Evidence that God exists

[Taraz]

I know a lot of Christians on this forum believe that there is direct evidence of a God. I would like to hear some of this evidence. And none of the following is evidence:

1. Lots of people believe in God (lots of people believed the world was flat)

2. Miracles by a prophet (you can't claim a miracle as evidence of God if you didn't witness the miracle)

3. The existence of the universe (just because matter exists doesn't mean that God exists)

[stigmata]

http://biblia.com/apparitions/myrna-stigmata-15.jpg

[stigmata]

Obviously that is my idea of a bad joke, like my stupid screen name that I now have to change.

Isn't religion all about belief rather than evidence?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

(lots of people believed the world was flat)


[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[ QUOTE ]

(just because matter exists doesn't mean that God exists)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't religion all about belief rather than evidence?


[/ QUOTE ]
Thats what I believe but DS thinks I'm nuts so there's evidence that some people think religon is about evidence.

chez

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot of Christians on this forum believe that there is direct evidence of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to hear some of this evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

[ QUOTE ]
And none of the following is evidence:


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Why don't you just say what your looking for. Something like a Bible the size of Texas falling out of the sky, that way when it doesn't happen you can "logically" infer that there's no God.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Oh. Why don't you just say what your looking for. Something like a Bible the size of Texas falling out of the sky, that way when it doesn't happen you can "logically" infer that there's no God. </font>

How about just anything observable and not based on heresay.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(lots of people believed the world was flat)


[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[ QUOTE ]

(just because matter exists doesn't mean that God exists)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who believed the world was flat? Most of Europe before Columbus and all those folk. Lots of people believe in Santa Claus and that Tupac is still alive, etc. That doesn't make it true.

And how does the existence of matter prove there is a God exactly? There is a universe -&gt; There is a God? I don't think follows necessarily. And it's especially not true that the existence of matter proves there is a Christian God.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]


Isn't religion all about belief rather than evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought so too, but I've read a lot of posts on this forum saying things to the contrary.

[Taraz]

The reason I included the whole "none of the following is evidence" part is because all the things I listed don't prove anything. I was just trying to list off a few things in my initial post so that I wouldn't have to deal with each of them later. You can see why they aren't evidence of a God, right?

I think that I believe in God at the moment, but I don't think that there is any way that his existence can be proved.

I used to find it amazing that somebody can base his belief on something someone told him, and then have the audacity to call into question the validity of searching for evidence; now I'm used to it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Most of Europe before Columbus and all those folk.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your source?

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think follows necessarily


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim it's necessary according to human reason.

[ QUOTE ]

And it's especially not true that the existence of matter proves there is a Christian God


[/ QUOTE ]

It's strong evidence. Whether it amounts to proof that an individual will accept depends on the individual's standard of proof.

[Josh W]

Using your same guidelines, can you please prove that you were born and not found under a rock?

Thanks,

Josh

I am by choice an atheist, because I enjoy the logical thinking behind trusting empirical evidence and I admire the advances scientific search for answers have made possible.

But our advances and answers are all models, and they can rarely be taken as a direct explanation of phenomena we observe. A simple example will for instance be the laws of newton...whereas physics now operate with many instances were these laws do not apply, they are still usable as a mathematical model for calculating and predecting the outcome of mechanics and force exerted on objects.

For instance, we do not KNOW what gravity is, but we have mathematical models by the dozens which allows us to calculate and predict its effects...so we know what it DOES, and hence we acknowledge that it exists.

Empirical science is very often like that, it predicts, measures, explains...but isn't essentalist..it rarely is an exact answer as to _what_ is going on. In that respect many of the more classical sciences are also about belief...you predict what it does, accept its existence...but rarely explain what it _is_.

Religion takes the other approach, it gives us the what and the why...but rarely if ever gives us the tools needed to measure, predict and calculate the effects of what happens around us.

I don't think setting your standpoint in any of those in any way implies that you can't believe in both. Evidence that god exists would be neat, bottom-of-the-line empirical solutions to what things ARE...as merely opposed to what they do...would also be neat.

Lack of those does not imply either are wrong. So in the end it all comes down to belief anyway.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
How about just anything observable

[/ QUOTE ]

This just turns into the same argument. We both know that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

As far as observable, that depends on the observer doesn't it?

If we wanted to talk about logical conclusions, then we could debate.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most of Europe before Columbus and all those folk.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your source?



[/ QUOTE ]

It was just an example. Perhaps nobody believed the world was flat and they lied to me all through school. All I was saying was that lots of people believing something is true doesn't mean that it is true. Lots of people believe in Islam, but you don't believe that Islam is a true religion from God do you?


[ QUOTE ]

It's strong evidence. Whether it amounts to proof that an individual will accept depends on the individual's standard of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this? Why does the existence of matter provide evidence of a Christian God as opposed to some other deity?

[Taraz]

I agree completely. I never said that God doesn't exist. I just think that it is a matter of faith. There isn't any direct evidence of God and I've read a few comments from posters who believe that there is such evidence. I am just curious as to what this evidence is.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
It was just an example. Perhaps nobody believed the world was flat and they lied to me all through school.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some (mixed) evidence that ancient civilizations believed the earth was flat, but it was generally acknowledged by around the 1st century that the earth was spherical. After Ptolemy developed his astronomy in the 2nd century no one believed the earth was flat. Columbus, after all, was trying to sail to India. To get there by going west from Europe, he would have had to sail around the globe--not over the edge.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps nobody believed the world was flat and they lied to me all through school.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how many people told you everyone pre-Columbus believed the world was flat but it's very easy to determine what the real situation was. Many of the ancient Greeks believed the earth is round and even calculated the circumference fairly accurately as well as the distance to the Moon.

[ QUOTE ]

Why does the existence of matter provide evidence of a Christian God as opposed to some other deity?


[/ QUOTE ]

In your OP you didn't specify the God of the Bible. I believe nature testifies to the existence of a Creator, the Bible provides more specific information.

[Taraz]

I never said that everyone believed the world was flat. Just that lots of people at one time did. It really doesn't matter. Maybe nobody thought the world was flat. The point is that just because many people believe X, it doesn't mean that X is correct or true.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know how many people told you everyone pre-Columbus believed the world was flat but it's very easy to determine what the real situation was. Many of the ancient Greeks believed the earth is round and even calculated the circumference fairly accurately as well as the distance to the Moon.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say everyone. I said many people. But it doesn't matter, read my previous post.

[ QUOTE ]

In your OP you didn't specify the God of the Bible. I believe nature testifies to the existence of a Creator, the Bible provides more specific information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say the God of the Bible in the OP, but I said it in the replies: "And it's especially not true that the existence of matter proves there is a Christian God."

