Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:57 pm

Bonkers, simply stark raving bonkers.......and very sensitive.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:11 pm

I answered your question. If you feel that my answers are offensive...blah...blah....blah.

You did not answer the question, the authorship of John's Epistles, the revelation and the 4th gospel is disputed by all secular historians and by most liberal theologians. They do no believe the author was John the Apostle, therefore cross-referencing these works to prove John the Apostle wrote them all is illogical.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:33 pm

One has to ask oneself some common sense questions, why would John the Apostle wait 60 years before he writes anything, why would he wait so long to contradict the Synoptics and Paul that had been in circulation for 20-40 years ? He was a first hand witness unlike the others but he says nothing.

Look at John's potential age and the life expectancy of the times, he was uneducated but literate in Hebrew but can write in sophisticated Greek.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:56 pm

In fact, however, the community, not the book, comes first. The book is the testimony, not merely of one man, but of the whole Church. The book was believed because the man was believed. And the man was believed, in part, because he was not one man (like Mohammed or Joseph Smith) claiming a vision and promising earthly pleasures and power, but because he is one of 500 people who bear witness by a life of martyrdom to public events that took place within the living memory of all Israel (1 Cor. 15:6). That’s the meaning of the endorsement at the end of the Gospel from the Johannine community: "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). It means "You guys in the neighboring diocese down the road know John and what he has suffered for the Gospel and you know us. We will vouch for the accuracy of this document."

This is a Christian apologetic defending John' authorship, spot the elephant in the room, the reason it is KNOWN TO BE TRUE is because Paul states there were 500 witnesses to the events, but Paul never witnessed anything.

I am not wanting to accuse Paul of exaggeration but he is hardly going to say there were just a few witnesses to such a short ministry, a short ministry that is disputed only by John. How do 500 people feed themselves wandering around with Jesus for a year.....or more.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:08 pm

Texas,

You are well aware that your style is intended to frustrate, pretending to be offended at the frustration you cause is almost as dishonest as your arguments.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:57 pm

Rock, what is frustrating is you dodging perfectly legitimate questions that are basically quite simple to answer. I don't want an exposition or a lecture on issues that I am very familiar with already.

It would be preferable if you just said, "I don't want to answer" or "I don't know". Both of those are acceptable and honest responses. But posting all those videos and questions which have no relation to the question I asked is just being evasive. The questions you posted have no relation to the question I asked.

You are very big on making sure everyone else uses cautionary language, yet when it comes to God and Jesus you are adamant that you "know" that you are right. You make claims that cannot possibly be proven or even provide evidence for yet you don't have to be cautious in your extraordinary claims. Everyone else does, no matter how much evidence is piled up to support a claim.

So my next question then is why does your belief get a free pass, no questions asked, no answers given but you insist on cautionary language when it comes to evolution and the origin of the universe, in spite of all of the evidence. Why does your belief get to make extraordinary claims without evidence and science is not allowed to?

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:20 pm

My demolition of the Tory-led Coalition is devastating, unanswerable, and destined for inclusion in all school texts after the elapse of sixty years.

Please be patient.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:22 pm

So my next question then is why does your belief get a free pass, no questions asked, no answers given but you insist on cautionary language when it comes to evolution and the origin of the universe, in spite of all of the evidence. Why does your belief get to make extraordinary claims without evidence and science is not allowed to?

I will give you a clue and it doesn't have any vowels.

In my opinion he employs two flawed criteria to establish what we can claim to know in Science and History, and tries to merge them in some lucid way ( who, what, where etc).

Theologians can put a case forward that Texas believes proves the Bible is the truth, historians reject miracles and theologians don't.
He then takes this theological truth and tries to match it up with science. Where it does not match up he uses an illegitimate criteria( strict empirism) to dismiss these as unproven, much like he can state we cannot prove miracles did not happen.

The problem is neither Historians nor Scientists accept his criteria, and that is why he has to extrapolate so tediously, its a defense of his individual opinion, he doesn't care what others believe the criteria should be, they are not precise scholars like him.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:30 pm

In my opinion he employs two flawed criteria to establish what we can claim to know in Science and History, and tries to merge them in some lucid way.

But it is mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions is it not? I'm actually stunned into submission at the moment and not quite sure why I can't get a straight answer.

Anyway, it's tired me out now. Good night all Smile

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:34 pm

....but it is boring.....and repetitive....and above all dishonest.

Neither historians nor scientists can assume the existence of unseen agents in their deliberations, they are both atheistic or agnostic in nature, how could they do otherwise without real evidence.

Texas considers the Bible real evidence.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:38 pm

But it is mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions is it not? I'm actually stunned into submission at the moment and not quite sure why I can't get a straight answer.

Texas is very proud of his stamina and tenacity, it is fortified by faith.

Don't read his posts, they all mean the same thing, " the Bible is true because it says it is true ", and nothing can prove this wrong.

