Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Neoteny]

Ooh! Me!

Twice if you consider Christian to agnosticism and agnosticism to atheism.

[jonesthecurl]

I went from "of course, Jesus and all that", just as I was taught at school, to "Oh, yeah! Jesus!" after a stirring sermon, to "wtf, actually this is all nonsense" to "it's all nonsense". That's 4 times at least, to only hit the highlights.

[MeDeFe]

The Lionz/Neo/jones saga of this thread has actually been the most entertaining so far. What are you complaining about? Changing people's minds? Come on now.

john! You're back! Did you see my last reply to you?

[stahrgazer]

NY2,

Are the Dead Sea scrolls not at least 1,900 years old and can we not personally study Dead Sea scrolls ourselves? Then there is the LXX and more you should consider maybe. What's really been changed?

I am not sure how old the Dead Sea scrolls are but I believe they are at least that old. Do you? How did they arrive at that number? Carbon dating? Do you believe in carbon dating?
The Dead Sea scrolls were written I believe in a language or perhaps several languages that I think no longer exist, or at least the dialects used no longer exist. Who can today state the author's exact intent in a language unused for thousands of years? My point is not what is written, it is the translations and interpretations that I have issue with. You seem to have trouble grasping my point, or you are purposely avoiding it?

I agree with you here, notyou2; moreover, "biblical scholars" agree with you, which is why there are so many danged versions of THE Holy Bible (Catholic; New American, King James, just to name a few)

Also, most of those versions have chapters of the "new testament" that are pieced together from mixed translations of bits of letters people found, and peoples' memories of what someone said someone said someone heard someone say. (Whereas almost all the old testament is pieced together from mixed translations of peoples' memories of what someone said someone said someone said someone heard or observed).

[AAFitz]

I have a question. I think I know the answer, but im not sure.

How many people actually saw Jesus rise from the dead?

[Army of GOD]

None?

I mean, didn't a few of the disciples see him after he did when they were fishing?

[jonesthecurl]

The Lionz/Neo/jones saga of this thread has actually been the most entertaining so far. What are you complaining about? Changing people's minds? Come on now.

john! You're back! Did you see my last reply to you?

remind me.

[Imaweasel]

at least 515 peoples were recorded in the bible as seeing jesus after his resurection...probably more but thats around the number written down

[notyou2]

People have been seeing Jesus for two thousand years. More than any other dead person, but I think Elvis is catching up.

[Snorri1234]

at least 515 peoples were recorded in the bible as seeing jesus after his resurection...probably more but thats around the number written down

Man, thousands of people saw Achilles at the battle of Troy. Achilles is obviously far more worthy of our worship.

[jonesthecurl]

at least 515 peoples were recorded in the bible as seeing jesus after his resurection...probably more but thats around the number written down

Well, that's incontrovertible to all the non-believers.
It says it in the bible.

[john9blue]

john! You're back! Did you see my last reply to you?

Yeah I had sort of given up because we were going in circles. But a fresh look might be nice instead of the current existence of God debate.

Ok then. I'd call a description of a natural law a natural law. I'll disagree with these scientists, wherever they are.

Fair enough, but I think you don't realize the consequences of this. If natural laws are nothing more than descriptions of observed regularities that might or might not continue to hold in the future, and may or may not have held in the past before observation of them began, you don't have a leg to stand on if you make natural selection a basis of your argument.

Using that logic we can't use pretty much anything in our argument, because all of science is based on observation of phenomena and formation of natural laws. If we can apply NS to biology then why not apply it to human religion (which is younger than biology)?

No matter how often you repeat this mantra of yours, it's not going to become true. Two problems with it that you aparently don't even consider: Firstly, concepts only need to be good for a few individuals who help perpetuate them. Secondly, maybe not enough time has passed to weed it out.

True. I'm not proving religion is good though. I'm just saying it's likely. Why do you think I'm trying to prove stuff?

I know you aren't, and I'm not saying you're even trying to. I'm pointing out one of the flaws in your understanding of natural selection and why it can't be applied to memes and societies. Too bad you don't get it.