But anyway, so the evidence of God is the Bible then? And why does the "Creator" of nature have to be the Christian conception of God? Couldn't it be multiple Creators for example?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that everyone believed the world was flat. Just that lots of people at one time did. It really doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, like I say, there is some evidence that people believed that in ancient civilization (although the remnants of ancient civilization are very limited), but by the 1st or 2nd century no one believed the earth was flat.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe nobody thought the world was flat. The point is that just because many people believe X, it doesn't mean that X is correct or true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that is correct. I was just trying to fill in some holes where people might have lied to you all throughout school.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But anyway, so the evidence of God is the Bible then? And why does the "Creator" of nature have to be the Christian conception of God? Couldn't it be multiple Creators for example?


[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the evidence that God exists is nature, order, design. That God is the God of the Bible is partly proved by the Bible itself.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]


Some of the evidence that God exists is nature, order, design. That God is the God of the Bible is partly proved by the Bible itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then the existence of Allah is proven by the Koran?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So then the existence of Allah is proven by the Koran?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So then the existence of Allah is proven by the Koran?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this please?

[jthegreat]

Taraz, please reference the thread "Restating the Paradox" for an in-depth discussion of NotReady's logic in arguing that the universe is evidence for a creator. You'll find more than you ever wanted to know there. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many difference between the Koran and the Bible, and many differences between each one's representation of God. They can't both be true.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many difference between the Koran and the Bible, and many differences between each one's representation of God. They can't both be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? God is infinite and therefore his reasons for creating 2 stories for 2 different cultures are beyond the capacity of your reason. You are just a man. Stop claiming to know the mind of God.

-g

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
God is infinite and therefore his reasons for creating 2 stories for 2 different cultures are beyond the capacity of your reason. You are just a man. Stop claiming to know the mind of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again very misled. All 3 sentences.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God is infinite and therefore his reasons for creating 2 stories for 2 different cultures are beyond the capacity of your reason. You are just a man. Stop claiming to know the mind of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again very misled. All 3 sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming I am misled in all 3 sentences is not SHOWING where I am misled. I will again make it clear logically. Please SHOW me where I am wrong.

1. God is infinite and infinitely knowing.
2. There are more than one "supposed" bibles/stories handed down by God.
3. These stories conflict.
4. Since God is infinite his reasons for handing down conflicting stories is beyond your knowledge or mine.
5. Claiming to KNOW that God could not hand down 2 conflicting stories is claiming to KNOW the mind of an infinite God.
6. A person who claims such knowledge is claiming that God is not infinite, and is indeed easier to understand than David Sklansky.
7. This person is a fool.

-g

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I am by choice an atheist

Huh? Please tell me about all those who are atheists because someone is forcing them? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">There are many difference between the Koran and the Bible, and many differences between each one's representation of God. They can't both be true. </font>

Yet, I'm sure you're willing to claim that there is a greater probability that YOUR bible is true. Wait... Scratch that... I'm sure you're willing to claim that there's a 100% probability that YOUR bible is the true one.

And why is that? Are members of YOUR religion more intelligent than Muslims? Have members of YOUR religion been privy to inside info on God that others aren't?

I have no problem with you forming whatever beliefs you want and justifying them in whatever ridiculous way you want. It just seems to me that your above response is overly pompous and self-important.

Why? What is it that causes only you and the members of your religion to know what's true? To think that only your sect has a real handle on things and sees the one true light. Especially since you're going on evidence which can't even be obversed, let alone proved.

[David Sklansky]

The unruly freshman graduates at the top of his class!

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about just anything observable

[/ QUOTE ]

This just turns into the same argument. We both know that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

As far as observable, that depends on the observer doesn't it?

If we wanted to talk about logical conclusions, then we could debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, you're right. It is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of God. But would you agree that as a general rule, it is harder to prove the non-existence of something?

I am NOT trying to be silly here, but....

If you cannot taste, smell, touch, see, or hear any sign of a pink elephant in your room right now, what rational reason do you have to believe one is actually there? Now, you could turn the question around and ask me to prove one ISN'T there. And you'd be right that we've ran into the same unwinnable argument.

This question might sound cocky, but I don't mean it to be. I am genuinely interested in how you can rationalize the existence of something despite the complete absence of any observable evidence. It seems to be far more rational to simply conclude it isn't there and move forward from that point.

[Jeff V]

Here.

[ QUOTE ]
God is infinite and therefore his reasons for creating 2 stories for 2 different cultures are beyond the capacity of your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe in the God of the Bible you know he didn't/wouldn't create 2 different stories for 2 different cultures.

[ QUOTE ]
You are just a man.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are God's most precious creations, not "just" anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Stop claiming to know the mind of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

A bit of a concession here. I still think you're misled because again if you believed in the God of the Bible, you'd be able to take His will as being perfect, and wanting the best for His children.

[ QUOTE ]
Here.

[ QUOTE ]
God is infinite and therefore his reasons for creating 2 stories for 2 different cultures are beyond the capacity of your reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe in the God of the Bible you know he didn't/wouldn't create 2 different stories for 2 different cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that there are fundamental contradictions within your belief system. If you take the basic premise that God is all-powerful, you must then admit that everything which comes after is impossible for you to know or understand. Period.

[ QUOTE ]
You are just a man.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are God's most precious creations, not "just" anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point in stating that is not to demean your importance--my point is to say that you do not have an infinite mind capable of understanding god. That is what "just a man" refers to. Or, in your language, don't put yourself on Jesus' level. Even he did not understand all of god's plans so how could you?
[ QUOTE ]
Stop claiming to know the mind of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

A bit of a concession here. I still think you're misled because again if you believed in the God of the Bible, you'd be able to take His will as being perfect, and wanting the best for His children.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is not what I believe. The point is what you believe. Your basic foundations do not make sense and for you to believe them means you are in a constant state of constradiction. Thats my opinion.
-g

[eOXevious]

The evidence that God exsists can purely be based on that there is no evidence for the alternative (evolution), but continous evidence for the Bible and God. And before you even start arguing with me, look and watch the debates of Dr. Kent Hovind www.drdino.com. (http://www.drdino.com.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with you forming whatever beliefs you want and justifying them in whatever ridiculous way you want.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible didn't fall from the sky.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

My point in stating that is not to demean your importance--my point is to say that you do not have an infinite mind capable of understanding god.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's why God gave us His Word.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The Bible didn't fall from the sky. </font>

I see... And the Koran did?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I see... And the Koran did?


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is they aren't the same. It's very easy to determine the huge differences. Equating them as the same type of document shows no familiarity with either.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many difference between the Koran and the Bible, and many differences between each one's representation of God. They can't both be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

But of course, one billion christians are true and the other 5 billion are false. Makes total sense.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But of course, one billion christians are true and the other 5 billion are false. Makes total sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

Truth is not a democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My point in stating that is not to demean your importance--my point is to say that you do not have an infinite mind capable of understanding god.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's why God gave us His Word.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lets simplify this. I am not denying God gave you His word.
My question is this. Do you believe God is infinitely powerful or not??