Not content with God having bulletproof properties, he endows the Bible with similar bulletproof properties.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:56 pm

Fundamentalists reject the concept of knowledge or truth being probable, they are absolutists, ones who mischievously distort the concept of probability to accommodate anything is possible unless absolutely proven otherwise.

Its just a double standard, a kind of compartmentalization, just an old fashioned cognitive bias.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 10:58 pm

The Bible cannot be probably true if macroevolution is probable and the resurrection is improbable, just get rid of probability and you have a level playing field.

Its known as irrationality.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:24 pm

Anyway back to Paul, to me Christianity is all about the resurrection, and he must have wondered as I do why Jesus followers were willing to die for their claim he was physically resurrected....and I can't really answer that.

The best I can do is speculate they saw a vision of Jesus and maybe there was some initial debate about its nature, physical or spiritual. Maybe the lines became blurred after 20 years and Paul capitalised on its obvious attraction.

We must look at visions in a 1st century context, these people lived and breathed the supernatural and spirits, their minds and lives were filled with mystic thoughts. Even in today's scientific world and mindset, lots of people have visions of their deceased loved ones, maybe its some kind of defense mechanism or wishful thinking, it is not surprising that some kind of mass vision took place, a kind of hysteria.

by Guest Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:24 pm

by snowyflake Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:54 am

Insofar as is possible, the posts that you have found offensive have been removed.

Just to be clear, I did not ask you to do this. This is also a dodge, Rock. You still have not answered the question.

When examining your own faith and belief system, it is no great sin to say you don't know.

Take care

by Guest Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:45 am

by Tosh Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:52 am

To be clear through reiteration, I know Y’shua, I know YHVH Elohim, I know that I love Y’shua by voluntarily keeping his teachings, I know that I love YHVH Elohim by voluntarily keeping Y’shua’s teachings, and I know YHVH Elohim is eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible power by which everything is, was, and will be.

Finally a degree of welcome clarity and honesty, there is no doubt you know and love Jesus and God, and try to live by their teachings, but there is doubt concerning the existence of God and how you KNOW it exists. I assume you do not love God purely as a concept, you believe God revealed itself to Moses and later through Jesus and his resurrection.

Now you may feel or deduce it exists for these reasons but you must appreciate these reasons are not universally accepted by all.

There are a billion Christians who know and love both God and Jesus who do not need to believe the Bible is innerrent and literally true, and there are billions of humans on our planet who don't believe in the Bible at all.
Now you believe they are mistaken but you cannot " know " they are mistaken because you cannot " know " your god exists and you cannot know the bible is innerrent.

So in effect the discussion is really about the nature of knowledge and what constitutes evidence, the thread title asks for evidence of god's existence and your knowledge is based on untestable evidence or in plain English " FAITH ".

The loonball polyglide loves to quote improbabilities, in the absence of any direct evidence, what are the odds of one entity creating an entire universe just for humans ?

You don't care because you have faith but I do care because I don't share your faith in highly improbable explanations, its called being rational, and rational people do not believe in the highly improbable, they believe in the most probable explanation.

by Tosh Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:19 pm

The modern secular world has no problem with those who believe in goodness for whatever reason, the more the merrier, however fundamentalism intrudes in the public domain and many object to this intrusion.

Europe packed most of its fundamentalists onto boats and sent them to colonize America, they were being persecuted because they got up our noses with their intrusive dogma.

The American Bible Belt is the " Alamo ", its the last redoubt of the fundamentalist and it will inevitably fall, information technology transmits knowledge and fundamentalism will be crushed by the sheer volume of evidence.

by Tosh Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:46 pm

As for the NT, if 27 books were written by 27 first hand witnesses testifying to the physical resurrection of Jesus, I still would not believe it, its just too improbable.

We have pattern making brains and anyone with a functioning brain can see a pattern in the mythological beliefs of our primitive ancestors, there is no difference between Osiris and Jesus, or Zeus and Elohim.

The pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of goodness, being good to others and others being good to us makes us happy, a conscious life is a life that relates to other conscious lives and its this relationship with others that provides our lives with meaning.

And if people don't agree with me then there is always eugenics.

by Tosh Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:22 pm

I didn't know the Vatican opposes IVF treatment for women ?

These people are nutters.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:30 pm

I know. You clearly indicated that they were offensive to you. Because of that, and because they were intended for you, I’ve removed them. You did not ask this of me; I chose to do this.

That is your interpretation. As you so often do, Rock, you make assumptions. I was not offended. You do not write offensive posts so there would be no reason for me to be offended.

To be clear, I was frustrated because you dance away from simple questions which I suspect is because you think it will reveal the holes in your belief system. Confronting it can be upsetting so instead of actually answering the question, you ask another question or derail the discussion with side issues. This is what believers do to protect their belief and uphold their faith. And smart people like yourself who have spent a lot of time and energy making their belief true for themselves can get quite angry when they actually confront some of the problems of their belief.

