that God ceased to speak with the advent of modern science, education, satelites, video cameras, and the internet?

Shawarma
20th September 06, 04:52 PM
He's testing your faith.

Doctor X
20th September 06, 05:05 PM
Are your refering to the child?

What faith is "tested" that justifies the severity and extent?

--J.D.

Shawarma
20th September 06, 05:10 PM
Referring to KFJ's post.

kungfujew
20th September 06, 05:26 PM
Referring to KFJ's post.

"Okay... dinosaurs. How does that fit into your whoe little scheme? Let me strap myself in here..."
"Okay. God put those here to test our faith."
*struggles with restraints*
"Dude, I think God put you here to test MY faith, dude."

Shawarma
20th September 06, 05:30 PM
I was thinking more on the lines of something like this:

Satan: Hey God, those humans of yours are no damn good at all. Bet you anything that they'd start abandoning you the second you stopped making all these miracles and shit.
God: Is that so, Mr. Smartass? Why, I'm gonna show you. No miracles for 1000 years! You'll see that humanity will be as devoted to me as ever, even without clear and constant proof of my greatness!

Satan obviously is winning the bet.

kungfujew
20th September 06, 05:32 PM
Hail Saitan. Er... I mean Satan.

Seriously, how fucking convenient is the whole Satan thing... I myself am a big fan of the Lightbringer, he just gets a bad rap.

Shawarma
20th September 06, 05:34 PM
N' dass why yo gwoan ta hayl, bwoy!

kungfujew
20th September 06, 05:37 PM
So I've been told by multiple ecclesiastical authorities. And if the people who claim to be destined to be headed to heaven are in fact fated to end up there, I think I'll find somewhere else to go.

"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing" ~Nietzsche

Shawarma
20th September 06, 05:48 PM
In Hell, Nietzsche is being raped daily by 300 foot tall shit demons with cocks made of glass shards and barbed wire. I wonder if he'd like to retract that statement now.

kungfujew
20th September 06, 05:52 PM
Beats having a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness.

Shawarma
20th September 06, 05:56 PM
Point.

DAYoung
20th September 06, 06:10 PM
In Hell, Nietzsche is being raped daily by 300 foot tall shit demons with cocks made of glass shards and barbed wire. I wonder if he'd like to retract that statement now.

Nietzsche got what he wished for?

Wow, there is a God...

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 08:47 PM
In Hell, Nietzsche is being raped daily by 300 foot tall shit demons with cocks made of glass shards and barbed wire. I wonder if he'd like to retract that statement now.
Where in the Bible does it say that?

EDIT:

The second anybody ever has to think about or discuss what God means when he says X in the Bible is when you KNOW God isn't real. Why not just ask him? If I don't understand what someone said, I ask them about it. Unless they're dead. Are you saying God is dead?

Shawarma
20th September 06, 08:49 PM
It's an interpretation.

ThaiBoxerShorts
20th September 06, 10:17 PM
I don't have any proof that God doesn't exist, but there's no evidence that He does, and I don't want to waste my time.

WarPhalange
20th September 06, 11:55 PM
It's an interpretation.

Why interpret the word of God? Can't he be more clear? Can't you ask him to clear it up?

Instead, you keep argueing about what God is really trying to say. Why not just ask him?

saipher
21st September 06, 11:38 AM
I'm not assuming it to be anything. For me, "God's Existence" is in a quantum state... either he exists, or he doesn't. But insisting he exists without suffecient evidence is a sign of a weak mind basing its reality off hope instead of reason.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
-Hebrews 11:1

Which pretty much sums up the Christian view on reason and critical thinking.

Umm, no it doesn't. That verse defines faith. Ideally, reason and critical thinking + faith lead to belief in God. Blind faith is by no means encouraged within Christianity.

kungfujew
21st September 06, 12:42 PM
"Ah believe whut God MEANT to say is...."
"Does this not scare the shit out of any of the rest of you?"

kungfujew
21st September 06, 12:48 PM
Umm, no it doesn't. That verse defines faith. Ideally, reason and critical thinking + faith lead to belief in God. Blind faith is by no means encouraged within Christianity.