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence that God exsists can purely be based on that there is no evidence for the alternative (evolution), but continous evidence for the Bible and God. And before you even start arguing with me, look and watch the debates of Dr. Kent Hovind www.drdino.com. (http://www.drdino.com.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke, right? No evidence of evolution?!! You've got a strange sense of humor, cuz it's a well known FACT that there is pretty STRONG evidence for the theory of evolution!!!

Uh, and that's THEORY of evolution by the way. This means logical conjecture based on overwhelmingly observable evidence!

Which way does the rain fall in your world?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you believe God is infinitely powerful or not??


[/ QUOTE ]

I define His power as ultimate - He has all power, usually referred to as omnipotent.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Equating them as the same type of document shows no familiarity with either. </font>

I do not claim familiarity with either, but since you do, I am asking how you know one is correct over the other?

Is it because members of your religion are smarter? Is it because Muslims aren't intelligent enough to figure out what members of your religion have been able to figure out with zero percent chance for error?

You most likely believe in god b/c you were conditioned to believe in it by your parents or other environment as a child. Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven, in other words an unjustifiable conclusion or irrational belief. When schizo's have them we give them pills, when Christians, Jews, or any one else says "Well I have faith" society commends them. You want proof God does not exist, just wait until you die. You'll have it then.

I have a question, how many suckers out there tithe?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you believe God is infinitely powerful or not??


[/ QUOTE ]

I define His power as ultimate - He has all power, usually referred to as omnipotent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fine. He has Ultimate power. Now, if HE so chose, could he, in theory, create two bibles with differing systems of belief? Could he possibly create 2 bibles, or 3 or 4, for reasons beyond your knowledge?
I am not inquiring as to its likelihood or whether anything in your particular Bible points to it. I am merely asking you to admit the possibility.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it because members of your religion are smarter?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]

Are Muslims not intelligent enough to figure out what members of your religion have been able to figure out with zero percent chance for error?


[/ QUOTE ]

Christians are not smarter than Muslims.

There are many reasons why people believe what they believe. There are many reasons to believe the Bible is God's Word. The subject is very large and can be very complex. It isn't a book, it is an anthology of 66 books written over thousands of years by many different kinds of people. It has never been shown to be false about any historical event, place or person. It speaks throughout with consistency. It explains the universe in a way that makes more sense than any other explanation. I haven't studied the Koran but I know it is in conflict with the Bible in a way that both can't be true and that it contains some errors. Much of the Koran is borrowed almost word for word from the Old Testament. That which is new, supposedly revealed to Mohammed and taken down literally by him, conflicts with parts of both the Old and New Testament, and contains some historical errors.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, if HE so chose, could he, in theory, create two bibles with differing systems of belief? Could he possibly create 2 bibles, or 3 or 4, for reasons beyond your knowledge?


[/ QUOTE ]

God doesn't lie - He is light and in Him there is no darkness. He doesn't contradict Himself. The Bible says Jesus is God. The Koran says He isn't. They can't both be the Word of God. It isn't a question of power.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, if HE so chose, could he, in theory, create two bibles with differing systems of belief? Could he possibly create 2 bibles, or 3 or 4, for reasons beyond your knowledge?


[/ QUOTE ]

God doesn't lie - He is light and in Him there is no darkness. He doesn't contradict Himself. The Bible says Jesus is God. The Koran says He isn't. They can't both be the Word of God. It isn't a question of power.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not a lie. He makes it so whenever and however he chooses. Is that beyond him?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is not a lie. He makes it so whenever and however he chooses. Is that beyond him?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I say A and notA, both can't be true, one is a lie, or incorrect. It isn't a question of power.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is not a lie. He makes it so whenever and however he chooses. Is that beyond him?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I say A and notA, both can't be true, one is a lie, or incorrect. It isn't a question of power.

[/ QUOTE ]
RIGHT, if YOU say it. But it isnt you saying it--it's God and that is where you keep making your error.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't religion all about belief rather than evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

One's personal beliefs can certainly be a matter of faith if one so chooses, but any attempt to convince another person of one's own beliefs can be subjected to logic.

Scott

[Lestat]

Thank you NotReady! You have finally answered my question head on without skirting the issue.

So you are saying that you can point out actual errors in the Koran if need be? This would certainly explain belief in the bible over the Koran. But one troubling question remains...

You say Christians are not smarter than Muslims, yet Muslims don't seem to be able to see these same erros you do in the Koran. Why do you suppose that is?

If Muslims are equally zealous in their endeavor to seek truth as Christians are, and also equally intelligent, why wouldn't they opt for the same book you do which contains NO errors? Does that make sense to you?

I agree that Christians are NOT smarter than Muslims, so something else must be up. And that something should be enough to be a little troubling to any intelligent Christian. Don't you think?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
It speaks throughout with consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no it doesn't. Refer to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that Christians are NOT smarter than Muslims, so something else must be up.


[/ QUOTE ]

What's up is man's nature. You can see for yourself what man is like, and the Bible agrees with this and expands on it, and explains it up to a point. This, BTW, is another point of disagreement between the Koran and the Bible - the Bible teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, the Koran doesn't teach original sin. And original sin, the spiritual separation between man and God that started with Adam's sin and which is true of all since then (except Jesus), is the reason people don't see the truth of God contained in the Bible - not because of intelligence, but because they don't want to see it.

[jthegreat]

Here's a good one. How many sons did Abraham have?

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

Or, where was Jacob buried?

GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(lots of people believed the world was flat)


[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[ QUOTE ]

(just because matter exists doesn't mean that God exists)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who believed the world was flat? Most of Europe before Columbus and all those folk. Lots of people believe in Santa Claus and that Tupac is still alive, etc. That doesn't make it true.

And how does the existence of matter prove there is a God exactly? There is a universe -&gt; There is a God? I don't think follows necessarily. And it's especially not true that the existence of matter proves there is a Christian God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really a universe? Maybe this is all a dream, wait, if this is a dream then doesn't there have to be a universe in which someone is dreaming of this? Yes, but if he is dreaming of this make believe universe, then I cannot exist afterall. If I do not exist, then none of this exists. This is confusing, but I think I figured it out.

I am god. Anyone who doubts this is in for some bad beats in their next game.

BTW - the egyptians figured out the world was round by measuring the shadows at different points of the earth, as did several other ancient cultures thousands of years before Columbus. The Europeans thought it was flat only because of their belief in god. You guys catching on yet.

Also there is no Santa b/c I killed him. Tupac, who is actually the Pope, comes to our home game every Sunday.

P.S.S. - did you know there's a magic word you can say that will give you a Royal Flush every time? There is, but in order to disprove you have to know the magic word, say it, and not get a Royal Flush. As only I (b/c I am god) know the magic word, you can never say the magic word and disprove this statement. Therefore it must be true.

Catching on yet?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Um, no it doesn't. Refer to:


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to play link wars on this question.

I'll just say:

Cf the net.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The Europeans thought it was flat only because of their belief in god.


[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

[ QUOTE ]

P.S.S. - did you know there's a magic word you can say that will give you a Royal Flush every time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you know the universe popped up out of nothing for no reason and has no meaning whatsover? Catching on yet?