Religion is far too universal to be dismissed as the workings of a few individuals. And yes, maybe enough time hasn't passed yet. Maybe atheistic society is our destiny. But that concerns me because we seem to have gotten along fine with religion. Of course there are wars and witch hunts and such, but the fact remains that we have progressed dramatically in the past thousand or two years (compared to the rest of human history) with religion as a key part of society, and many modern atheist societies are no longer around.

Natural selection is not "about improving for the good of the population". It's not "about" anything. Natural selection is akin to slime mould taking on shapes that resemble the Tokyo subway system (link). Or to random numbers generating a picture resembling a tree. Natural selection is like the the arbitrary "order" (for lack of a better word) that arises in complex systems. Really, natural selection is not a force that drives the system, it is something that arises from the system.
This is why I say natural selection isn't like gravity. Gravity is only noticeable because of the interplay between different massive bodies, but even if there were only one massive body in the entire universe and no interplay at all there would be gravity.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is the result of the interplay between a variety of actors in a complex system. In other words: Natural selection is not a cause (like gravity), it is an effect.

I agree with this... but you said that NS did not have a direction... and the order that arises from a random complex system is definitely a "direction", because the organisms trend towards greater adaptability to their environment. Which is why I said if a society had no concept of God, and it made them more adaptable to their environment (in this case perhaps increasing a focus on science and progress) then they would still be here today. However, virtually all modern societies have their roots in civilizations that were religious.

There's no way to prove one way or the other. Looks like we have different ways of looking at society. I'd call your way ignorant and say you don't understand, but then I'd be stooping down to your intellectual level... This isn't a grade school playground, man!

"Stooping down"? Oh, I see, you've glued your feet to the cellar ceiling. Interesting perspective you've got there.

Look, I've provided you with several points of criticism for why your view of natural selection as a process with a direction is faulty, but you refuse to even think about them, much less respond to them. You backtracked so far on societies dying off that you effectively retracted your statements. You offer zero explanation for how you would even apply an emergent process like natural selection to socio-cultural entities like religion and lolcats. This is why I make such bold claims as

1. You do not understand natural selection.
2. You have a too weak grasp on formal logic to understand some of my criticisms.

I think I said earlier that I don't see lolcats as "harmful to society", and even if they were, the impact they have is hardly strong enough for natural selection to come into play (e.g. people who like lolcats being less successful and not reproducing or whatever). Religion is huge in most societies and would definitely affect how that society fared in the long run.

Also I think it's a stretch to call any of these arguments "formal logic" since we are merely speculating about religion's effects.

Complain about me only quoting half your posts all you want, I don't see why I should reply to words that have no content. Don't become conceited just because I give you some attention, though, your impact on me is like that of a child shooting at an aircraft carrier with a water pistol.

Sort of a random analogy...

[Army of GOD]

john! You're back! Did you see my last reply to you?

were going in circles.

*cough* *cough*

[stahrgazer]

Religion is far too universal to be dismissed as the workings of a few individuals. And yes, maybe enough time hasn't passed yet. Maybe atheistic society is our destiny. But that concerns me because we seem to have gotten along fine with religion. Of course there are wars and witch hunts and such, but the fact remains that we have progressed dramatically in the past thousand or two years (compared to the rest of human history) with religion as a key part of society, and many modern atheist societies are no longer around.

LMAO this is the funniest statement I've heard in... maybe EVER!

1. Religion is far from universal.
2. How can you say we progressed compared to the rest of human history because of religion? Are you SURE the cavemen didn't worship T-Rex, the Sun, or fire?
3. If we have wars and witch hunts, how can you say religion is a key part of society? (Most religions are anti-war; which means alot of society isn't religious enough to call it a key part.)

[Juan_Bottom]

We've only been doing modern science for like the past 200 years. This 200 years has given way to the age of the Atheist. 93-97% of even AMERICAN scientists are Atheists. Which is saying something, cause there are some nutters in this country.

Religion dies as people learn more about the world around them.

[Yoda Skywalker]

I can relate to that kid in someways.

[Imaweasel]

Welll heres an interesting point

1. Most people will never have the chance to observe evolution much less test it or view any "proofs" of it in their entire lives. Yet they accept what is taught to them by a group of elite scientists (who knows what their agenda might be)

Is not the "orign of species" just a book written by a man?

Why should we consider the "origin of species" as more truthful than the bible?

