Post Any Evidence For God Here

[jonesthecurl]

Nice answer.
I read a book some years ago (I have no idea of title or author) with a simlar theme, but more detailed: the reasons for "religious" rules were, it posited, because these were things which there were very practical reasons for, but the divine authority gave them an impact great enough so they wouldn't be ignored. I remember only two examples offhand - circumcision (people cut off their kids foreskins, even though it might mean they bleed to death, because "God says so") prevents haemophiliacs from surviving and breeding; and the Hinu rule against eating beef means that, even in times of dreadful famine, the peasants don't eat the animals which will pull the ploughs etc. when the time comes.

I'll put you in the "no, but" camp.

[tzor]

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

How many people actually saw Jesus rise from the dead?

Assuming all reports are correct … none?

After all, according to all reports he was buried in this hillside tomb with the stone covered. The stone was not rolled away until after he was resurrected. So no one was inside the tomb at the time and no one saw him rise from the dead.

Now many people saw him after he had risen from the dead, but that was not the question you asked, was it?

[Imaweasel]

I believe that the evidence of scientific facts recorded in the bible long before they were discovered by modern science and there is also no possible way the men of the bible could have had knowledge of these facts with out some sort of divine influence

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.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's not science at all. There's not even any quantitative data and experiments backing up the hypothesis.

All that is is just some generalized statement, which is later interpreted by someone else to mean something else...

I could do the same by writing a book of very generalized statements without really stating when any of them are going to happen and not get to ANY detail whatsoever, and over the course of 2000 years I'll be correct according to some guy who just reinterprets my vague statements' meanings--this process being called science, by your defintion). And since my general statements are absolutely true, I must have been divinely inspired. Which is BS because all I did was write some vague, open-ended sentences in a book and had some crazy man reinterrupt them to fit the times.

[Neoteny]

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

were going in circles.

*cough* *cough*

My least favorite contributions to these things are the people who just point out that nobody ever changes their minds. I've been doing this for years. I'm not trying to change anyone, I'm just having fun.

[Imaweasel]

That's not science at all. There's not even any quantitative data and experiments backing up the hypothesis.

All that is is just some generalized statement, which is later interpreted by someone else to mean something else...

I could do the same by writing a book of very generalized statements without really stating when any of them are going to happen and not get to ANY detail whatsoever, and over the course of 2000 years I'll be correct according to some guy who just reinterprets my vague statements' meanings--this process being called science, by your defintion). And since my general statements are absolutely true, I must have been divinely inspired. Which is BS because all I did was write some vague, open-ended sentences in a book and had some crazy man reinterrupt them to fit the times.

i beg to differ that it is science and that all those things have been proven true. The only way those facts could be recorded in a book so old is if God put them there...but since its a religious text its obviously not science.

[Army of GOD]

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

were going in circles.

*cough* *cough*

My least favorite contributions to these things are the people who just point out that nobody ever changes their minds. I've been doing this for years. I'm not trying to change anyone, I'm just having fun.

*cough!* *coughcoughcough!* *cough[alittleblood]*

[BigBallinStalin]

That's not science at all. There's not even any quantitative data and experiments backing up the hypothesis.

All that is is just some generalized statement, which is later interpreted by someone else to mean something else...

I could do the same by writing a book of very generalized statements without really stating when any of them are going to happen and not get to ANY detail whatsoever, and over the course of 2000 years I'll be correct according to some guy who just reinterprets my vague statements' meanings--this process being called science, by your defintion). And since my general statements are absolutely true, I must have been divinely inspired. Which is BS because all I did was write some vague, open-ended sentences in a book and had some crazy man reinterrupt them to fit the times.

i beg to differ that it is science and that all those things have been proven true. The only way those facts could be recorded in a book so old is if God put them there...but since its a religious text its obviously not science.

What a blockhead.

I've made my point, and all you said is NO and then repeat your nonsense.

[Lionz]

Jones,

One thing discussed per post might lead to quite a bit of posts and things being even less organized. What do you ask of me?

I'm dreaming in a Matrix while being filmed for the Truman Show for all I know and I can't even prove to myself that I was born in 1983 maybe, but how about we attempt to weigh evidence together?