Reason and faith of a religious nature are mutually incompatible. What you have thus far experienced as "reason" is in fact a subversion of reasoned thought patterns into a faith-based, that is to say irrational and non-critical worldview. The young earthers and the IDers are well versed in the language and forms of science and reason. However those are but words and shapes, not true substance.

Phrost
21st September 06, 01:37 PM
Faith is just another word for God hiding in the gaps.

I guess this thread isn't moderated anymore.

Bluto Blutarsky
21st September 06, 02:26 PM
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvbrim2.JPG
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvbrim.JPG

When one knows what to look for, the structure of a city becomes obvious, walls, streets, ziggurats, even sphinx-like shapes are easily discernable. And the dimensions of these ruins are more in line with what might truly be called a city. The largest being Sodom which is in fact located near Mt. Sidom and covers more than 140 acres.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvruins2.JPG
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sgvruins3zig.JPG


Brimstone = Sulfur

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/dead_sea_sw2.jpg
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/dead_sea2.jpg


I've seen a doccumentary about this that suggests that the "sulfer from the sky" was a volcanic eruption.

Do we have historical evidence of lots existance? Why should lot e be granted automatic status. While we can speculate that general events of the bible (much like the iliad) took place (like the conquering of cities, the general existance of a certain group of people) and speculate thier general location, we would need some clear evidence of some of the more "magical" happenings.

These things IMO are misinterpretations or exaggerations of real life stories that have some basis in true history. But like the grimm brothers, mostly the bible is metaphorical in its use of these "magic events".

But for the record, I know for a fact god does not exist because he told me so himself yesterday.

Phrost
21st September 06, 02:32 PM
Proving some of the events in the Bible actualy occurred is not the same as proving God exists anyway.

Sun Wukong
21st September 06, 05:43 PM
Well, I think you give them too much credit.

The jewish god was a war god who dictated the utter annihilation of it's enemies. Sodom and Gomorrah ( <- isn't there a giant japanese monster with the same name that fought Godzilla?) may have existed, but the Jewish god for one reason or another demanded their blood (of course, it was probably expansionistic tribal government who just used Yhwy as a war totem, and tribal mascot). Instead of looking for answers from nature, I'd suggest they were all wiped out at the point of a spear.

When Yhwy attacked he left no survivors and took no spoils in my understanding. He killed every man, woman and child, then burned the place to the ground. What's so hard to understand about that?

Another reason I don't buy the volcano story is because volcanoes and volcanic activity usually exist for a very, very long time where it exists at all. I think that if a volcano had done that, it would be very easy to find and would probably even still show signs of seismic and some sort of volcanic activity.

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 05:46 PM
The Bible made me raise an eyebrow the second I read the words "Your God". Like Yahweh was insinuating that there were other gods out there.

Sun Wukong
21st September 06, 05:49 PM
The Bible made me raise an eyebrow the second I read the words "Your God". Like Yahweh was insinuating that there were other gods out there.

Good eye, in fact the bible never says you can't have other gods. It only says you can't put other gods ahead of Yhwy.

Shawarma
21st September 06, 05:55 PM
^^^^^Very, very much a matter of interpretation. Translation of the bible to my local language of the 1st commandments is: "You may not have other gods than me," which is without doubt what God meant. Honestly, can you see the Abrahamic God wanting his followers to acknowledge Vishnu or Odin for as long as they just put old Yahwe at the top?

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 06:41 PM
^^^^^Very, very much a matter of interpretation. Translation of the bible to my local language of the 1st commandments is: "You may not have other gods than me," which is without doubt what God meant. Honestly, can you see the Abrahamic God wanting his followers to acknowledge Vishnu or Odin for as long as they just put old Yahwe at the top?

The fact that he acknowledges that there are other gods is what strikes me. He never says "I am the only God", he says "your God".

And I already mentioned, if you have to interpret the word of God, then maybe he's not so great? At the age of 6 my brother could already tell me what he wanted without me interpreting shit.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 06:45 PM
The fact that he acknowledges that there are other gods is what strikes me. He never says "I am the only God", he says "your God".

And I already mentioned, if you have to interpret the word of God, then maybe he's not so great? At the age of 6 my brother could already tell me what he wanted without me interpreting shit.

There is a real tension in the Old Testament. Some sections represent an older non-monotheistic period, others later monotheism. At some points, God is just El, a tribal deity. At other points, he's God as Elohim, a plural omnipotent and omniscient Ubergott.

