Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Lionz]

How about we get into something a little more concrete if you can bend rates to preconceived notions about what occurred in the past?

Can we get back into dinosaurs if referring to images from Jurassic Park was essentially the gist of a recent secular response to evidence? Is it not true that The Travels of Marco Polo suggests that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3806

Did Marco Polo not claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium? Want more? What's shown and described here?

http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

"archaic : a huge serpent "
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

"dragon, serpent, sea monster"
"dragon or dinosaur"
-http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=08577

[AAFitz]

"In about 50 billion years from now, the Moon will stop moving away from us."
-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_facts_about_the_moon

Why would the moon eventually stop moving away from earth if it has been moving away from earth at an increasing rate?

Alot can happen in 50 billion years, lol...but if the rate is decelerating, its decelerating.

It however, does not in any way suggest that the rate your source computed was accurate.

[AAFitz]

How about we get into something a little more concrete if you can bend rates to preconceived notions about what occurred in the past?

Can we get back into dinosaurs if referring to pictures of Jurassic Park was essentially the gist of a recent secular response to evidence? Is it not true that The Travels of Marco Polo suggests that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3806

Did Marco Polo not claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium? Want more? What's shown and described here?

http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

"archaic : a huge serpent "
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

"dragon, serpent, sea monster"
"dragon or dinosaur"
-http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=08577

Are you suggesting these are all made out of concrete?

But more seriously, as to what Marco Polo may or may not have said...do not people lie all the time?

If there is evidence of another adventurer, not mentioning dinosaurs, can we then infer they must not have existed just as easily?

I love the irony of the comic showing people tell stories and getting them wrong and exaggerating them over time.

Is it possible this happened in the Bible stories too or is it limited to Dragon make-believe?

And just one more question: Why cant someone with a fuckin Nikon ever take a picture of the Lochness "Dragon"?

[Metsfanmax]

"In about 50 billion years from now, the Moon will stop moving away from us."
-http://wiki.answers.com/Q/5_facts_about_the_moon

Why would the moon eventually stop moving away from earth if it has been moving away from earth at an increasing rate?

The moon is not moving away from us because of kinematical reasons, it's moving away because of tidal torque. That tidal torque is a consequence of the fact that the Moon and Earth's rotation is asynchronous; that is, they have different rotation periods about their own rotation axes. The resulting tidal torque is what is responsible for the Moon moving away from us. In fact, that's the secondary effect of the main issue, which is that the rotation periods are coming into sync. When that happens, no more torque will be exerted by the oceans, and the Moon will stop drifting away due to the tidal friction.

[daddy1gringo]

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

[Symmetry]

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

i think he's referring to anti-evolution arguments here with regards to a Christian view on this. I''d suggest both you and he take a breather from annoying one another.

I'd also point out that the Biblical sense of prophecy doesn't mean predicting the future, or even telling the truth.

[crispybits]

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.

As for the prophecy thing, that's part of the whole problem too, as people are taking passages from a very long book that are at best vague and unspecific, and then applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility. What reason do you think they might do that - ah yes to prove God exists....

And Symmetry, you obviously having been paying much attention if you think I'm worried about annoying a theist who doesn't get his facts right

[PLAYER57832]

Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!

Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.

If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.

Have you even bothered to read? Any Bible quotes here are either,

A. A prophesy that the person is attempting to show has been fulfilled, or
B. Answering an accusation concerning those particular passages, e.g. that they are are contradictory, inaccurate or reflect something contemptible, like slavery etc.

Now you could argue that they have not successfully done those things, but spare me the patent straw man of choosing an obviously silly thing that no one has said.

I challenge you to find anywhere that someone has made the argument that God exists or the Bible is true "because the Bible says so".

If that is the best that you can do, and you can't make a constructive contribution to the discussion, just let the grown-ups talk, and listen and learn something.

I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.