[jthegreat]

I listed two examples in a following post. The Bible is not entirely consistent with itself. To claim that it is is just silly.

[NotReady]

As to only begotten:

Hebrews is here making use of the LXX version of Genesis 22:2, with one exception: where Hebrews says "only begotten" the LXX says "beloved." On the other hand, a variant tradition of the LXX, used by Aquila and Josephus, also says "only begotten." Why? Both words derive from the Hebrew yahid, which can carry both meanings. This is the sense in which "only begotten" should be understood.

LXX refers to the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Please do some research before you claim a Bible contradiction. The net has all the tools you need. From now on I only respond to a contradiction that contains the usual explanation and shows why that explanation is wrong. My time is limited.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">not because of intelligence, but because they don't want to see it. </font>

But they do want to see it! Don't you realize that Muslims and other religions SEEK and very much WANT a relationship with God just as you do? Why is it that YOU and members of your religion are privy to knowledge that has managed to escape everyone else?

You need to logically explain (if not to me, then to yourself), this belief you have of why YOU are correct and all these other people (who you admit are as intelligent as you), are wrong.

Your position requires much more explanation than an atheist's does. An atheist simply thinks the concept of God is wrong. But you are not only claiming there is a God, but also that ONLY YOUR version of God is true, and that everyone else is wasting their time with a false God.

I'll go back to what I said earlier... That's a pretty pompous position to take.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, where was Jacob buried?

GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Way to dodge that bullet NotReady. I'm perfectly willing to grant that many of those listed inconsistencies can be explained. Are you now going to tell me that the one I quoted above is a matter of semantics as well?

Please.

[jthegreat]

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehardeah/vayehi.html

Apparently some Jewish scholars are willing to grant that the Bible is inconsistent on this point.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems therefore, that in ancient times, among the children of Israel, there were many answers to the question of the burial place of Jacob. These many answers show us the importance of Jacob in the eyes of the children of Israel, who all wished to identify his burial place as being in their central cities – Hebron, Shechem and maybe even Bethlehem.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

I'll say this NotReady... You sure know what you're talking about.

I just think you arrive at illogical conclusions /images/graemlins/wink.gif

But seriously.. I greatly respect your knowledge.

[jthegreat]

He's a very smart guy (i assume a guy) who makes it about 98% through most arguments and then makes a mistake and can't recognize it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this please?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many difference between the Koran and the Bible, and many differences between each one's representation of God. They can't both be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

But of course, one billion christians are true and the other 5 billion are false. Makes total sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes perfect sense!!!! It means if I write a bible that says I am god, I will in fact be god. Why didn't I think of this earlier?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]


God doesn't lie - He is light and in Him there is no darkness. He doesn't contradict Himself. The Bible says Jesus is God. The Koran says He isn't. They can't both be the Word of God. It isn't a question of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I'm pretty sure that Muslims except Jesus Christ as a prophet from God. They would just tell you that Muhammad came afterward and furthered his message.

And on a slightly unrelated note, why do you keep saying that the Bible is the direct word of God? Even if Jesus was inspired by God or was actually God himself, he didn't write the Bible. He told stories. People heard the stories and passed them down to their children. Eventually some people wrote them down and it became the Bible. Couldn't these mere humans have made some errors? I don't think that it's a reach, nor do I think it invalidates Christianity or Jesus. To quote an earlier poster, "the Bible didn't fall from the sky." God didn't write the Bible, Jesus didn't write the Bible, humans (fallable as they are) did.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to logically explain (if not to me, then to yourself), this belief you have of why YOU are correct and all these other people (who you admit are as intelligent as you), are wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't that I'm correct because I'm smarter or have investigated more. It's that the Bible is God's Word. It's because I believe in objective truth rather than that every one of the 6 billion or so humans who have ever lived have an equal version of the truth, which is absurd. Truth exists or it doesn't. If it does, it's knowable or it isn't. If it's knowable and something else claims to be truth that is opposed, then something's gotta give.

[ QUOTE ]

Your position requires much more explanation than an atheist's does. An atheist simply thinks the concept of God is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

The complete atheist position requires enormous explanation and a monumental leap of blind faith.

[ QUOTE ]

But you are not only claiming there is a God, but also that ONLY YOUR version of God is true, and that everyone else is wasting their time with a false God.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't MY version, it's THE BIBLE'S version.

[ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty pompous position to take.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are Muslims pompous? Are atheists pompous because they claim they're right and I'm wrong? Why do you think you are saying anything when you make that kind of charge against someone who is willing to debate?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you now going to tell me that the one I quoted above is a matter of semantics as well?


[/ QUOTE ]


Research and tell me either there's no explanaton or why the explanation is false. I've seen lists of thousands of alleged Bible errors. I'm not going to look them all up for you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, I'm pretty sure that Muslims except Jesus Christ as a prophet from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do. They also deny He was the Son of God and they deny the resurrection, which is the central doctrine of the New Testament, the heart of the Gospel.

[ QUOTE ]

And on a slightly unrelated note, why do you keep saying that the Bible is the direct word of God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said direct. "All Scripture is inspired by God...". Orthodox Christianity accepts the infallibility of the original manuscripts, but even the ones we have show no error or inconsistency of which I'm aware. Mohammed took dictation. The authors of the Bible wrote what God revealed to them using their own words and educational backgrounds, styles, idioms and coventions of their time. This is sometimes the source of alleged errors, because God doesn't treat us like automatons - He allowed His messengers to use their own words to deliver His message.

"That God is the God of the Bible is partly proved by the Bible itself."

Are you using the term "proved" loosely, so that I could also say, correctly, according to you:

"That God is the God of the Upanishads is partly proved by the Upanishads themselves," and

"That God is the God of the Koran is partly proved by the Koran itself." ?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Research and tell me either there's no explanaton or why the explanation is false. I've seen lists of thousands of alleged Bible errors. I'm not going to look them all up for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus, man, how about *not* ignore my subsequent posts?

[Lestat]

First, I DO very much appreciate your willingness to debate. You certainly don't have to justify your faith to me or anyone else. I'm just very interested in knowing how one arrives at his or her faith.



I do not make any "claims" other than the claim that I have never seen nor heard any observable evidence for a God and therefore have no reason to believe one exists.

You however, ARE making several claims here! First, you are claiming there is a God. Second, you are claiming the Muslim God and all others are false. Further, you are claiming that you and members of your faith somehow know which are the false Gods and which is the one to be believed in. Those are pretty hefty claims! I'm NOT saying you are wrong, but I'm having a very hard time pinning you down as to how you are so sure.

If you told me that Christians are simply smarter than everyone else, I could accept that as your rationale. But you are admitting that Christians are no more intelligent than anyone else, yet they somehow have this ability to know something that escapes other people of equal intelligence. You are claiming that Christians were able to arrive at the correct answer, while people just as intelligent, and every bit as sure of themselves, have somehow gotten it all wrong and arrived at an incorrect answer.