Shawarma
21st September 06, 06:52 PM
God makes it quite clear that other gods are FALSE Gods and not worthy. I just said that I find it unlikely that God would forgive his followers for having other Gods. That's why Moses got ultra-pissed when he came down from the mountain and found his people worshipping a golden calf.

The Word of God has already been interpreted - from the people who got told the stories of God at first to the greeks who committed them to paper to all the different translations of these words. I think it is important to study the texts intensely to find out just what the actual meaning behind the words is. (which is different in books like the NT, because it was apparently written by several people.) There is also the question of how to translate his commands into contemporary language. Slaves are no longer kept, so does the rest of the 10th commandment still count, for instance?

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 06:54 PM
I wish God would come back and give us a Bible 2.0

He's been slacking lately. People keep killing each other over his book, and he won't even give us a "oh, well, what I mean is"

Shawarma
21st September 06, 06:56 PM
I dunno, he may think that he made himself quite clear in the 3 books he's had published already.

I think he needs a new proofreader.

DAYoung
21st September 06, 07:00 PM
God makes it quite clear that other gods are FALSE Gods and not worthy. I just said that I find it unlikely that God would forgive his followers for having other Gods. That's why Moses got ultra-pissed when he came down from the mountain and found his people worshipping a golden calf.

And by his own brother, no less.

WarPhalange
21st September 06, 07:25 PM
At least you can sell a golden calf. People give away Bibles for free.

Doctor X
22nd September 06, 09:26 AM
Ah crap! You all suck! I go on vacation and do not have access to my sources.

Anyways, the history of Exodus/Conguest is MYTHIC! Wander over to the thread on The Bible and . . . YOU! and you will find a discussion on religious violence--the hrm--and the like.

Why was it made up?

Cultural jealousy. Real regional powers like the Assyrians did take and destroy. In creating a mythic past, it was "nice" to pretend one once had an empire and a god that destroyed.

The religion was henotheistic--many gods with MY GOD best. Your god sucks! El is NOT YHWH though far later there was an attempt to equate them. The texts try to do that to some extent, however, the texts are preserving traditions over time.

So . . . if you wander over to the other thread, you will see the poem from Deuteronomy where El grants YHWH Israel. What? For [b]Prost, when YHWH refers to "we" . . . there is no "royal we" in Hebrew. He is refering to other gods.

Why does any of that matter? The creation of a mythic past served to justify the political situation of the time of compilation of the texts into something we might recognize--"hey, we gots a Temple . . . centralized religion . . . Bob, here, has a farm!" Look at the Westerns from the 50s where the Happy White Settlers save the West from the Nasty Evil Indians. Kids grew up thinking Indians did nothing but try to scalp you and speak wierd. Current believers want to think there is history and fact behind belief. Oh, they will elevate faith into something "wonderful" but deep down inside they want to know they are "right."

Demonstrate that the "foundation" to faith--their texts--do not say what they think they say, then step back and watch the reaction.

The comparison to martial arts is apt. "Faith" is doing Tai Chi form, donning Magic Pants, and thinking you can beat everyone up . . . you really "can!" In fact, I have this book that describes Korean Ninja round-kicking samurai out of horses! No! Wait! The Shaolin monks "chi-blasted' them! Samurai that is.

So some clown shows you a ruin of a temple in China and this somehow, someway, makes such nonsense plausible?

--J.D.

Bluto Blutarsky
22nd September 06, 12:02 PM
Proving some of the events in the Bible actualy occurred is not the same as proving God exists anyway.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. While too many people are saying that. there are also people who go to the other extreme who totally discount the bible because it is a religious book rather than analyzing it for its historical or cultural merit. Obviously what is in it, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I no more believe that god existed than I do that athena and dionysus appeared on the battlefield in troy, but can we use that book to identify a starting place to verify the basic premise of that book?

I believe it to be a peice of ancient literature where the author is unknown. Just because you can't prove god exists doesn't mean there isnt' a logical explanation to the miracles and "magic" in the bible.

People who use the bible as a "proof"are missing the point. I don't think even if we took every happening and seeming "magic" in the bible as bieng historically accurate word for word. Then all we still have is the effect and not the cause. we would need to prove that it was a god (or gods) that was the cause independantly. And as none of us were alive at that time and there is no video evidence or you tube from 2000 years ago this is a red herring for religious people who want to prove gods existance.

the existance of god needs to be proven with legit evidence from today that can be observed.

