Is God real post your thoughts!

[J a m e s]

Guess I can't prove it seeing as this is t3h interwebs...

 

 

 

But maybe I would like them, I just have never been able to eat one.

 

 

 

Are they yummy?

 

 

 

Nah, it's just hardened poop.

[Lenticular_J]

I just cannot believe how an intelligent person (such as yourself and countless others), could possibly believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days, or that a man spent 3 days in the stomach of a whale.

 

I don't. Making such a ridiculous assumption is the same s me assuming all Canadians live in igloos.

 

 

 

Of course, that logic is flawed because all Canadians do...

[tryto]

What exactly is "hardcore" proof? The support I gave in my last post was pretty "hardcore," if you ask me. :)

 

 

 

Well, I'm pretty sure some theists say that their subjective evidence is hardcore too.

 

 

 

Try as I might, I have never seen a theist express any proof besides:

 

 

 

*a holy text

 

 

 

*anecdotal comments

 

 

 

*a feeling

 

 

 

(I recognize none of these as persuasive evidence)

 

 

 

Casting doubt on science, making arguments from ignorance, and pointing to the God of The Gaps is what I often see.

 

 

 

If any theist will show me any evidence besides this, I'd be glad to hear it :) I just don't think any actually exists.

 

 

 

 

Sure it's effective but when all you do is rely on logical fallacies to back up your points, things get really boring around here. It's lack of creativity. Blah.

 

 

 

 

Then try to prove to me that Jesus existed historically. To be the son of God and worthy of worship, the first hurdle is to actually exist, no?

 

 

 

 

 

4)It doesn't list any examples. So how can we be sure. Second, though, there is evidence of a flood, and many stories in many culture and many languages about the flood. Also, it ignores a SECTION of science, not science itself. I hate all those ignorant people who say that. Who says he doesn't follow it? Maybe he follows in a way, we'll never know, but is still scientific. Don't forget, we have no skeleton of Adam to look at, so how can we tell if he wasn't created by dust? We can't. Naturally, people will say 'well how do you know he WAS?' Well, the Bible.

 

 

 

There is a HUGE amount of evidence against a global flood. Where did the water come from? A firmament of water? Where did the water go to?

 

How can you explain the age of mountains? Why aren't Sierra Nevada's eroded as much as the Appalachians at the time as the flood?

 

If a flood actually happened, many ice caps could not have formed, such as the Greenland Ice Cap; it could not have grown under the environmental conditions of the last 10k years.

 

 

 

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive amount of extinction, and other characters. Why do none of these show up?

 

 

 

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

 

 

 

I won't even go into the impossibility of Noah fitting that many animals into an ark that size, the contradiction in genesis of either 2 or 7 animals of each kind, why there isn't an ENORMOUS blip in population factors, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for days.

 

 

 

Well, obviously, some parts of the flood are spiritual, that we do not have evidence for, such as, as you said where did the water come from, and go? Well, I'm not denying there's no evidence for that.

 

But I saw a really good link for explaining the flood, let me try and find it, I'll post it when I do.

 

And I mean, with the ark, I've noticed that myself, we weren't there, so we don't know how it fit in.

 

 

 

Found one: Not the same, but still very very good.

 

 

 

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn046/noahsflood.htm

 

 

 

And sorry, but lol Lent, owned.

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, I'll go through that ridiculous article and debunk it.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html contains remarks about the impossibility of fitting every organism on earth on a 450-foot long ark.

 

 

 

* How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.

 

* Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.

 

* Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

 

There is just TOO MUCH WATER involved. The article doesn't even attempt to explain where it went.

 

 

 

 

 

(Article points to a "burial ground")

 

 

 

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

 

 

 

* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

 

* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)

 

* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.

 

* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.

 

* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?

 

* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.

 

* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.

 

* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]

 

* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

 

* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [stewart, 1983].

 

* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

 

 

 

(Article argues Bias)

 

Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868].)