I am asking in all sincerity. Seriously you are saying the bible isn't crediblebecause it is religious. Why not?

All books are written for a purpose...the fact there is a religious motive in writting doesnt change the veracity of the book.


So While I am not saying the bible is true I AM saying you can't say that it is NOT true and that another book written by Darwin is true. You have every right to say something is true or not BUT you can't base the bible being not true solely on the fact its a religious text.

You can believe evolution or creation but you cant say (and claim to be objective and open to the truth) creation is false just because It is a religious belief. Just because something is religious doesn't make it untrue. If so we could say all the evolutionists who write about their finds just lie or hide evidence to support their theories.


At snori1234...yes thousands saw achilles(he never claimed to be God so no worship is needed) and some man wrote a story about it which is why we believe it and then we found evidence of the citys and the battle ect...

So along the same lines people saw the events that happened in the bible and wrote about them....Many things prophecied or written about in the bible actually happened and are being discovered through digs. At the very least the bible should be considered a in depth history of the jewish people an on par with other historical texts...


Juan I might disagree with you and say that more people dont believe in GOD the worse the world gets...Entropy...If we are getting so enlightened and all the world seems to be going to hell around us...

[joecoolfrog]

Religion originaly imposed order by means of fear, immorality being punished by a vengeful God, more recently it has stressed the rewards that goodness will bring in the afterlife but still with the implied threat that heaven will be denied to those without faith.
The challenge for a secular society is to maintain patterns of 'civilised ' behaviour once the fear of the unknown has been erradicated, given the overwhelming selfishness of western culture it is difficult to be optimistic in this regard.
Given this it probably is important that religion remains pivotal in the lives of many, especially those who are ill favoured by circumstance of birth, but it is essential that morality is the driving force rather than ritual and superstition.
Excessive Evangilism and Fundamentalism bring nothing good to the party, Young Earth Creationism and belief in Prophecy are not just nonsense but hinder scientific progress. At the end of the day it is not about who Jesus was or what he did, it is the message that is important not the messenger.
I think from a historical viewpoint the New Testament is a load of old tosh but as a guideline it is of great importance, being good to your fellow man makes one a good Christian not denying your kids a balanced education because the concept of evolution clashes with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

[john9blue]

To be perfectly honest Juan, it doesn't matter if most scientists decide they don't need religion. It doesn't even matter if (insert religion here) is truthful or not. As long as it serves greater society well, then it's worth having around, and the militant atheists have lost their case.

Welll heres an interesting point

1. Most people will never have the chance to observe evolution much less test it or view any "proofs" of it in their entire lives. Yet they accept what is taught to them by a group of elite scientists (who knows what their agenda might be)

Is not the "orign of species" just a book written by a man?

Why should we consider the "origin of species" as more truthful than the bible?

I am asking in all sincerity. Seriously you are saying the bible isn't crediblebecause it is religious. Why not?

All books are written for a purpose...the fact there is a religious motive in writting doesnt change the veracity of the book.


So While I am not saying the bible is true I AM saying you can't say that it is NOT true and that another book written by Darwin is true. You have every right to say something is true or not BUT you can't base the bible being not true solely on the fact its a religious text.

You can believe evolution or creation but you cant say (and claim to be objective and open to the truth) creation is false just because It is a religious belief. Just because something is religious doesn't make it untrue. If so we could say all the evolutionists who write about their finds just lie or hide evidence to support their theories.

It's possible to give credence to both books. It just takes a loose interpretation of the Bible. And there is a significant amount of evidence for Darwin's theories, whereas most of the Bible must be taken on faith. The two are not comparable...

[Imaweasel]

the point is not which book is right in my opinion john.

what I am trying to say is its very unprofessional and foolsih to discredit a book because it is religious.

In fact there is quite a bit of science in the bible. Just a few from an intersting site i found.
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... cience.cfm

1. - The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true - "He hangs the earth on nothing."

6. - Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

9. - Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled" and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" long before science understood its function.

14. - Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements - all of which are found in the earth.