I've already figured it out. god exists and is a cat. if god spelled backwards is dog, and the opposite of dog is cat, then god must be a cat.

Sounds really fucking stupid right? It's no less idiotic than every argument supporting god's existance that I've heard.

ThaiBoxerShorts
22nd September 06, 12:11 PM
I was following your argument until the last part. How the hell is cat the opposite of dog? Evolutionarily speaking, they have a lot in common, being land-dwelling mammalian carnivores.

But, oh yeah... If God exists, then evolution doesn't. So it makes sense... I guess.

kungfujew
22nd September 06, 12:37 PM
The opposite of a dog would be a sea-dwelling ill-tempered invertibrate vegetarian.

WarPhalange
22nd September 06, 10:44 PM
It would also have to be made up of anti-carbons and grow younger as it ages.

DAYoung
23rd September 06, 03:34 AM
It would also have to be made up of anti-carbons and grow younger as it ages.

Whoah. Anti-carbon. I like it.

Kiko
23rd September 06, 06:56 AM
I've already figured it out. god exists and is a cat. if god spelled backwards is dog, and the opposite of dog is cat, then god must be a cat.

http://www.fantastico.uma.es/2005/exposicion_comic/images/bastet%20copia.jpg

However, spelling backwards isn't the opposite, really, is it? Hebrew is written right to left though.

And while we're at it, can anyone prove that God does NOT exist? This isn't a court of law and the burden of proof isn't on either side.

ThaiBoxerShorts
23rd September 06, 10:35 AM
And while we're at it, can anyone prove that God does NOT exist? This isn't a court of law and the burden of proof isn't on either side.
Incorrect. In formal debate, the burden of proof is always on the party making the positive claim. That's not unique to courts of law.

Shawarma
23rd September 06, 10:38 AM
There is a ninja standing behind you at all times you're alone, making faces at you. He turns invisible when you look. Prove that there is no invisible ninja standing behind you!

ThaiBoxerShorts
23rd September 06, 10:44 AM
That one's easy: There are no real ninjas, only LARPers.

Leodom
23rd September 06, 11:14 AM
...prove God exists...

This is a losing proposition. I cannot prove God exists, especially to someone with a bias against such a belief. I also cannot prove that quarks exist, or intelligent liberals, or any number of things.

I can, however, provide a logical explanation for my belief. I find it easier to believe that the magnificence of the universe, and the complexity of the cosmos is the result of an intelligent creator rather than mere chance and probability.

This belief does not preclude science and the study of the cosmos. I find it absolutely fascinating to improve our understanding of the universe. It is true that the more we learn about the universe, the less we attribute to "God", but that does not "prove" that God does not exist.

So yes, I believe in God because it's easier and in my mind, more likely. I think a more stimulating discussion would be on the nature of God, not just whether or not God exists.

Shawarma
23rd September 06, 11:16 AM
God's not meant to be proven. Proving God would be killing God.

ThaiBoxerShorts
23rd September 06, 01:05 PM
This is a losing proposition. I cannot prove God exists, especially to someone with a bias against such a belief. I also cannot prove that quarks exist, or intelligent liberals, or any number of things.

I can, however, provide a logical explanation for my belief. I find it easier to believe that the magnificence of the universe, and the complexity of the cosmos is the result of an intelligent creator rather than mere chance and probability.

This belief does not preclude science and the study of the cosmos. I find it absolutely fascinating to improve our understanding of the universe. It is true that the more we learn about the universe, the less we attribute to "God", but that does not "prove" that God does not exist.

So yes, I believe in God because it's easier and in my mind, more likely. I think a more stimulating discussion would be on the nature of God, not just whether or not God exists. Your explanation is an appeal to emotion and a sense of wonder, which is not logical or rational.

Which is fine, just don't try to say that it is, because it totally isn't.

Logic and rationality are dependent on objectivity, and by your own admission ("I believe in God because it's easier and in my mind, more likely"), your explanation relies entirely upon your own subjective views.

Leodom
23rd September 06, 01:21 PM
Your explanation is an appeal to emotion and a sense of wonder, which is not logical or rational.