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... ml#r7Moore

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... l#r7Dawson

 

 

 

 

 

AGAIN. GIVE ME SOME PROOF. You are trying to prove conclusions you've already gotten, a direct contradiction of the scientific method.

[Utopianflame]

 

Well, obviously, some parts of the flood are spiritual, that we do not have evidence for, such as, as you said where did the water come from, and go? Well, I'm not denying there's no evidence for that.

 

But I saw a really good link for explaining the flood, let me try and find it, I'll post it when I do.

 

And I mean, with the ark, I've noticed that myself, we weren't there, so we don't know how it fit in.

 

 

 

Found one: Not the same, but still very very good.

 

 

 

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn046/noahsflood.htm

 

 

 

And sorry, but lol Lent, owned.

 

 

 

Actually its dire Saruman.

 

 

 

This on the otherhand is a good deal better - http://lordibelieve.org/time/AgeEarthTC.htm , for one thing the author has intellectual honesty (the flood is covered during it).

[user1991]

I wasn't asking if you've ever been able to eat them. I demand you provide proof that you don't like them.

 

 

 

I believe you've seen the point I'm trying to illustrate.

 

 

 

That would be philosophical stagnation. Would Aristotle want you to unquestionably follow his trains of thought? No, he'd encourage you to explore your mind and new ways of doing things.

 

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner.

 

Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find it illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men who, in turn, wanted us to explore and find our own logic. Not just decide, "Well, I've looked at theirs, and it's pretty good."

 

 

 

K, we get your point about the proof. I don't think anyone is denying that. And on logical fallacies - why do you say things like "illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men.." If someone points out a logical fallacy it is just to save them time, so that they do not have to go through an entire argument and show someone why it is wrong. The idea is that there are several tactics/traits employed in arguments continuously and therefore to make it easier, we prove why it is wrong, GIVE IT A NAME, and then refer to that fallacy when someone tries it again. Do you really expect people to constantly explain these things over and over? If I say "I think drugs should be legalised" and John McCain says "You want children to take crack!" do I really need to constantly explain again and again why that is a ridiculous conclusion? Or instead, can I not just give said fallacy a name and then tell someone "oh, you're using that same strawman coupled with appealing to emotion on the "children" part to make it easier for you to throw down my argument." and be on with my day.

 

 

 

And this burden of proof argument is just ridiculous. Saying that God does not exist is different to saying that God does exist because we assume things to not exist until we have evidence that they do. and in actuality the phrase "does not exist" actually means "does not exist beyond any reasonable doubt" as it is obvious that you cannot disprove something's existence 100% conclusively. In my opinion there is absolutely no evidence of God existing therefore I say God does not exist. There is no evidence for a small African beetle with divine intelligence living on a planet named Shibbity in the Constellation Lyra but saying that it is hypocritical to say that it does not exist is just stupid. Sure, God could exist. The African beetle could exist. But to me, it is in the same realm as a talking pickle, santa claus, unicorns etc, so for the sake of our [bleep]ing sanity we just say that it doesn't! Why must you drag everything into the realm of semantics?!

 

 

 

I have looked at the situation and the only evidence Christians provide is 1. The Bible (and I've read a lot about whether the Bible can be trusted, and although Sly Wizard will disagree, I think the answer is, for metaphysical claims, absolutely NO. 2. Prayer, or a feeling - various experiments have shown that prayer does nothing and the feeling is psychosomatic + influences in group psychology. 3. Stupid creationist evidence like "Look how easily a banana fits into a man's hand. It must have been designed!." 4. "Look around you at the world, don't you think it is cleary designed?" No, the world appears exactly as if a God does not exist.

 

 

 

Sure, believe what you want, you're entitled to it, but don't force it into the system of law and don't oppress people otherwise we'll start fighting back and that's exactly what is going to happen now that the Christian majority in the USA has decided that it is going to start (not really start, they've been doing this for centuries) denying freedoms to certain people with genetic differences.

[jackattack]

If I say "I think drugs should be legalised" and John McCain says "You want children to take crack!"

 

 

 

That would be Joe Biden.