Does Bode's Law not give a calculation for distance from the sun within .08 AU for seven or more heavenly bodies? If that's the case, how likely is that to be purely coincidental? Whether or not anyone can prove anything, is Bode's Law not at the very least evidence for planets being placed by someone with intelligence and evidence against the Solar System originating solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles? If you claim it's not, can you define evidence for me?

Is there anyone who apparently did not write about Him that you would have expected to have done so if He existed? Are Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Lucian of Samosata not all examples of individuals who wrote of Him that are not considered Christian by you? Are He and Mary not even mentioned in the Talmud? Whether blasphemously mentioned or not? Any reason why He would be mentioned in the Talmud if He never existed?

How long have you spent looking at a great pyramid timeline diagram? See blue lines leading to intersections? Are you aware of numbers themselves lying regardless of what I personally think about anything? Do you want to know where any date comes from?

Does scripture not suggest demonic spirits have roamed earth?

Who holds that Matthew, John, Peter and James did not write anything in the so called NT and also is considered a Bible scholar by you? And what was actually written in Greek? Search Aramaic primacy in a search engine maybe.

MeDeFe,

There are certain kinds of a creatures who were created and they have brought forth variety after their kinds perhaps. What suggests dogs and bananas have common ancestory whether natural selection helps animals bring forth variety after kinds or not?

And did I bring up watches and attempt to make an argument in support of Him by claiming watches obviously have makers? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

Does Bode's Law not give a calculation for distances from the sun within .08 AU for seven or more heavenly bodies? If that's the case, how likely is that to be purely coincidental? Whether or not anyone can prove anything, is Bode's Law not at the very least evidence for planets being placed by someone with intelligence and evidence against the Solar System originating solely by the action of gravity on a random distribution of dust particles? If you claim it's not, can you define evidence for me?

The LXX and the Dead Sea scrolls exist and you have one or more argument concerning prophecy that would be stronger if that was not the case perhaps. When do they date to?

Frigidus and Juan,

If you had a million cockroaches and you sprayed pesticide on them and it killed all but a hundred of them it would be because the hundred already had a resistance built into them in the first place maybe. When is new information added?

Even if RNA transcription errors have led to beneficial mutations in regards to surviving and reproducing, there were certain kinds of animals created by Him who later brought forth variety after their kinds maybe. Who theorizes that wolves and coyotes do not have common ancestory? But what's evidence that wolves and coyotes share common ancestory with daiseys?

What if horses and donkeys are descendants of an original kind of animal that branched out? And there ended up being a change in chromosome count for one or more isolated population as a result of one or more mutation? What would that say about whether or not horses and donkeys share common ancestory with turtles even if that's the case?

Neoteny,

If the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust some 4.6 billion years ago and then life developed on earth over a billion years later, did usable energy come to earth at some point in between? If non-life to life would not be a decrease in entropy, then what is?

If all life that has ever existed shares a common single celled ancestor, then how many times has abiogenesis occured?

What does plate tectonics have to do with evolution?

How about we discuss the Carbon-14 method? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=12

I grew up in a family that you would consider more of a meshy new age and eastern spirituality type family than church type family perhaps. I got more and more interested in various things including witchcraft at one or more point in life and yet am not sure if there has ever been a time that I have not believed deep down there was a supreme Creator who created me maybe.

BBS,

How do you define the word evidence if you do a certain way?

Maybe you should study with a concordance and I am not sure what is supposed to be said anywhere, but does that not have to do with kings and rulers taking counsel together against Yah and a Mashiach? Ones intending to attempt to break free from one or more thing having to do with Him?

NY2,

80 to 85 percent of the Dead Sea scrolls are written in one of three dialects of Hebrew and there are additionally some scrolls written in Aramaic and Koine Greek maybe. Anything not counting Hebrew or Aramaic or Koine Greek?

Neither you or I are convinced there is a good scripture translation anywhere perhaps, but what do we need to rely on to study scripture at this point in time?

Textual analysis and handwriting analysis and carbon dating have been used to date the Dead Sea scrolls maybe, but you might want to check this out... http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/s ... 144740.htm

Also, ... http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=12

Tzor,

Would all things anywhere not include the multiverse if there is such a thing?

Stahrgazer,

Who holds that Matthew, John, Peter and James did not write anything in the so called NT? And do you mean to suggest that there is something in the so called OT that was not originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic? How about not counting Daniel? That MIGHT include one or more word that's neither Hebrew or Aramaic.

[jonesthecurl]

I can't come back on all that nonsense at once.