18. - The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

9. - Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

22. - Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the "paths of the seas." In the 19th century Matthew Maury - the father of oceanography - after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury's data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

23. - Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that "he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body," and that those who commit homosexual sin would "receive in themselves" the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is unsafe

32. - Continental drift inferred (Genesis 7:11). Today the study of the ocean floor indicates that the landmasses have been ripped apart. Scripture states that during the global Flood the "fountains of the great deep were broken up." This cataclysmic event apparently resulted in the continental plates breaking and shifting.

37. - God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)


46. - The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God - resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is "grow(ing) old like a garment" (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.

51. - The sun goes in a circuit (Psalm 19:6). Some scientists scoffed at this verse thinking that it taught geocentricity - the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. They insisted the sun was stationary. However, we now know that the sun is traveling through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is literally moving through space in a huge circuit - just as the Bible stated 3,000 years ago!

59. - Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established "a weight for the wind." In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

74. - Cavemen described in the Bible (Job 30:1-8). Four thousand years ago, Job describes certain "vile men" who were driven from society to forage "among the bushes" for survival and who "live in the clefts of the valleys, (and) in caves of the earth and the rocks." Therefore "cavemen" were simply outcasts and vagabounds - not our primitive ancestors as evolutionists speculate.

86. - The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.


If you read this and do not admit the Bible has significant facts in it than you choose to remain blinded and uneducated. Perhaps you do not believe in religion and all it entails but the fact is this book the bible had some increadible truths written in it.


28. - Rejecting the Creator results in moral depravity (Romans 1:20-32). The Bible warns that when mankind rejects the overwhelming evidence for a Creator, lawlessness will result. Since the theory of evolution has swept the globe, abortion, pornography, genocide, etc., have all risen sharply.

[MatYahu]

This chart may be helpful when considering what writtings may be authentic. Not many historians deny Yahushua was a historical figure, but there is a small minority that does. I believe if one believes someone like Marc Antony existed, they should also believe Yahushua did..

Manuscript Evidence for Ancient Writings

Author Written Earliest Copy Time Span # Mss.
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 yrs 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs 7
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 yrs 8
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 yrs 20
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-50 yrs 24,000

[BigBallinStalin]

Seriously, I'm hoping that all the religions just go away so that we can then covet thy neighbour's wife without repercussions.

WHOA! This one needs another look-see.

I fully agree. Who dare disagrees with this man??

[jonesthecurl]

Can we stop a moment here: there have been a lot of threads about "God says this" vs "I'm an atheist, whoo-hoo."

Can we try to get back to the title of the thread?

And, if we're gonna have a reasonable discussion, one thing at a time please.

These threads when they work best are like a conversation: you don't get ten minutes of monologue followed by ten minutes of rebuttal in a conversation.

OK: I'll start by posing a question, the answer to which has been implied or implicitly stated by several posters (both for and against): Is the existence of the Bible in and of itself proof that there is necessarily a Creator of the Universe which has to be the God depicted in the Bible?

[MeDeFe]

john! You're back! Did you see my last reply to you?

Yeah I had sort of given up because we were going in circles. But a fresh look might be nice instead of the current existence of God debate.

Ok then. I'd call a description of a natural law a natural law. I'll disagree with these scientists, wherever they are.

Fair enough, but I think you don't realize the consequences of this. If natural laws are nothing more than descriptions of observed regularities that might or might not continue to hold in the future, and may or may not have held in the past before observation of them began, you don't have a leg to stand on if you make natural selection a basis of your argument.

Using that logic we can't use pretty much anything in our argument, because all of science is based on observation of phenomena and formation of natural laws. If we can apply NS to biology then why not apply it to human religion (which is younger than biology)?

No matter how often you repeat this mantra of yours, it's not going to become true. Two problems with it that you aparently don't even consider: Firstly, concepts only need to be good for a few individuals who help perpetuate them. Secondly, maybe not enough time has passed to weed it out.

True. I'm not proving religion is good though. I'm just saying it's likely. Why do you think I'm trying to prove stuff?

I know you aren't, and I'm not saying you're even trying to. I'm pointing out one of the flaws in your understanding of natural selection and why it can't be applied to memes and societies. Too bad you don't get it.