Actually a lot of what he quotes has little to do with Christian scripture. But yeah, I have a whole thread dominated by pages of my answering his various assertions.. only to have him turn around and hit me with a barrage of essentially the same questions reworded, occasionally a few others and plenty of repeated photos. He seems to LOVE photos. Finds some pretty unusual ones, but as for carrying on a sensible discussion.. forget it.

[daddy1gringo]

I suggest you try reading some of Lionz' posts, particularly from before around page 80ish. He's constantly quoting scripture without answering a point.

As for the prophecy thing, that's part of the whole problem too, as people are taking passages from a very long book that are at best vague and unspecific, and then applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility. What reason do you think they might do that - ah yes to prove God exists....

And Symmetry, you obviously having been paying much attention if you think I'm worried about annoying a theist who doesn't get his facts right

"...quoting scripture without answering a point." -- "...applying them to real life events in an effort to give the Bible credibility." Like I said: neither one even close to "It's true because the Bible says so."

Still waiting, either for "it's true because the Bible says so" or for your retraction.

[crispybits]

Can you give me any other reason for trying to give the bible credibility in a thread about evidence for god?

Edit - regardless of that:

If the great pyramid backs up history according to Hebrew scripture and the scripture claims that there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth, then does the great pyramid itself not suggest that there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth?

Paraphrased:

If the bible is credible because of X evidence, and the bible says God exists, then God exists.

(bottom post on page 41)

Still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong....

[daddy1gringo]

Crispy, look at what you are saying here. You give as your opponent's position a ridiculous circular argument: "The Bible is true because the Bible says so", and when I challenge you to show me where any theist used that, you give me examples of people attempting to show the credibility of the Bible by showing the correlation of various things it says to the world outside itself, as if that were the same thing. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. It's an acknowledgement that "because the Bible says so" is not a sufficient suppoort in a discussion with a non-believer.

Now as I said, you could argue that they have not thereby really proved anything -- in many cases I might agree with you -- but you can't reasonably claim that they are just saying things are true because the Bible says so, that's insane.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say, as "devil's advocates" that it were all true -- that there is indeed a "God" and that he was behind this particular bunch of stuff being written and collected and recognized as his communication of what he's up to. Many people, yourself included, believe that it is no such thing, but just a bunch of stuff written by various people. By your line of reasoning, any attempt to show otherwise is the same as an illogical circular argument, and discarded out of hand. You say you are still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong, but it is you who have constructed your line of reasoning such that you never have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

Still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong....

You have already met one online.. ME. I have said many times that while I firmly and completely believe in my faith, I will never declare I can prove it, definitely not in a manner acceptable to anyone else.

I think several of us are waiting to hear you and several other atheists admit that we might possibly be correct, and WITHOUT disdainful "well, then the Easterbunny/flying gnomes, etc, etc, must be true garbage."

You claim to want honest and intelligent discussion, but honest and intelligent discussion doesn't begin with outright dismissing and deriding seriously and respectfully relayed views of others. (key on the "respectful" bit... I know I have sometimes lapsed, but usually in the form of throwing a mirror up).

In the end, there is a reason why these issues are declared faith and religion, not science. Its because they are just that.. beliefs, not proven facts. BUT.. just as there are many credible theories in science, in religion and faith there are many ideas that have credibility, even if not fully proven to the measures needed by science. In fact, many of the most followed scientific theories actually have no such proof. Seems like you are demanding of faith something more than you demand even of science... or have I missed your criticism of the theory of gravity somewhere?

[crispybits]

Crispy, look at what you are saying here. You give as your opponent's position a ridiculous circular argument: "The Bible is true because the Bible says so", and when I challenge you to show me where any theist used that, you give me examples of people attempting to show the credibility of the Bible by showing the correlation of various things it says to the world outside itself, as if that were the same thing. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. It's an acknowledgement that "because the Bible says so" is not a sufficient suppoort in a discussion with a non-believer.