[jonesthecurl]

Let's take this bit first.

How long have you spent looking at a great pyramid timeline diagram? See blue lines leading to intersections? Are you aware of numbers themselves lying regardless of what I personally think about anything? Do you want to know where any date comes from?

Your suggestion would seem to be that this line proves the existence of God because it's old and in some way a prophecy.
Did God appear to the architect and gie him the straight dope on the future then?

'cos if he did, all the guy did with it was to put a wavy line on a wall. He didn't for instance run out shouting "I've just met the creator of the entire universe and he he showed me the future for the next 7000 years! And It's Jahweh, not Ra or Amon! Repent and stop building those useless bloody pyramids and listen to the word of God! "


...whch would have been a reasonable reaction.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny,

If the earth cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust some 4.6 billion years ago and then life developed on earth over a billion years later, did usable energy come to earth at some point in between? If non-life to life would not be a decrease in entropy, then what is?

Like I said, usable energy before sunlight was harnessed was probably derived from chemical reactions (fueled by lightning, for example) and geothermal energy in deep sea vents and volcanoes. I do agree that non-life to life represents a local decrease in entropy, though the energy used to create it (chemical reactions/geothermal/whatever) when included in the equation will indicate a net gain of entropy.

If all life that has ever existed shares a common single celled ancestor, then how many times has abiogenesis occured?

I dunno, and I don't think anyone would put money on an exact number other than "at least one time." A single time does seem more parsimonious, but I don't think it's necessary.

What does plate tectonics have to do with evolution?

Well, it's tangentially related, as it could hypothetically be an isolating factor for speciation. I used it more as an example of other things some theists do not accept as valid.

How about we discuss the Carbon-14 method? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=12

Hey! A UGA fan! I'll save the Ugga jokes for another time.

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

This looks like Answers in Genesis. Allow me to point out the flaws I see.

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

This is pretty ok, I guess, but it goes off a bit from here.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

This is false. The ratio is assumed to be constant because carbon-14 is created at a certain rate, and decays at a certain rate. This has nothing to do with evolution, or even billions of years. The article itself states that C14 dating is useless beyond 80,000 years (really closer to 60,000). This argument doesn't make much sense.

Assumptions are important, but assumptions in science tend to be based on reasonable evidence. If you can't disprove the evidence that backs up the assumption (constant rates of decay, and calibrated knowledge of rates of production) then the assumption holds quite a bit of weight.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

It's not particularly troubling because we know what affects that equilibrium and have developed curves that correct for the non-constant atmosphere that are based on calibration with texts, geological strata, dendrochronology, and other types of radiometric dating. Even if we didn't have the calibration curves, there would only be an increased margin of error; it would be more difficult to pinpoint exactly when an organism died, but it would still measure back to a reasonable amount of time.

Additionally, I haven't read Libby's original article, but I don't think anyone today, or likely back then, expects a completely stable equilibrium (especially with our current output of CO2). This seems like a straw man, but if Libby really did think this, then he was wrong. Sun output itself is not constant, so it's not to be assumed that creation of C14 will be.

The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

This is purely conjecture based on nothing but the Bible. There is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood, so the assumption that this conjecture is founded on is invalid.

I grew up in a family that you would consider more of a meshy new age and eastern spirituality type family than church type family perhaps. I got more and more interested in various things including witchcraft at one or more point in life and yet am not sure if there has ever been a time that I have not believed deep down there was a supreme Creator who created me maybe.

That's cool. If I had to pick a religion, I would make something up with Norse mythology. I think this may have been more of a reply to Jones though.

I can't come back on all that nonsense at once.

I can.

[stahrgazer]

That's not science at all. There's not even any quantitative data and experiments backing up the hypothesis.

All that is is just some generalized statement, which is later interpreted by someone else to mean something else...

I could do the same by writing a book of very generalized statements without really stating when any of them are going to happen and not get to ANY detail whatsoever, and over the course of 2000 years I'll be correct according to some guy who just reinterprets my vague statements' meanings--this process being called science, by your defintion). And since my general statements are absolutely true, I must have been divinely inspired. Which is BS because all I did was write some vague, open-ended sentences in a book and had some crazy man reinterrupt them to fit the times.