Which is fine, just don't try to say that it is, because it totally isn't.

Logic and rationality are dependent on objectivity, and by your own admission ("I believe in God because it's easier and in my mind, more likely"), your explanation relies entirely upon your own subjective views.

I beg to differ. It is completely based on logic and is completely rational.

I did mis-"speak" when I said it is "easier". What I meant to say is that it is easier to explain.

It is completely logical to say that given 2 views on the cosmos, one: that it was created by some Supreme Being, and two: that the cosmos is completely the result of physics and chance, I find option 1 to be the most believable.

I made no appeal to emotion. I am completely objective and am willing to listen and consider any other explanation for the existence of the universe. I still haven't heard a more likely explanation than that it was created. Whether it was created by some amorphous consciousness, some bearded old guy, George Burns, or the flying spaghetti monster is yet to be determined.

WarPhalange
23rd September 06, 01:24 PM
The problem is your only proof of that is "I think". Trying to find God, science has only come up with laws of physics and chance. So far, the odds are against God.

Shawarma
23rd September 06, 01:25 PM
And some pretty damn vague "Well, the universe is so complex.....truly, it must have been made by an intelligent being!"

ThaiBoxerShorts
23rd September 06, 01:26 PM
I beg to differ. It is completely based on logic and is completely rational.

I did mis-"speak" when I said it is "easier". What I meant to say is that it is easier to explain.

It is completely logical to say that given 2 views on the cosmos, one: that it was created by some Supreme Being, and two: that the cosmos is completely the result of physics and chance, I find option 1 to be the most believable.

I made no appeal to emotion. I am completely objective and am willing to listen and consider any other explanation for the existence of the universe. I still haven't heard a more likely explanation than that it was created. Whether it was created by some amorphous consciousness, some bearded old guy, George Burns, or the flying spaghetti monster is yet to be determined.
You say it's "more likely." Have you done the statistical analysis, crunched the numbers, and found, mathematically, that it is indeed more likely?

Or do you just believe it's more likely?

If it's the former, I'd like to see your work. If it's the later, that's totally subjective.

Leodom
23rd September 06, 01:30 PM
You say it's "more likely." Have you done the statistical analysis, crunched the numbers, and found, mathematically, that it is indeed more likely?

Or do you just believe it's more likely?

If it's the former, I'd like to see your work. If it's the later, that's totally subjective.

You may be right, but it's just as subjective to feel/believe that chance is more likely. Given what is possibly an infinite nmber of variables, I don't believe it is possible to perform the statistical analysis.

It would be much like "proving" that an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters would eventually type the works of Shakespeare.

It could be argued that everything is subjective based on who is experiencing it. Without agreed upon definitions, the discussion is irrelevant.

ThaiBoxerShorts
23rd September 06, 01:42 PM
You may be right, but it's just as subjective to feel/believe that chance is more likely. Given what is possibly an infinite nmber of variables, I don't believe it is possible to perform the statistical analysis.

It would be much like "proving" that an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters would eventually type the works of Shakespeare.

It could be argued that everything is subjective based on who is experiencing it. Without agreed upon definitions, the discussion is irrelevant.
You know what the difference is? I never claimed that my subjective view was objective.

You did.

You lose.

Leodom
23rd September 06, 01:47 PM
No, you didn't say your view was objective, you only said that I wasn't being objective. Great setup on your part:

TBS: "You're not objective"

Leo: "Sure I am"

TBS: "No, you're view is subjective"

Leo: "So is yours"

TBS: "I never claimed otherwise, you lose"

Great, we've made much progress here.

ThaiBoxerShorts
23rd September 06, 01:50 PM
No, you didn't say your view was objective, you only said that I wasn't being objective. Great setup on your part:

TBS: "You're not objective"

Leo: "Sure I am"

TBS: "No, you're view is subjective"

Leo: "So is yours"

TBS: "I never claimed otherwise, you lose"

Great, we've made much progress here.
That's just insulting. I would never mistakenly use the contraction "you're" in that context. The correct word is "your." I demand an apology.

Leodom
23rd September 06, 01:58 PM
Oh SHIT! I did do that didn't I?

I bow in abject apology. I hereby turn in my grammar and spelling nazi card.

::walks off in shame::