[warri0r45]

I wasn't asking if you've ever been able to eat them. I demand you provide proof that you don't like them.

 

 

 

I believe you've seen the point I'm trying to illustrate.

 

 

 

That would be philosophical stagnation. Would Aristotle want you to unquestionably follow his trains of thought? No, he'd encourage you to explore your mind and new ways of doing things.

 

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner.

 

Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find it illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men who, in turn, wanted us to explore and find our own logic. Not just decide, "Well, I've looked at theirs, and it's pretty good."

 

 

 

He's not talking about living his life by these principles, only running a debate by them. What's illogical about writing off people who claim something is true because it's popular (appeal to popularity)? Am I then to take it by your dismissal of logical fallacies that you believe things become true because they're popular?

[Lateralus]

Some sort of brain scan could be used to show proof of whether or not someone was enjoying cookies. Certain areas of the brain probably fire up when someone experiences displeasure.

[BlueLancer]

 

He's not talking about living his life by these principles, only running a debate by them. What's illogical about writing off people who claim something is true because it's popular (appeal to popularity)? Am I then to take it by your dismissal of logical fallacies that you believe things become true because they're popular?

 

 

 

The funny thing is.. No religion has absolute majority in the world, that just destroys the argument.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if you're a christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist, 75% of the world population have opposing views. Do you really believe a God created all of them just to be cast into some "hell"? (Not to mention if you're jewish, that's 99.9999925% of the world population that disagrees with your beliefs)

[Saru Inc]

I wasn't asking if you've ever been able to eat them. I demand you provide proof that you don't like them.

 

 

 

I believe you've seen the point I'm trying to illustrate.

 

 

 

That would be philosophical stagnation. Would Aristotle want you to unquestionably follow his trains of thought? No, he'd encourage you to explore your mind and new ways of doing things.

 

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner.

 

Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find it illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men who, in turn, wanted us to explore and find our own logic. Not just decide, "Well, I've looked at theirs, and it's pretty good."

 

 

 

K, we get your point about the proof. I don't think anyone is denying that. And on logical fallacies - why do you say things like "illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men.." If someone points out a logical fallacy it is just to save them time, so that they do not have to go through an entire argument and show someone why it is wrong. The idea is that there are several tactics/traits employed in arguments continuously and therefore to make it easier, we prove why it is wrong, GIVE IT A NAME, and then refer to that fallacy when someone tries it again. Do you really expect people to constantly explain these things over and over? If I say "I think drugs should be legalised" and John McCain says "You want children to take crack!" do I really need to constantly explain again and again why that is a ridiculous conclusion? Or instead, can I not just give said fallacy a name and then tell someone "oh, you're using that same strawman coupled with appealing to emotion on the "children" part to make it easier for you to throw down my argument." and be on with my day.

 

 

 

And this burden of proof argument is just ridiculous. Saying that God does not exist is different to saying that God does exist because we assume things to not exist until we have evidence that they do. and in actuality the phrase "does not exist" actually means "does not exist beyond any reasonable doubt" as it is obvious that you cannot disprove something's existence 100% conclusively. In my opinion there is absolutely no evidence of God existing therefore I say God does not exist. There is no evidence for a small African beetle with divine intelligence living on a planet named Shibbity in the Constellation Lyra but saying that it is hypocritical to say that it does not exist is just stupid. Sure, God could exist. The African beetle could exist. But to me, it is in the same realm as a talking pickle, santa claus, unicorns etc, so for the sake of our [bleep] sanity we just say that it doesn't! Why must you drag everything into the realm of semantics?!

 

 

 

I have looked at the situation and the only evidence Christians provide is 1. The Bible (and I've read a lot about whether the Bible can be trusted, and although Sly Wizard will disagree, I think the answer is, for metaphysical claims, absolutely NO. 2. Prayer, or a feeling - various experiments have shown that prayer does nothing and the feeling is psychosomatic + influences in group psychology. 3. Stupid creationist evidence like "Look how easily a banana fits into a man's hand. It must have been designed!." 4. "Look around you at the world, don't you think it is cleary designed?" No, the world appears exactly as if a God does not exist.