Now as I said, you could argue that they have not thereby really proved anything -- in many cases I might agree with you -- but you can't reasonably claim that they are just saying things are true because the Bible says so, that's insane.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say, as "devil's advocates" that it were all true -- that there is indeed a "God" and that he was behind this particular bunch of stuff being written and collected and recognized as his communication of what he's up to. Many people, yourself included, believe that it is no such thing, but just a bunch of stuff written by various people. By your line of reasoning, any attempt to show otherwise is the same as an illogical circular argument, and discarded out of hand. You say you are still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong, but it is you who have constructed your line of reasoning such that you never have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

That argument would hold water if they were saying that the things in the Bible about God are credible because of X or Y evidence, therefore God. But that's not the argument. Maybe it would be easier if I break it down a bit...

Lionz argument from that point in the thread:

Premise: There is a numerical relationship between the dimensions of the great pyramid and events in the bible
Sub-conclusion: The bible is historically accurate
------------------------------------
Premise: The bible is completely accurate (not logically proven by the initial premise and conslusion)
Premise: The bible says God exists
Conclusion: God exists.

That disconnect between claiming historical accuracy and then claiming supernatural accuracy destroys the logical chain. It becomes 2 separate arguments. The first part deals with the biblical history of the world, and the second part deals with the claims it makes to knowledge of the supernatural. Now just look at the second part underneath that line - do you notice anything there?

I almost can't believe we're going to this length anyways over what was a little bit of (admittedly biased) humour between two people without any real attempt at persuasion in any case, but whatever floats your boat.

Still waiting for a theist to admit he might be wrong....

You have already met one online.. ME. I have said many times that while I firmly and completely believe in my faith, I will never declare I can prove it, definitely not in a manner acceptable to anyone else.

I think several of us are waiting to hear you and several other atheists admit that we might possibly be correct, and WITHOUT disdainful "well, then the Easterbunny/flying gnomes, etc, etc, must be true garbage."

You claim to want honest and intelligent discussion, but honest and intelligent discussion doesn't begin with outright dismissing and deriding seriously and respectfully relayed views of others. (key on the "respectful" bit... I know I have sometimes lapsed, but usually in the form of throwing a mirror up).

In the end, there is a reason why these issues are declared faith and religion, not science. Its because they are just that.. beliefs, not proven facts. BUT.. just as there are many credible theories in science, in religion and faith there are many ideas that have credibility, even if not fully proven to the measures needed by science. In fact, many of the most followed scientific theories actually have no such proof. Seems like you are demanding of faith something more than you demand even of science... or have I missed your criticism of the theory of gravity somewhere?

Sorry Player, that was tiredness talking and me talking about daddy1gringo in particular rather than all theists. I hope I have generally been respectful in my arguments too (even if on occasion some people are offended by them, I sincerely offer no offence deliberately) and I also tend to mirror in my style of posting so there will be slips, I'm only human too.

But on your extended point, I have said (I think more than once) in this thread that I believe in a higher power of some sort. I haven't denied the possibility of God once. I have only stated that I think the Christian God concept and story seems so inconsistent and unbelievable to me (for very many reasons) that I do outright reject that particular flavour of what God is, along with any of them that impose a societal control structure in the shape of religious organisation. But I'm open to it being showed to me with evidence (just the same as someone can show me evidence of the theory of gravity by dropping a ball and watching it fall and measuring the rate at which it accelerates or whatever), and if someone can do so I'll happily (and eagerly) sign up.

I also think there are very many parts of the christian message which have great credibility. The tenets of love, tolerance, kindness, etc are not the parts I choose to reject.

To make an analogy, if I came to you tomorrow with a different theory of gravity, and it gave us pretty good results with experimental measurements, but it relied on adding in a whole bunch of really complicated assumptions and rules that sometimes contradicted each other and required interpretation by an expert (and I'd be the only expert to start with because I'm the one who thought it up, later people who have studied what I wrote and said may become considered experts too) - would you sign up to that theory or would you mock it?

