Logic dictates that there is a God!

[mr. incrediball]

geez, how the frick did this get to abortion?

well, i think the whole "is god real" argument came to a resounding "no".

[demon7896]

geez, how the frick did this get to abortion?

well, i think the whole "is god real" argument came to a resounding "no".

OH! So these people here got bored of is god real, and started abortion! Well, if you wanna talk about abortion, MAKE ANOTHER THREAD!!!!!

[MelonanadeMaster]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

[comic boy]

geez, how the frick did this get to abortion?

well, i think the whole "is god real" argument came to a resounding "no".

OH! So these people here got bored of is god real, and started abortion! Well, if you wanna talk about abortion, MAKE ANOTHER THREAD!!!!!

Okay back on topic
There is not one shred of evidence that there is a God

[Napoleon Ier]

Cosmological argument?
Ontological argument?
Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?
Goldilock's Enigma?

[Guiscard]

Cosmological argument?
Ontological argument?
Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?
Goldilock's Enigma?

Cosmological argument has been dealt with in this thread already. Categorically has nothing to so with any concept of even a sentient God. Creator and God are not the same thing, and it could be used to logically prove the big bang just as easily.

Ontological argument has again been dealt with. Necessary NON existence is just as convincing and logical.

Historical evidence for the resurrection is naught. Historical evidence for Jesus is certainly questionable. Whilst I, and the majority of the historical profession, do not generally doubt that a man named Jesus did exist (indeed, it would be unfair not to if we treat the Bible the same as any other historical source) that existence says nothing whatsoever about his divinity.

As for the Goldilock's Enigma, well again that is again not exactly a logical argument. An infinite number of universes is just as valid a theory.

[comic boy]

Cosmological argument?
Ontological argument?
Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?
Goldilock's Enigma?

I repeat not one shred of evidence
Love to see your supposed evidence for the resurrection, validated by many respected historians is it

[bradleybadly]

Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?

Not sure you can prove this but I'd be interested to read them.

[comic boy]

Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?

Not sure you can prove this but I'd be interested to read them.

There are no non biblical references to the ressurection so ones acceptance is dependent on belief in the total reliability of the New Testament, credible historians would not accept this as reliable evidence.

[Snorri1234]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

There are 3 very good reasons not to kill someone. 1. There is no reason to. 2. They might kill you back. 3. Killing doesn't feel good to me, because I have empathy for others.

[radiojake]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

The only thing stopping you from killing everyone is the fact you believe that a god exists?

How pathetic.

[Napoleon Ier]

bradleybadly wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?


Not sure you can prove this but I'd be interested to read them.


It is one the of the slightly more tenuous arguments, however, there do exist quite a few sizeable "shreds of evidence".

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
That extract is from Josephus, an independant Jewish 1st Century historian. There are however, in all fairness, allegations this passage was doctored by monks in the 11th century. That said, Josephus refers to Jesus several times, and almost all modern NT scholars concur hat Josephus attests that a very charismatic figure called Jesus appeared even after death to his discpiles (Josephus, as an enemy of Christianity, would have claimed that these were hallucinations, which psychologically, is a very good argument, think of people seeing ghosts of their dead relatives, for example).

There are on the other hand many texts, some lost but referenced in what we do have, such as the Acts of Pilate, and of course, the many Gospels themselves (the 4 canonical ones, i.e, those that the Council of Nicea selected to become part of what today we know as the Bible, and many apocryphal gospels, all of which have to be treated as seperate historical sources).

The best source is of course, the NT. Discoveries from archaeologists (the classic example is William Ramsey) are progressively confirming details contained within it, reputed scholars such as Dr. Albright, or former sceptics, have come to see that the archaeological details in the Gospels are generally correct. Of course, that isn't to say at once all the claims that are made in the gospels are correct.

That said, historically, it is pretty much undeniable that Jesus existed, ad that he or someone pretending to be him was crucified.
However, Josephus, Thalius, and many other historians attest that it was Jesus of Nazareth, or Yeshuva (the Talmud) that was executed. The romans had been crucifiying for hundreds of years prior and were ableto maximize pain, and ensure the victim was dead. If you didn't die of pain, it would be dehaydration (in the sun of a place like Judea, modern Israel), bloodloss (you would have been pierced in several places with large nails and flogged until half dead with a several tailed whip tipped with iron barbs). If you still had just fainted and were alive, your legs were broken, and (as John's gospel says, and archaeology confirms) a spear was driven into you. John says water and blood came from Jesus' corpse when this was done. This perplexed many, who took it as some further supposed miracle. However, medically, we know now that it is a normal thing for lymphotic fluid and other bodily liquids to flow out in this way upon death. I refer those who doubt the crucifiction to the work of William Edwards, "On the physical death of Jesus Christ".