 

 

 

Sure, believe what you want, you're entitled to it, but don't force it into the system of law and don't oppress people otherwise we'll start fighting back and that's exactly what is going to happen now that the Christian majority in the USA has decided that it is going to start (not really start, they've been doing this for centuries) denying freedoms to certain people with genetic differences.

 

 

 

 

 

Lol at your post.

 

 

 

Also, aren't Atheists forcing their morals on US by letting gays marry? Think about it.

[Obtaurian]

 

 

 

 

 

Lol at your post.

 

 

 

Also, aren't Atheists forcing their morals on US by letting gays marry? Think about it.

 

 

 

Aren't African Americans forcing their views on the US by making us give them equal rights?

 

 

 

Think about it.

[Saru Inc]

Nope.

 

 

 

I was just saying, we believe Gays should have the term 'marriage.' though they can use 'civil union' we don't care. But that's OUR morals. And if Atheists Morals are that they should be married (just like Christians think all babies SHOULD live) then aren't they forcing that on us?

[warri0r45]

Nope.

 

 

 

I was just saying, we believe Gays should have the term 'marriage.' though they can use 'civil union' we don't care. But that's OUR morals. And if Atheists Morals are that they should be married (just like Christians think all babies SHOULD live) then aren't they forcing that on us?

 

 

 

Atheism doesn't involve morals. People who don't like your morals are "forcing" their morals on you if they seek to change to law with regards to gay marriage.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Nope.

 

 

 

I was just saying, we believe Gays should have the term 'marriage.' though they can use 'civil union' we don't care. But that's OUR morals. And if Atheists Morals are that they should be married (just like Christians think all babies SHOULD live) then aren't they forcing that on us?

 

And outlawing homosexual marraige isn't forcing morals onto people, Atheist or otherwise?

 

 

 

The Church isn't being forced to marry gays. It can quite easily relinquish its exclusivity to marry people if it doesn't agree with the legislature...

 

 

 

Freedom to choose is by definition not forcing morals onto anyone.

 

 

 

For the matter, there are Christians who accept abortion too. People can have different interpretations of a book.

[J a m e s]

We already have a thread in which abortion has become the main topic of discussion.

 

 

 

New question!

 

 

 

Why does the Bible have more credibility than any other religious Holy Book according to Christians?

[Obtaurian]

We already have a thread in which abortion has become the main topic of discussion.

 

 

 

New question!

 

 

 

Why does the Bible have more credibility than any other religious Holy Book according to Christians?

 

 

 

Dude, you can get your NAME on the cover of that [cabbage]. Can't do that with a Qur'an!

[Lenticular_J]

Exactly.

 

 

 

Well, that and it's the Christian Bible. You aren't going to read up on geometry for your calculus class, are ya?

 

 

 

Well, you might...

 

 

 

Biology - physics, maybe.

[J a m e s]

Exactly.

 

 

 

Well, that and it's the Christian Bible. You aren't going to read up on geometry for your calculus class, are ya?

 

 

 

Well, you might...

 

 

 

Biology - physics, maybe.

 

 

 

That's not a very fair comparison. Teaching calculus does not exclude the future or past learning and acknowledgement of the truth of geometry.

[Lenticular_J]

I'm saying only reading about geometry.

 

 

 

Maybe learning Russian as a precursor to French? I dunno...

 

 

 

But, anyways, because it was written to be the Christian religious text. I've read both the New Testament and Old Testament (I speak enough Hebrew, and I know a rabbi, so, yeah) and I'm trying to translate the Koran. I also know a good deal of Zen and Buddhist ideas. Probably Taoist and Hindu as well, but I wouldn't stake my life on them.

[J a m e s]

I'm saying only reading about geometry.

 

 

 

Maybe learning Russian as a precursor to French? I dunno...