I just think it takes some brass balls to make these claims without providing a reasonable explanation such as; Muslims and other religions are not smart enough to have figured out that the bible is the correct text to believe in. Or something like that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you using the term "proved" loosely, so that I could also say, correctly, according to you:


[/ QUOTE ]

Proof and evidence are often used interchangeably in this forum. There is both an objective and subjective element to each. Maybe we need to put something in a sticky. After all, technically humans can't "prove" anything except each individual's own existence, and then only to himself - Descartes. And I did say partly.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Jesus, man, how about *not* ignore my subsequent posts?


[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't have the time to do your research for you. If you are sincerely interested in the truth and really believe there is a contradiction in the Bible there are much better defenders on these issues on the net than I am.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I do not make any "claims" other than the claim that I have never seen nor heard any observable evidence for a God and therefore have no reason to believe one exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists who say they are making no claims, just commenting on the lack of evidence, are making a universal claim about the nature of evidence itself.

[ QUOTE ]

yet they somehow have this ability to know something that escapes other people of equal intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone has the same ability to know. If you can't read, someone can read it for you. If you can't find someone to read it for you, God will either make other provision or will not hold you responsible. The Bible says God makes Himself known to all - not just to Christians.

[ QUOTE ]

I just think it takes some brass balls to make these claims without providing a reasonable explanation such as; Muslims and other religions are not smart enough to have figured out that the bible is the correct text to believe in. Or something like that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it's not a question of intelligence. People reject because they don't want to repent. They don't want a higher authority. They don't want to admit they aren't perfect. They don't want God telling them what to do. And many other reasons. There are good, sound reasons to believe which anyone who is concious can understand. The willingness to accept the truth is another matter.

[Taraz]

Very well said. This is what I was trying to say but I'm obviously not as eloquent as you are.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone has the same ability to know. If you can't read, someone can read it for you. If you can't find someone to read it for you, God will either make other provision or will not hold you responsible. The Bible says God makes Himself known to all - not just to Christians.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps God makes himself known to people in other parts of the world through different religions. Islam for example.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, it's not a question of intelligence. People reject because they don't want to repent. They don't want a higher authority. They don't want to admit they aren't perfect. They don't want God telling them what to do. And many other reasons. There are good, sound reasons to believe which anyone who is concious can understand. The willingness to accept the truth is another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Muslims (again as an example) do want to repent. They do want a higher authority. They freely admit that they aren't perfect. They do allow God (their God I'm sure some would say) to tell them what to do.

(And as an aside: Muslims don't differentiate between their God and Gods of other religions. There is one God who revealed himself to Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad among others.)

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">There are good, sound reasons to believe which anyone who is concious can understand. The willingness to accept the truth is another matter. </font>

So you're saying that people of ALL faiths have the ability to understand the REAL truth just as the Christians know it, but because of their unwillingness to "accept" this truth, these (intelligent) people have purposely invented false Gods to believe in alongside what they know to be the real God?

Wow...

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone has the same ability to know. If you can't read, someone can read it for you. If you can't find someone to read it for you, God will either make other provision or will not hold you responsible. The Bible says God makes Himself known to all - not just to Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming this, is it correct to assert that God made the good news as apparent to the native americans a thousand years ago as he does to Americans today? And if so, should not the European explorers have found that the good news had been heard there already?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Perhaps God makes himself known to people in other parts of the world through different religions. Islam for example. </font>

Of course, if this was true it is a fine irony, don't you think?

All the hatred, wars, and death, fought in the name of the same God?

[jthegreat]

I didn't want to bring up the term again, but "intellectual dishonesty" seems to be a pattern with you. It's clear within the first two chapters of Genesis that there are at least minor discrepancies in different places in the Bible. This shouldn't present a problem for any reasonable Christian, but to assert that there are *no* inconsistencies within the Bible is inexcusable.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it's not a question of intelligence. People reject because they don't want to repent. They don't want a higher authority. They don't want to admit they aren't perfect. They don't want God telling them what to do. And many other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is frustrating, insulting, and pathetic, all wrapped up together.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that people of ALL faiths have the ability to understand the REAL truth just as the Christians know it, but because of their unwillingness to "accept" this truth, these (intelligent) people have purposely invented false Gods to believe in alongside what they know to be the real God?


Wow...


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody has yet answered the question whether or not those who think Christians are wrong are pompous.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming this, is it correct to assert that God made the good news as apparent to the native americans a thousand years ago as he does to Americans today? And if so, should not the European explorers have found that the good news had been heard there already?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says God makes Himself known to everyone - it doesn't say the gospel has been preached to everyone.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't want to bring up the term again, but "intellectual dishonesty"


[/ QUOTE ]

I've made my explanation. Believe what you like.

Hey NotReady, I'll give you a source about the flat earth thing. How about Washington Irving ( same guy who wrote Sleepy Hollow ) He also wrote a very fictional account about Columbus that pretended that only the wise Columbus knew the earth was round. This fiction has been repeated as truth in History classes. I don't think any semi-knowledgable person since the ancient Greeks, who proved the earth was round by measuring shadows on long sticks placed miles apart ( actually, this was how they determined exactly how round the earth is ), thought the earth was flat.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How about Washington Irving ( same guy who wrote Sleepy Hollow ) He also wrote a very fictional account about Columbus that pretended that only the wise Columbus knew the earth was round. This fiction has been repeated as truth in History classes.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. How hard was it to find? Did it take more than 60 seconds?

Thanks for the post. BTW, there's a lot of myth out there about Galileo and what the Catholic church believed about geocentrism, as well.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it's not a question of intelligence. People reject because they don't want to repent. They don't want a higher authority. They don't want to admit they aren't perfect. They don't want God telling them what to do. And many other reasons. There are good, sound reasons to believe which anyone who is concious can understand. The willingness to accept the truth is another matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it more likely that non-believers have just arrived at a different conclusion? While I can't speak for others, I can say that I don't believe simply because I don't believe it's true. If I did, I'd very willingly accept Christ as savior and look forward to eternal life, but it's unreasonable to my logic. I feel strongly that most others are the same way.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
But would you agree that as a general rule, it is harder to prove the non-existence of something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Strictly speaking, logically, proving the nonexistence of something is relatively easy. E.g., there are no round squares, no triangles with four sides, etc. Proving that matter exists as we think it does is impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
This question might sound cocky, but I don't mean it to be. I am genuinely interested in how you can rationalize the existence of something despite the complete absence of any observable evidence. It seems to be far more rational to simply conclude it isn't there and move forward from that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rational conclusion says nothing one way or the other about the existence of said something. Practically, people may do better to doubt God's existence, but the logical conclusion has nothing to do with an absence of evidence for God.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(lots of people believed the world was flat)


[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

[ QUOTE ]

(just because matter exists doesn't mean that God exists)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who believed the world was flat? Most of Europe before Columbus and all those folk.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to represent the non-religous point of view, please don't go saying things like this. It just shows your lack of overall knowledge. The Ancient Greeks (and most upper class people from that time on) were aware that Earth was round and they even had a fairly accurate measure of the circumference due to the differences in the direction of shadows cast by the sun. The reason Columbus had so much trouble getting funding for his expedition was not because people thought Earth was flat, but because educated people correctly thought that Asia (which was his destination) was much much farther away than Columbus did. He actually thought that Japan would be closer to Europe than America ACTUALLY IS!!! Columbus is a story of a huge moronic screwup turning into a tremendous payday in terms of future fame and fortune.