You're basing this on a false assumption: that no one ever gave the details. Since not all the material survived from that era, can you prove the details never existed? As more modern examples, we use equations to discuss geometric features. Those equations have been proofed time and again; but you do not necessarily see all those proofs every time the equations are used. Eons from now, if some cataclysmic event ever destroys 99.999% of our material, all that may be left is a single sentence about the diameter of a circle, not the data that proves the equations, or the numerical value for pi.
A better example could be, science has told us that we should use soap and wash our hands to eradicate germs. Scientists have found the germs, and tests have been performed that show the validity of it, but when we teach our children, do we include all the proof? No, we don't. We simply say, "wash your hands after you pee and before you eat." Similar 'laws' can be found throughout the bible (don't eat pork, it's unclean - trichinosis?) like the "beef" example given below. What about the Jewish (orthodox) idea of not bathing the calf in its milk (don't eat beef and dairy in the same meal) - now we know that beef, cheese, and milk in a single meal can really up the cholesterol levels in the body, among other things, so isn't very healthy to do.

I can't prove that no one was ever given the reasons "not to" and neither can you...but what has survived is the moral of the stories.

And the question remains, as was pointed out: since science wasn't advanced enough to tell them these things, how DID they know? Divine inspiration? Can't you call that "god" and not have to put a face or figure to it?

[nietzsche]

25 fucking pages of this???

I demand a mod to close this thread. There's no such fucking thing as evidence for god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do we have to do to have this thread locked?

Are you afraid or death? "To die is only not to be", your "soul" goes nowhere, it dies with your body. Does nothingness provoke you anxiety? Well, embrace it!!

Don't fucking come to me with fairy tales, the jews killed jesus, but jesus was a jew, ala will give you 200000 virgins if you attach 10 pounds of explosives and explode yourself in front of a school. And if you say jehova I'll stone you to death.

[notyou2]

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?

No the existence of a book is not proof there is a god. The book was written by the hand of man (men). If the book was written by god, then that's different and would be proof. Now the religious amongst us will tell you that god wrote the book by guiding the hand of the scribe. If I wanted to control everything you do and make you live your life to my designs, then I would tell you that god wrote the book by guiding my hand, and hopefully you would obey, or at least some of you. Now that I have some followers, I would say that god told me to kill all the non-believers, obey god's command.Pretty soon the other religions would be gone or driven underground.

[jonesthecurl]

now this bit:

And did I bring up watches and attempt to make an argument in support of Him by claiming watches obviously have makers? Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

I know you said nothing about watchmakers, but I assumed (as have other posters) that you'd understand the reference.

The most famous version of the teleological argument for god (look at this complicated stuff - it can't be pure chance is commonly known as "the warchmaker argument" after it's 19th century formulation by a guy called (I think) Paley.

Most of your argument is along the same lines.

[jonesthecurl]

Does scripture not suggest demonic spirits have roamed earth?

Yes it does.
but, gasp, I DON"T BELIEVE IN YOUR SCRIPTURES!!!!

Here you go with your circular logic again:

scripture tells us about devils
god inspired the scriptures
therefore devils are real
devils prove, um, god is real or something

(sorry, I lost track of yourrgument at that point)

[pimpdave]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but one of the absolute scariest things I can think of is demonic possession.

That might have something to do with something.

[jonesthecurl]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but one of the absolute scariest things I can think of is demonic possession.

That might have something to do with something.

one of the scariest things I can imagine is people who believe in demonic possession.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's not science at all. There's not even any quantitative data and experiments backing up the hypothesis.

All that is is just some generalized statement, which is later interpreted by someone else to mean something else...

I could do the same by writing a book of very generalized statements without really stating when any of them are going to happen and not get to ANY detail whatsoever, and over the course of 2000 years I'll be correct according to some guy who just reinterprets my vague statements' meanings--this process being called science, by your defintion). And since my general statements are absolutely true, I must have been divinely inspired. Which is BS because all I did was write some vague, open-ended sentences in a book and had some crazy man reinterrupt them to fit the times.