 

 

 

But, anyways, because it was written to be the Christian religious text. I've read both the New Testament and Old Testament (I speak enough Hebrew, and I know a rabbi, so, yeah) and I'm trying to translate the Koran. I also know a good deal of Zen and Buddhist ideas. Probably Taoist and Hindu as well, but I wouldn't stake my life on them.

 

 

 

Do you actually read these other religious books ready to abandon your previous beliefs or do you read them just to tell yourself that you chose your religion rather than your parents?

 

 

 

^ I know that sounds harsh but I couldn't think of a better way to say it...

[Lenticular_J]

No, I read them not to be ignorant.

 

 

 

Maybe you should give it a try ;)

 

 

 

Plus, it's not like my parents chose them. We've never even had a Bible in the house until I bought one.

[tryto]

 

Some of Josephus work was a forgery, but not all of it. So you can to choose to not accept his account.

 

 

 

Your argument is akin to if, thousands of years from now, a comic book was discovered. Since This Superman comic book involved a city and buildings we knew to exist, we should thereby claim that Superman existed?

 

 

 

Also, I don't think you know the meaning of interpolation. Josephus wrote his work, and then, many years later, someone else came along and wrote over his work a forgery. This is historically known for hundreds of years, and it's not even a GOOD forgery, lol. The forgery is written similar to a religious writing in distinct awe of Jesus and his "miracles", but Josephus wasn't a Christian at all.

 

 

 

There are no 1st first century accounts that say that the gospels were false. So I would like to see proof that the gospels were not true. Since the gospels are established works.

 

 

 

The Iliad is an established work from the 8th to 9th Century BC. I would like to see some 8th century BC work that states that it is fiction, and Odysseus did not exist.

 

 

 

If I were to claim to you that Osiris or Odysseus were historical figures, you'd naturally want some proof on my behalf, which would be quite fair.

 

 

 

Given the historical and supernatural claims of Jesus, some types of reasonable evidence that we would logically require would be:

 

 

 

*Contemporary references to Jesus

 

*Eye-Witness accounts

 

*Fulfilled Messianic prophecies

 

*Consistent genealogical records

 

 

 

We have NONE of the above. Luke and Matthew even contradict each others genealogies of Joseph. There are no eye-witness accounts as stated above. Jesus fulfilled no prophecies of the Messiah, as stated above. There are no references to Jesus in his time, again as stated above.

 

 

 

A logical person , thinking rationally, would conclude upon this proof that Jesus's historicity is greatly compromised, and that it is a distinct possibility that he is simply a myth.

 

The only argument remaining is, quite simply, faith, which is inherently irrational.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't think any messiah wanted themselves to be considered messiahs - or prophets.

 

 

 

Just wanted to say something.

[tryto]

I don't think any messiah wanted themselves to be considered messiahs - or prophets.

 

 

 

Just wanted to say something.

 

 

 

Heh. Jesus calls himself the "son of Man" and the "Lord" and the "lord of the Sabbath" and other names.

 

 

 

John 1:41, "He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' (which translated means Christ)."

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

John 4:25-26, "The woman said to Him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.' 26 Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am He.'"

 

 

 

He is here called the Messiah and then confirms it also.

 

 

 

Matt. 16:16-17, "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'"

 

Mark 14:61-62, "But He kept silent, and made no answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? 62 And Jesus said, I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

 

John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

 

Also see also Luke 24:26,46; John 10:23

 

 

 

Christ is Messiah (John 1:41); Christ as Son of Man coming on the clouds (Matt. 26:63-64); Christ as Savior (Luke 2:11); Christ as King of the Jews (Luke 23:2-3); Christ will reign forever (Rev. 11:15),

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Just to add onto my myth postings,

 

a common factor of those who a)have a message to spread and B) exist is to WRITE ABOUT IT. Jesus never wrote a SINGLE SCRAP of paper on ANY subject. Ever. In addition, Paul never records that he meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any references at all to Jesus's Earthly life. All accounts about Jesus from him could only have come from others or his fantasy.

[Lenticular_J]

I thought you didn't believe a man named Jesus Christ ever existed. How would He, then, have said that?