Similarly, christians espouse their story of god, based on a book which requires and is subject to interpretation by experts to get definitive answers, and which often contradicts itself, and then claim it as truth (except for the bits that get revised down to allegory status over time). This for a God they claim is all powerful and exists inside each of us as a guiding force as long as we are open to him. And yet I'm expected to give it credence? Sorry but I will show no respect to the idea. The people, the christians, I will respect. The idea itself is despicable in detail.

[PLAYER57832]

Similarly, christians espouse their story of god, based on a book which requires and is subject to interpretation by experts to get definitive answers, and which often contradicts itself, and then claim it as truth (except for the bits that get revised down to allegory status over time). This for a God they claim is all powerful and exists inside each of us as a guiding force as long as we are open to him. And yet I'm expected to give it credence? Sorry but I will show no respect to the idea. The people, the christians, I will respect. The idea itself is despicable in detail.

First, thank you for your clarification.

Beyond that, ALL ideas evolve, refine. People and groups of people together learn over time. Religion is no different.

Its like teaching a child. You begin with the simple, sometimes so simplistic they are almost incorrect. For example, when kids ask "are people animals?" A common response is "Well, we sure aren't plants!", without going into the whole liturgy of "we aren't fungus, bacteria.. etc, etc.". I advocate teaching exceptions early. (conifers keep their needles.. but then we have the Dawn redwood, etc.)

Maybe a better example is in phonics/english. (at least one I can think of immediately since one son is currently in kindergarten and learning to read right now ). My son is learning that the "a" sound is either as in "ate" or as in "apple". As an adult, I could list quite a few variations... and very quickly he will pick up on those, but the teacher starts with those 2 sounds as a basic beginning.

I have gone through details of our change of how we see the Bible, but don't think this is the thread for it.. and I don't have the time right now, anyway.

[GreecePwns]

I think the problem with quoting Bible scripture, as Viceroy and others have, to prove that it has "predicted events" (the exact words that Viceroy has used) is indeed that it is so open to interpretation and even direct alteration. If one can interpret the Bible to have predicted X major world event, someone else could use that same verse to say it predicted Y major world event, for example and someone else can say it doesn't predict anything and in fact is a part they don't even believe in.

The Bible's vagueness was interpreted as a prediction of a future event, so what? Other religious and nonreligious texts and people have done the same thing - what makes the Bible special in this regard, other than the Bible saying itself that its special in this regard? The only answer Viceroy and Lionz have to that is to quote even MORE Bible scriptures and try to connect them to A or B major world events. What about the predictions that the Bible was wrong on? What about . To have total faith in whatever interpretation you have of a book, that interpretation must have some semblance of logic that applies to the entire text instead of an interpretation that depends on cherrypicking the parts that make you happy and ignoring the ones that don't. The latter is what most Christians are guilty of; "this part about [insert undesirable position] doesn't apply anymore solely because society changed," "this part is not part of the Bible because my sect doesn't believe it is."

In other words, if you're gonna quote the Bible to show it predicted major world events and therefore is the one and only true religious text, you have to do three things:
1. Define "major world event".
2. Show that the Bible predicted all major world events OR (show that it was never wrong in its predictions AND show that these predictions occur throughout the text).
3. Show that the Bible is a better predictor of major world events than other religious and nonreligious predictors, not only from its time but from more modern sources as well, in ways that don't involve the Bible or Christianity calling itself the best.

On top of that, such a viewpoint involves combining the question of whether or not Almighty Stuff exists with the question of deciding a "correct" religious text and interpretation of that text. These questions are separate, and treating them as one and the same inherently involves acting on knowledge of the supernatural that no one has, making the position unfalsifiable until we know for sure that Almighty Stuff exists.

TL;DR Those on the religious side continue to dance around the glaring unfalsifiability and circularity problems, despite their best attempts to distract from it.