[Taraz]

I really am sorry I posted that bit about the world being flat. I freely admit that I had no idea what I was talking about. It didn't change my point though. All I was trying to say was that just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

All I was trying to say was that just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this. The reason I got specific on the question is that there is a general myth that Christians have always been obscurantist, ignorant and anti-scientific. This is totally untrue. We are not close minded and most of Christianity throughout history has supported knowledge of all kinds. Without the Catholic church and the many universities it founded, and the enormous work of preserving ancient documents, we would still be in the dark ages. And most American universities founded before the 20th century had some connection with Christianity. The primary thing that changed the public's perception of this was Darwin and the reaction to evolution. And speaking of Darwin, your point about the fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true can apply to other things besides a flat earth.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this. The reason I got specific on the question is that there is a general myth that Christians have always been obscurantist, ignorant and anti-scientific. This is totally untrue. We are not close minded and most of Christianity throughout history has supported knowledge of all kinds. Without the Catholic church and the many universities it founded, and the enormous work of preserving ancient documents, we would still be in the dark ages. And most American universities founded before the 20th century had some connection with Christianity. The primary thing that changed the public's perception of this was Darwin and the reaction to evolution. And speaking of Darwin, your point about the fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true can apply to other things besides a flat earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely didn't mean to imply that Christians thought the world was flat. My apologies.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Strictly speaking, logically, proving the nonexistence of something is relatively easy. E.g., there are no round squares, no triangles with four sides, etc. Proving that matter exists as we think it does is impossible. </font>

Nice try. But this is like saying it's easy to prove black is not red, up is not down, and a 747 jumbo jet is not a bowl of chocolate ice cream. A square is simply a label we've assigned to something with 4 sides. You are not proving that a round square doesn't exist, but only that we do not assign the value of a square to anything that does not have 4 sides. Let's see you try to prove the non-existence of a square on my desk right now.

<font color="blue">The rational conclusion says nothing one way or the other about the existence of said something. </font>

I agree with you here. But in the absence of sound evidence that something exists, it is "practical" to proceed as if it doesn't. There might exist a lion outside your door waiting to pounce as soon as you leave your house today. But in the absence of any evidence for this lion, it is practical to proceed as if it didn't exist. Or will you be staying inside all day?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assuming this, is it correct to assert that God made the good news as apparent to the native americans a thousand years ago as he does to Americans today? And if so, should not the European explorers have found that the good news had been heard there already?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says God makes Himself known to everyone - it doesn't say the gospel has been preached to everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily the gospel, but the essentials (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) are that there's a God, he's really powerful, there's Jesus, accept and you're good. If that message was made known to everyone after the resurrection, then the native americans from years past (or as an even better example, the australian aborigines who were completely isolated from the whole european world) all had an understanding of Jesus, but didn't bother to discuss this fantastic revelation amongst themselves to develop the idea.

Seems like it would make for worthwhile conversation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily the gospel, but the essentials (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) are that there's a God, he's really powerful, there's Jesus, accept and you're good.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to tell God who He can and can't save.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the evidence that God exists is nature, order, design. That God is the God of the Bible is partly proved by the Bible itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once you make a statement like this you are just going to get into the same circular logic you get into everytime you try to prove something regarding Christianity.

You can't say that the text that is at the base of Christianity is proof that the Christian God exists. How can something that isn't known to be rooted in facts be used as any sort of proof?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Once you make a statement like this you are just going to get into the same circular logic you get into everytime you try to prove something regarding Christianity.

You can't say that the text that is at the base of Christianity is proof that the Christian God exists. How can something that isn't known to be rooted in facts be used as any sort of proof?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always agreed that my reasoning about this is circular. All human reasoning about ultimate issues is circular. You can't prove that human reason is the ultimate standard of truth without assuming the validity of human reason, so all non-theistic reasoning is also circular. The reason for this is the finitude of man - we don't know all things so we have to start with unproved assumptions. My fundamental presupposition is that the Bible is God's Word. This is not an arbitrary assumption - there are good reasons for doing so, but I can't prove with absolute certainty that it's true. And if it is God's Word, it would obviously be self-proving, because God's Word is a higher authority than human reason.

And why do you think the Bible isn't rooted in facts? There is no historical person, place or event mentioned in the Bible that has been shown to be false, and many have been shown to be true, some of which were believed false for a long period of time (the Hittite civilization, for instance) and then shown true.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily the gospel, but the essentials (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) are that there's a God, he's really powerful, there's Jesus, accept and you're good.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to tell God who He can and can't save.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is, obviously. That's not the point. What I'm asking is, if God indeed makes himself known to everyone, and, as necessary according to almost all Christians, the news about Jesus Christ and our hope for salvation, than an isolated group of people, with no social connections to Europe, Christianity, or the bible, should have all recieved some form of revelation with regard to same.

I assume that this revelation would be worthwhile talk, and that the belief in Christ (though not necessarily all the intricacies of the scripture) would be likely to be widespread among the isolated people.

Would you agree with this?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">here is no historical person, place or event mentioned in the Bible that has been shown to be false, </font>

Doesn't this depend on how loosely you want to use the word "shown"? It's pretty much been "shown" that human beings are incapable of 900 year life spans.

Now I'm sure you'll say this doesn't prove that it never happened. But I'm gonna say that it's physically impossible based on every possible piece of evidence we have to date. Therefore, this is a false biblical claim.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you agree with this?


[/ QUOTE ]

Romans 1 says that God makes Himself known to all people and that people generally suppress that truth. Other texts say that God is evident from the creation, from nature. The Bible also says not to ask who is saved and who is lost. So I don't know. I'm not going to limit God in who He will and won't save. I'm not going to draw a (humanly) logical conclusion and say God has to comply with my orders. He owes salvation to no one. He saves many. He is gracious and just. I see no need to violate His expicit command not to inquire.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's pretty much been "shown" that human beings are incapable of 900 year life spans.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume the past is exactly like the present you may have a case. A very large assumption.

You also have to assume that God can't preserve human life for 900 years. Another very large assumption.