Religion is far too universal to be dismissed as the workings of a few individuals. And yes, maybe enough time hasn't passed yet. Maybe atheistic society is our destiny. But that concerns me because we seem to have gotten along fine with religion. Of course there are wars and witch hunts and such, but the fact remains that we have progressed dramatically in the past thousand or two years (compared to the rest of human history) with religion as a key part of society, and many modern atheist societies are no longer around.

Natural selection is not "about improving for the good of the population". It's not "about" anything. Natural selection is akin to slime mould taking on shapes that resemble the Tokyo subway system (link). Or to random numbers generating a picture resembling a tree. Natural selection is like the the arbitrary "order" (for lack of a better word) that arises in complex systems. Really, natural selection is not a force that drives the system, it is something that arises from the system.
This is why I say natural selection isn't like gravity. Gravity is only noticeable because of the interplay between different massive bodies, but even if there were only one massive body in the entire universe and no interplay at all there would be gravity.
Natural selection, on the other hand, is the result of the interplay between a variety of actors in a complex system. In other words: Natural selection is not a cause (like gravity), it is an effect.

I agree with this... but you said that NS did not have a direction... and the order that arises from a random complex system is definitely a "direction", because the organisms trend towards greater adaptability to their environment. Which is why I said if a society had no concept of God, and it made them more adaptable to their environment (in this case perhaps increasing a focus on science and progress) then they would still be here today. However, virtually all modern societies have their roots in civilizations that were religious.

There's no way to prove one way or the other. Looks like we have different ways of looking at society. I'd call your way ignorant and say you don't understand, but then I'd be stooping down to your intellectual level... This isn't a grade school playground, man!

"Stooping down"? Oh, I see, you've glued your feet to the cellar ceiling. Interesting perspective you've got there.

Look, I've provided you with several points of criticism for why your view of natural selection as a process with a direction is faulty, but you refuse to even think about them, much less respond to them. You backtracked so far on societies dying off that you effectively retracted your statements. You offer zero explanation for how you would even apply an emergent process like natural selection to socio-cultural entities like religion and lolcats. This is why I make such bold claims as

1. You do not understand natural selection.
2. You have a too weak grasp on formal logic to understand some of my criticisms.

I think I said earlier that I don't see lolcats as "harmful to society", and even if they were, the impact they have is hardly strong enough for natural selection to come into play (e.g. people who like lolcats being less successful and not reproducing or whatever). Religion is huge in most societies and would definitely affect how that society fared in the long run.

Also I think it's a stretch to call any of these arguments "formal logic" since we are merely speculating about religion's effects.

Complain about me only quoting half your posts all you want, I don't see why I should reply to words that have no content. Don't become conceited just because I give you some attention, though, your impact on me is like that of a child shooting at an aircraft carrier with a water pistol.

Sort of a random analogy...

You had actually already replied to that post on page 9, my reply to your reply is on page 11.

[stahrgazer]

OK: I'll start by posing a question, the answer to which has been implied or implicitly stated by several posters (both for and against): Is the existence of the Bible in and of itself proof that there is necessarily a Creator of the Universe which has to be the God depicted in the Bible?

No.
The God depicted in the bible could be a form of parable. Jesus, the "son of god" of the bible is credited as saying he's both the son of man and the son of God, and that all are his brothers.. implies to me, that all of us can be equal to him. But how does someone get another to believe that a particular lifestyle is good? Can you do it by pointing out sameness? Less likely, than pointing out some difference that rather elevates the one who has a good idea. And how does one get across to people thousands of years ago that there's some "may the force be with you" running through us causing life, but also linking us in some way that isn't as tangible to the five recognized physical senses? Isn't it easier to make up some even more supreme supreme entity, some father of all, to whom people should aspire to go home? So, the story-like idea of a supreme father of all, and an elevated son, and a home called heaven, makes the idea of "treat people and animals well," more easily interpreted. Sort of an Aesop's fable.
But just as the fact that Aesop probably made up the details of the tortoise and the hare; just because that famous race probably never really took place; just because some of the specific details layed out in the bible to explain 'miraculous events' might have been made up, misconstrued, or distorted.... doesn't bely the main points that "slow and steady wins a race," (stay determined and focused even when the chips are down,) and "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself: (treat people well and with love rather than hate) are good life philosophies that cleanse our soul and make us more able to tap into that universal force that the bible depicts as an entity named God.