You must now consider : imagine you've been following this guy who says that he's God, has been performing these strange miracles, with whom you had actually grown up (many of the disciples were Jesus' friends from childhood), or maybe just been really impressed by and had joined. You believe he's meant to ovrthrow the Romans and become King of Israel. Then, suddenly, the authorities kill him. You aren't best pleased. Then, a few days later, women (this is further evidence : if the gospels were invented, the first witnesses would not have been women these were not considered reliable witnesses at all at that time) tell you he's "risen".

Over the next few weeks, literally hundreds of people, Christian and non-Christian alike, saw Jesus.
As Dr. Pinchas Lapide has stated :
"When this frightened band of Apostles suddenly could be changed over-night into a confident mission society...Then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation."

Well, you may say that the disciples covertly stole the body, or that the authorities hid it.

The tomb was indeed empty. Yet neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who had the tomb guarded (Matthew 27), would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the first disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced.

In addition to the hostile guards, Jesus’ followers likewise had no reason for hiding the corpse to pretend the resurrection. The dire consequences of their loyalty to Him included beating, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts.

Remember, these people went on to die grisly deaths as witnesses to the faith, in Rome, in Greece, in Turkey...How can you explain so many people all willingtodiee for what they know was false?

Legal scholar, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, writes:

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, [early Christians received] contempt, opposition ...and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate, and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only [continued] their work with increased vigor and resolution...The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of like heroic constancy... and unblenching courage...If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error…From these [considerations] there is no escape but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed...and well knew to be true.

It seems fantastical, yes. But I believe the evidence is compelling. Frank Morison, a lawyer and fanatical atheist, decided to write a book about the fakery of the resurrection, "Who moved the Stone", and as he wrote it, he gradually came to accept the Resurrection, and evenually, converted to Christianity.

I realise many need far more proof. However, itis wrong for comicboy to dissmiss contemeliously, and out of hand, all the evidence, when he clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

The only thing stopping you from killing everyone is the fact you believe that a god exists?

How pathetic.

You've missed the point.

[comic boy]

Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?

Not sure you can prove this but I'd be interested to read them.

It is one the of the slightly more tenuous arguments, however, there do exist quite a few sizeable "shreds of evidence".

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day"
That extract is from Josephus, an independant Jewish 1st Century historian. There are however, in all fairness, allegations this passage was doctored by monks in the 11th century. That said, Josephus refers to Jesus several times, and almost all modern NT scholars concur hat Josephus attests that a very charismatic figure called Jesus appeared even after death to his discpiles (Josephus, as an enemy of Christianity, would have claimed that these were hallucinations, which psychologically, is a very good argument, think of people seeing ghosts of their dead relatives, for example).

There are on the other hand many texts, some lost but referenced in what we do have, such as the Acts of Pilate, and of course, the many Gospels themselves (the 4 canonical ones, i.e, those that the Council of Nicea selected to become part of what today we know as the Bible, and many apocryphal gospels, all of which have to be treated as seperate historical sources).

The best source is of course, the NT. Discoveries from archaeologists (the classic example is William Ramsey) are progressively confirming details contained within it, reputed scholars such as Dr. Albright, or former sceptics, have come to see that the archaeological details in the Gospels are generally correct. Of course, that isn't to say at once all the claims that are made in the gospels are correct.

That said, historically, it is pretty much undeniable that Jesus existed, ad that he or someone pretending to be him was crucified.
However, Josephus, Thalius, and many other historians attest that it was Jesus of Nazareth, or Yeshuva (the Talmud) that was executed. The romans had been crucifiying for hundreds of years prior and were ableto maximize pain, and ensure the victim was dead. If you didn't die of pain, it would be dehaydration (in the sun of a place like Judea, modern Israel), bloodloss (you would have been pierced in several places with large nails and flogged until half dead with a several tailed whip tipped with iron barbs). If you still had just fainted and were alive, your legs were broken, and (as John's gospel says, and archaeology confirms) a spear was driven into you. John says water and blood came from Jesus' corpse when this was done. This perplexed many, who took it as some further supposed miracle. However, medically, we know now that it is a normal thing for lymphotic fluid and other bodily liquids to flow out in this way upon death. I refer those who doubt the crucifiction to the work of William Edwards, "On the physical death of Jesus Christ".

You must now consider : imagine you've been following this guy who says that he's God, has been performing these strange miracles, with whom you had actually grown up (many of the disciples were Jesus' friends from childhood), or maybe just been really impressed by and had joined. You believe he's meant to ovrthrow the Romans and become King of Israel. Then, suddenly, the authorities kill him. You aren't best pleased. Then, a few days later, women (this is further evidence : if the gospels were invented, the first witnesses would not have been women these were not considered reliable witnesses at all at that time) tell you he's "risen".

Over the next few weeks, literally hundreds of people, Christian and non-Christian alike, saw Jesus.
As Dr. Pinchas Lapide has stated :
"When this frightened band of Apostles suddenly could be changed over-night into a confident mission society...Then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation."