Science is not above God.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always agreed that my reasoning about this is circular. All human reasoning about ultimate issues is circular. You can't prove that human reason is the ultimate standard of truth without assuming the validity of human reason, so all non-theistic reasoning is also circular. The reason for this is the finitude of man - we don't know all things so we have to start with unproved assumptions. My fundamental presupposition is that the Bible is God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as I quite clearly showed in the Paradox thread, all presuppositions are not created equal. Yours is immensely weak compared to the presupposition that there is order in nature (and thus that human reasoning is valid). You keep saying there are good reasons to make your presupposition, but you also keep *not* explaining any of them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying there are good reasons to make your presupposition, but you also keep *not* explaining any of them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've gone into great detail in other threads over the course of a year. How about, if God doesn't exist morality is an illusion and the universe has no purpose?

The arguments for the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, the historicity of Christ and the reality of the resurrection can't be made in one simplistic formula - it's a far greater subject than "order in nature".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's pretty much been "shown" that human beings are incapable of 900 year life spans.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume the past is exactly like the present you may have a case. A very large assumption.

You also have to assume that God can't preserve human life for 900 years. Another very large assumption.

Science is not above God.

[/ QUOTE ]



C'mon, NotReady... What kind of an argument is that? How can I possibly respond? You win! But why even bother to debate at all? Why not just use, "All things are possible with God", and leave it at that? Anytime someone has a question or points to a discrepency, just copy and paste, "All things are possible with God" and be done with it. It would certainly save you a lot of time.



However, if you are inclined to discuss this intelligently...



[ QUOTE ]
If you assume the past is exactly like the present you may have a case. A very large assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]



A large assumption? What reason do you have to assume anything different? When it comes to human lifespans every bit of evidence points to humans living longer today than at any other point in history (for obvious reasons). Yet, you conclude it is a LARGE assumption that the human life expectancy is shorter today than it was 10,000 years ago? C'mon!

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I've gone into great detail in other threads over the course of a year. How about, if God doesn't exist morality is an illusion and the universe has no purpose?

[/ QUOTE ]

We can start with those! The first statement is incorrect and the second statement is, on the surface, pointless. Why assume that purpose is necessary?

[ QUOTE ]
A large assumption? What reason do you have to assume anything different? When it comes to human lifespans every bit of evidence points to humans living longer today than at any other point in history (for obvious reasons). Yet, you conclude it is a LARGE assumption that the human life expectancy is shorter today than it was 10,000 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

10,000 years? c'mon! Of Pandas and People says the earth isn't that old. It also says we were created in our present form, so why don't we all live to be 900?

Sorry, had to throw that in there- this discussion doesn't really involve ID, except it makes me wonder. In the grand scheme of Christianity, why are there SO many different interpretations and SO many different sects under one God? Which ones are right and which ones aren't?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Anytime someone has a question or points to a discrepency, just copy and paste, "All things are possible with God"


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what's unusual about saying that the God Who turned water into wine, made blind people see and lame people walk, raised the dead and fed 5000 people from a loaf of bread and a few fish can make people live 900 years.

[ QUOTE ]

What reason do you have to assume anything different?


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says that death came into the universe because of sin. That logically implies that if Adam had not sinned humans would not die. Not live 900 years, live forever. It's no stretch to believe the penalties of sin, which include death itself, had a cumulative effect, so that the first few generations lived longer, but over time our life span was reduced to a puny 120 years as the approximate maximum.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why assume that purpose is necessary?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't as a postulate of unaided human reason. Most people believe it, and those who say they don't live as if they do. When people insist they don't believe in an ultimate purpose I try to show the logical consequences. That isn't proof that purpose exists. It clarifies the absurdity of believing otherwise.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't as a postulate of unaided human reason. Most people believe it, and those who say they don't live as if they do. When people insist they don't believe in an ultimate purpose I try to show the logical consequences. That isn't proof that purpose exists. It clarifies the absurdity of believing otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Purpose in human life and purpose for the whole Universe are two different ideas. It's not absurd at all to believe that there is no "reason" behind existence itself.

Now, back to morality being an illusion...

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I don't see what's unusual about saying that the God Who turned water into wine, made blind people see and lame people walk, raised the dead and fed 5000 people from a loaf of bread and a few fish can make people live 900 years. </font>



Of course, I'm going to request evidence that water was ever turned into wine, etc., and you're going to say it's in the bible and so on it goes.

In a strange way, I actually admire that you're ok with such circular reasoning. You must have very strong convictions at the core of your beliefs.

I just cannot do this. There is no way I can get past a second unproved thing, serving as proof for the first unproved thing, or any prior unproved thing. To me, it just defies any rational logic. If scientists used this type of logic mankind would have achieved almost NOTHING! We'd still be trying to figure out the wheel or how to keep warm, etc. In fact, I wonder if we'd have even survived at all!

For what it's worth, I do see how belief played an important evolutionary role in our development. Without the ability to form (even unfounded), beliefs we would not have survived either. But logical conjecture is also important and I fail to see how it relates to much of what is in the bible.

Either way, I am happy for you that you are ok with your beliefs. I just don't understand the logic behind them and doubt I ever will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not absurd at all to believe that there is no "reason" behind existence itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is. Cf existentialism.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If scientists used this type of logic mankind would have achieved almost NOTHING!


[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't followed my debate with jthegreat on Hume?

[ QUOTE ]

I just don't understand the logic behind them and doubt I ever will.


[/ QUOTE ]

The logic is obvious. It's the premise that causes difficulty. But you are fooling yourself if you think you don't reason in a circle about ultimate issues.

[jthegreat]

What does "cf" mean?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What does "cf" mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to the internet (and its common abbreviations such as LOL, wtf, lmao) it was common in the English language to borrow from the Latin – some examples: e.g, i.e, et al.

N.B.: Cf is one such usage. You will find it in the dictionary. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jthegreat]

You'd think if you were going to spend all that time writing a reply, you'd at least have the decency to make it helpful. /images/graemlins/smile.gif You're as lazy as NR.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think the Bible isn't rooted in facts? There is no historical person, place or event mentioned in the Bible that has been shown to be false, and many have been shown to be true, some of which were believed false for a long period of time (the Hittite civilization, for instance) and then shown true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more appropriate stance is to prove truth before taking things as fact instead of having to prove they are false before saying something isn't fact.

The things I am mainly talking about are not necessarily the existance of a person or place, but mainly the events. You can't prove that Jesus was resurrected, you can't prove that Jesus walked on water, etc. I consider these events to have been proved false simply by the fact that they are physically impossible. They are only possible if some other force is at work (God) which just takes us back to the beginning of this circular logic.