Anyway, Rock, I'm sorry you removed the posts. I don't discuss this issue to make you angry or upset. Nor do I think you are in any way offensive. Frustrating, yes, but never offensive.

Please take care.

by Tosh Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:02 pm

Historians like scientists deal in evidence, in history this evidence is in the shape of sources, the more the merrier and preferably these sources are independent of each other, contemporary sources closest to the event provide the strongest evidence.

So in a case like the resurrection what do we have, well we don't have any contemporary or eye witness sources, and we don't have any independent sources. All we have is accounts decades after the event written by people who were not eye witnesses and who are not independent of each other.

Therefore from a historical perspective the claim of Jesus resurrection has little to no evidence to support it, and is not considered historically true.

by Guest Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:18 pm

by Tosh Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:44 pm

Given the fact that I give less than a tinker’s damn what persons other than you may think about or how other persons may react to their content,

Ahem...tap...tap...tap....what about my feelings, do I not count, I am human you know, I bleed just like Snowy.

Anyway, what was the poem you mentioned ?

by polyglide Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:13 pm

Human, Tosh ?

Then starty acting accordingly

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Then starty acting accordingly

Me no starty until you starty.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:38 pm

I think we need to starty up this thread again Smile

by Shirina Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:01 pm

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:17 pm

God-bothering will be resumed after a decent interval.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:25 pm

God-bothering will be resumed after a decent interval.

Is there time for popcorn?

by Shirina Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:27 pm

No, but there's always time for Jell-o.

by Tosh Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:44 pm

Seemingly everything that exists is evidence of God's existence, cute eh ?

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:02 am

I watched the documentary " Cave of the forgotten dreams ", the cave paintings and artifacts of our cro magnon ancestors gives us in insight into the minds of humans some 40,000 years ago. Much like their aborigine cousins their culture did not just believe in the spirit world, they lived in it, there was an interchangeability and fluidity that allowed all spirits to mingle. Their paintings and sculptors were not representatives of these spirits, the actual spirit was contained within them, these people literally thanked stone idols as spirits. Anthropomorphic figures demonstrate how interchangeable spirits were believed to be and there were no barriers between the two worlds.

We were not Homo Sapiens but Homo spiritualis, we had evolved beliefs and cultures that helped us to make sense of our natural world, animism explained the natural world and enabled us to understand it.

From these beliefs spawned polytheism and monotheism, full of anthropomorphism, unseen agents of purpose and worshiping stone idols, new sets of answers evolving with our environment.
If I find it hard to immerse myself into bronze age mythical minds then its nothing compared to the mystical minds of cro magnon, they lived and breathed spiritualism, it was their contemporary knowledge. I cannot imagine the world they saw and felt, the only thing I can compare it with is a child believing in a fairytale, it must have been truly surreal to live a life immersed in superstition and mysticism.

I find it truly fascinating that the thoughts of Jesus and Christian theology evolved from the original thought that we possessed a spirit( unseen agent) and so did everything else. There is only model from whence the idea of a spirit could have been copied, and its our dreams and hallucinations, once we became self aware, we became aware of our dreams and hallucinations, our spirit moved about but the body stayed.

No surprise all the earliest religions are based on a dream culture. Shamans took mind altering herbs to visit the spirit world or be visited on.

It seems the connection between religion and opiates goes back to the last ice age.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:20 am

The question of when in our evolution did God reveal himself is never answered by the believers. It is clear that religion stemmed from dreams and spirit culture and evolved with humans into the delusional monster it is today.

They believe in microevolution but can never say when God first made himself known to humans. They bypass the question altogether.

I'll put it to Rock and polyglide to give them an opportunity to answer this question please. Many thanks. Smile

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:43 pm

Alternative research paths are known.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Doors-Perception-Heaven-Hell/dp/0099458209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:53 pm

Alternative research paths are known.

What's your drug of choice, OW?

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:57 pm

Alternative research paths are known.

What kind of burning bush was it God spoke through, and I wonder if the fumes affected Moses in any way, did he not drop something on the way down ?

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:59 pm

What's your drug of choice, OW?

Cannabis Conascendus.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:33 pm

What kind of burning bush was it God spoke through, and I wonder if the fumes affected Moses in any way, did he not drop something on the way down ?

Coca? He 'dropped' a 'tablet'......do you suppose Moses was on drugs and we just didn't get it for 5000 years? That would change the accepted interpretation of the OT significantly, I would think.

by skwalker1964 Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:39 pm

snowyflake wrote:
What kind of burning bush was it God spoke through, and I wonder if the fumes affected Moses in any way, did he not drop something on the way down ?

Coca? He 'dropped' a 'tablet'......do you suppose Moses was on drugs and we just didn't get it for 5000 years? That would change the accepted interpretation of the OT significantly, I would think.

I'm no expert, but don't you 'drop' acid?

by Sponsored content