Well, you may say that the disciples covertly stole the body, or that the authorities hid it.

The tomb was indeed empty. Yet neither the Jewish nor the Roman leaders, who had the tomb guarded (Matthew 27), would have taken the body. Rather, both had every motive to produce the body publicly in order to humiliate the first disciples and nip their movement in the bud. And since the scene in question was right at Jerusalem, it was completely within their power to locate the corpse should it still have existed. Yet to their dismay, no such body was ever produced.

In addition to the hostile guards, Jesus’ followers likewise had no reason for hiding the corpse to pretend the resurrection. The dire consequences of their loyalty to Him included beating, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts.

Remember, these people went on to die grisly deaths as witnesses to the faith, in Rome, in Greece, in Turkey...How can you explain so many people all willingtodiee for what they know was false?

Legal scholar, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, writes:

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, [early Christians received] contempt, opposition ...and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate, and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only [continued] their work with increased vigor and resolution...The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of like heroic constancy... and unblenching courage...If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error…From these [considerations] there is no escape but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed...and well knew to be true.

It seems fantastical, yes. But I believe the evidence is compelling. Frank Morison, a lawyer and fanatical atheist, decided to write a book about the fakery of the resurrection, "Who moved the Stone", and as he wrote it, he gradually came to accept the Resurrection, and evenually, converted to Christianity.

I realise many need far more proof. However, itis wrong for comicboy to dissmiss contemeliously, and out of hand, all the evidence, when he clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

Little boy stick to the points in hand and stop being insulting please.
My point was valid and not in the least contemptious,if you wanna flame war then go to the relevant section. Show me an example of respected historians who support your view or just accept that you are wrong.

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm sorry...did you read the post?

William Edwards
N.T Wright
Dr. Lapide
Raymond Brown (a personal favorite)
Sir William Ramse
WF Albright
JB Philips
Just to name a few

[Frigidus]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

There are 3 very good reasons not to kill someone. 1. There is no reason to. 2. They might kill you back. 3. Killing doesn't feel good to me, because I have empathy for others.

Not for real believers. It's a good thing they have arbitrary books with unwarranted importance that tell them whether killing is groovy or not. I mean, come on. They can't even distinguish reality from fairy tales, something has to keep them in line.

Really though, at some point everyone has to decide what is right or wrong for themselves. I made up my own mind of whether or not killing for chuckles is good or bad, I'm human enough to do that myself.

[Frigidus]

Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?

In addition to the hostile guards, Jesus’ followers likewise had no reason for hiding the corpse to pretend the resurrection. The dire consequences of their loyalty to Him included beating, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts.

Remember, these people went on to die grisly deaths as witnesses to the faith, in Rome, in Greece, in Turkey...How can you explain so many people all willingtodiee for what they know was false?

Would this resurrection save their faith from a very likely demise (their leader was tortured and executed, not exactly a great selling point)? They had all the reasons in the world to do that, and if it meant a slight tweaking of reality, well, it's worth it.

[unriggable]

Evidence? They're stories, not history books. The only thing they have to proof is books. Not bones, nothing.

[Napoleon Ier]

Evidence? They're stories, not history books. The only thing they have to proof is books. Not bones, nothing.

Try and read the evidence though. The Bible is a historical source like any other, and genuine history books corroborate with it.

[Napoleon Ier]

Historical evidence for Jesus and His Resurrection?

In addition to the hostile guards, Jesus’ followers likewise had no reason for hiding the corpse to pretend the resurrection. The dire consequences of their loyalty to Him included beating, imprisonments, and even death. No sane person chooses these for what they know is false. Under such pressures liars confess their deceptions and betray their cohorts.

Remember, these people went on to die grisly deaths as witnesses to the faith, in Rome, in Greece, in Turkey...How can you explain so many people all willingtodiee for what they know was false?

Would this resurrection save their faith from a very likely demise (their leader was tortured and executed, not exactly a great selling point)? They had all the reasons in the world to do that, and if it meant a slight tweaking of reality, well, it's worth it.

These aren't a few disiples, there were hundreds. They all saw the same things, and they all died for what you claim they knew was perfectly false. Oh, and yeah, they managed to get past trained Roman guards, who just dissappeared(the authoritires would have said if the guards had been attacked).

[Napoleon Ier]

So you see already,even if it isn't completely watertight (what ancien historical theory is?) there's quite a few shreds of evidence.

[demon7896]

im happy u guys finally dropped abortion!!!!

[Napoleon Ier]

crucifiction

Oh dear. Embarassing typo...

[Frigidus]

crucifiction

Oh dear. Embarassing typo...

Quite appropriate considering the debate though.

[Napoleon Ier]

crucifiction

Oh dear. Embarassing typo...

Quite appropriate considering the debate though.

How do you mean?