One more question. Why do you think it is that we haven't found many of the places that we would expect to find according to the bible. I'm mainly talking about things such as King Solomon's temple and empire. According to the bible this was supposed to be the grandest of the grand empires and yet we can't find a shred of evidence to support it's existence. It is things like this that would lead one to believe that much of what the bible says is not based on facts.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What does "cf" mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

See or refer to.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. But this is like saying it's easy to prove black is not red, up is not down, and a 747 jumbo jet is not a bowl of chocolate ice cream. A square is simply a label we've assigned to something with 4 sides. You are not proving that a round square doesn't exist, but only that we do not assign the value of a square to anything that does not have 4 sides. Let's see you try to prove the non-existence of a square on my desk right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that I only used definitions in my post, but any contradiction will do. I only used definitions to make the examples completely clear. Suppose it follows (say, by the argument of evil) that our concept of God is inherently contradictory (or, contradictory given the assumption that evil exists). Then it could easily be said that God does not exist.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the absence of sound evidence that something exists, it is "practical" to proceed as if it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Just make sure that the "practical" assumptions don't form the basis for logical arguments.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I consider these events to have been proved false simply by the fact that they are physically impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You accept the existence of the universe which is totally inexplicable by science. You then assume it can't have been caused by a Person, which is totally illogical. You then accuse me of circular reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm mainly talking about things such as King Solomon's temple and empire.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't researched Solomon. It's difficult to see why the Jews would have made him up and most of the evidence of his existence would be in Jerusalem which is currently occupied, making archeological digs difficult. There was a temple during Jesus' time, are you questioning that? The wailing wall is what's left of the retaining walls surrounding the temple, and that temple was supposedly built to replace the orginal which was destroyed at an earlier time. If the Bible is accurate about the second temple, why question the first?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
See or refer to.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about instead of me trying to learn all of the ins and outs of existentialism, you save me hours of time, get to the point, and explain why it's absurd to think that there is no overarching "purpose" behind the existence of the universe.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> You haven't followed my debate with jthegreat on Hume? </font>


I haven't. Could you link me to or give me the name of that thread?



<font color="blue"> But you are fooling yourself if you think you don't reason in a circle about ultimate issues. </font>

I'll agree that we all need to make some presuppositions. I'm not sure we need to incorporate circular reasoning. I could be wrong. Perhaps you have an example in mind?

I think (and you could prove me wrong on this), that I am more inclined to leave the strand dangling and claim, "I don't know" (as I do with God), rather than resort to using circular reasoning. But even if you were able to provide some examples where my reasoning is circular, I'm quite sure I'm uncomfortable with it. Unlike yourself, who seems to have no problems with it.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has yet answered the question whether or not those who think Christians are wrong are pompous.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that being an athiest is just as pompous as being a Christian. I believe neither sides can say for certain that their beliefs are correct. If we are talking about agnostics, then this is another story. By being agnostic you are disagreeing with Christianty but not on the basis that you are sure it is incorrect, but merely on the basis that you can't be sure what is correct.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
You accept the existence of the universe which is totally inexplicable by science. You then assume it can't have been caused by a Person, which is totally illogical. You then accuse me of circular reasoning.



[/ QUOTE ]

Where am I using circular reasoning?

I was merely responding to the fact that you claim to use facts from the bible to prove the existence of God. The only problem is these facts can only be facts if you assume the existence of God. This is a problem.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible also says not to ask who is saved and who is lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so happy to read this. Then nobody can argue that the only way to God is through Jesus. God is above human logic so it is *possible* that there are other ways to God that aren't delineated in the Bible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How about instead of me trying to learn all of the ins and outs of existentialism, you save me hours of time, get to the point, and explain why it's absurd to think that there is no overarching "purpose" behind the existence of the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
"
Existentialism tends to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambiguous, and "absurd" universe in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by human beings' actions and interpretations"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Then nobody can argue that the only way to God is through Jesus. God is above human logic so it is *possible* that there are other ways to God that aren't delineated in the Bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said we are not to inquire about who is saved and lost which concerns particular individuals. The way of salvation is through Christ only. This is true for all humans, those who lived before Christ was born and those after. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

By being agnostic you are disagreeing with Christianty but not on the basis that you are sure it is incorrect, but merely on the basis that you can't be sure what is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure you can't be sure?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The only problem is these facts can only be facts if you assume the existence of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Many of the facts of the Bible are supported by evidence outside the Bible. I've addressed the question in another thread, but briefly repeating, all thinking about ultimate issues is circular because man is finite and must assume a logical starting point that can't be proved.

[hmkpoker]

"All I know is that I know nothing."

I think it's one of those axioms like "the only thing that never changes is change itself."

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Existentialism tends to view human beings as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambiguous, and "absurd" universe in which meaning is not provided by the natural order, but rather can be created, however provisionally and unstably, by human beings' actions and interpretations

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so they see the universe as absurd... and...?

How does this mean that it *is* absurd to think there is no purpose behind the universe itself? It's not exactly self-evident what your argument is.

[GAL]

It amazes me that someone who subscribes to something so complex as there being a God would question someone else who belives in the same thing, albeit with a few of the details changed.
The versions of God are irrelevant, i'm sure christians and Muslims alike will agree that the Greeks, Romans, Pagans and Egyptians versions of God were wrong and irrelevant, just as theirs will be given time. If you choose to take comfort that you will go to an eternal eutopia for living your life to the way set out in a book and that other people will suffer eternal damnation for not doing so that's fine but at least allow each other to believe your own things without questioning them, especially since non of you have any proof whatsoever that either is right.
The dispute over who's version is right become's irrelevant when you consider the fact that there is either a God or there isn't, there is no middle ground here, as an atheist either I am right and all religious groups are wrong or ONE religious group is right and all the others and atheists are wrong.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How does this mean that it *is* absurd to think there is no purpose behind the universe itself? It's not exactly self-evident what your argument is.


[/ QUOTE ]

absurd

SYLLABICATION: ab·surd
PRONUNCIATION: b-sûrd, -zûrd
ADJECTIVE: 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See synonyms at foolish. 2. Of, relating to, or manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe. 3. Of or relating to absurdism or the absurd.

The simple formulation is that if there is no purpose there is no meaning. Something that is meaningless is by definition absurd.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The dispute over who's version is right become's irrelevant when you consider the fact that there is either a God or there isn't,


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why God's existence makes the dispute irrelevant. If He does exist i can't think of anything more relevant to human life. And if He does exist and means for His existence to have any significance for us, it's not unreasonable to think He would reveal Himself to us in some way. Which brings us back to the dispute.

[chessforlife]

"if there was no god, man would be forced to invent one"

-Tillich (i think it's his quote)

***the validity proofing question on a God theory: what is the criteria that would disprove your theory? if there is no such criteria, then the theory is not scientifically valid.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
ADJECTIVE: 1. Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See synonyms at foolish. 2. Of, relating to, or manifesting the view that there is no order or value in human life or in the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go equivocating again. You're using definition 2), while trying to maintain the connotations of definition 1). You've gotta learn to stop doing that.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

There you go equivocating again. You're using definition 2), while trying to maintain the connotations of definition 1). You've gotta learn to stop doing that.


[/ QUOTE ]

cf existentialism.

[jthegreat]

You're the most maddening person I've ever had a debate with. You're obviously welll-read and intelligent, and capable of discussing some fairly sophisticated subjects. But anytime you get backed against the wall in an argument, you just drop any semblance of reason. You go from logic to "I'm not going to question God", or just simply talk in circles.

It's pathetic and I don't see any reason to discuss anything else with you.