You're basing this on a false assumption: that no one ever gave the details. Since not all the material survived from that era, can you prove the details never existed? As more modern examples, we use equations to discuss geometric features. Those equations have been proofed time and again; but you do not necessarily see all those proofs every time the equations are used. Eons from now, if some cataclysmic event ever destroys 99.999% of our material, all that may be left is a single sentence about the diameter of a circle, not the data that proves the equations, or the numerical value for pi.
A better example could be, science has told us that we should use soap and wash our hands to eradicate germs. Scientists have found the germs, and tests have been performed that show the validity of it, but when we teach our children, do we include all the proof? No, we don't. We simply say, "wash your hands after you pee and before you eat." Similar 'laws' can be found throughout the bible (don't eat pork, it's unclean - trichinosis?) like the "beef" example given below. What about the Jewish (orthodox) idea of not bathing the calf in its milk (don't eat beef and dairy in the same meal) - now we know that beef, cheese, and milk in a single meal can really up the cholesterol levels in the body, among other things, so isn't very healthy to do.

I can't prove that no one was ever given the reasons "not to" and neither can you...but what has survived is the moral of the stories.

And the question remains, as was pointed out: since science wasn't advanced enough to tell them these things, how DID they know? Divine inspiration? Can't you call that "god" and not have to put a face or figure to it?

How did they know what? Someone wrote a vague statement, even an educated guess, and then someone later (10 years ago) write a short paragraph on his interpretation of the vague statement.

And you're only looking at a group of statements. How many of those are wrong? And in what context were those statements written? For all you know, they could've been discussing the contents inside a jar or wondering when James is going to stop fucking around in the sea with his nets and actually bring in some fish this time...

[BigBallinStalin]

J
BBS,

How do you define the word evidence if you do a certain way?

Maybe you should study with a concordance and I am not sure what is supposed to be said anywhere, but does that not have to do with kings and rulers taking counsel together against Yah and a Mashiach? Ones intending to attempt to break free from one or more thing having to do with Him?

Let's go with something that furnishes proof. But either way, in the end all your talking doesn't lead you any closer to there being or not being a God. Sure, there are indications that can be construed as evidence for God, but that alone is insufficient.

[Lionz]

Jones,

Who knows what happened for sure, but what if the Father Himself designed the great pyramid? I'd like to learn more about sections called Job 38:4-7 and Isaiah 19:19-20 maybe.

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/job38.htm

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa19.htm

What suggests to you that Khufu had it built if something does?

You replied to one or more thing not directed at you like it was directed at you maybe.

Did you not say this in parenthesis earlier...

how does that one fit in with the bible anyhow? aren't they all in heaven or hell or purgatory or simply awaiting the resurrection according to which sect you're in?

Does scripture not suggest demonic spirits have roamed earth? I responded to stuff said by you and you figured I was claiming one or more thing I was not claiming maybe.

Neo,

GT guy? : )

What would lightning or geothermal energy have to do with earth getting a gain in usable energy from an external source?

Would all life that has Ever existed all sharing one ancestor not naturally mean that life hasn't come from non-life more than once in the past?

Is there a production rate of carbon-14 in the atmosphere that's been constant for millions of years regardless of what is and is not happening now? You yourself figure it is not to be assumed that creation of carbon-14 will be constant maybe. Have fossils of trees not been found on Antartica? What if there was a water canopy around earth that no longer exists?

What is meant by calibration of texts if you said that?

There's evidence that suggests Charles Lyell was not the biggest fan of religion ever and we can read stuff at least subtly attacking religion even in a book written by him that's called Principles of Geology maybe.

Did individuals not give layers a name and an age and one or more index fossil and are index fossils not used to determine layers? Maybe society in general has one or more incorrect understanding about the so called geologic column and there is limestone and shale and sandstone found at various layers in the earth. Would dating stata by fossils and fossils by strata not be a prime example of circular reasoning?

How does dendrochronology back up the carbon-14 method if it does somehow?

Want to discuss uranium-lead radiometric dating? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... stcount=90

Is there no geologic evidence for an earthwide flood? http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... 447&page=2

You were suggesting that quite a bit of individuals are raised into religion that they stick with maybe.

NY2,

How many wrote the Quran? One individual? How many wrote the so called OT and NT? Forty plus?

Big,

You suggest we define evidence as something that furnishes proof? I can't even prove whether or not I was born in 1983 maybe.

[Lionz]

MeDeFe,

This might come in handy...

[jonesthecurl]

Are you suggesting that the pyramid was not built as a tomb?
I've been in it, and seen the chamber where the body was put.
Why would "the Father Himself" design something full of paraphenalia for survinving in the afterlife when you're judged by Anubis?

[Lionz]

Has a dead body or gold ever been found in the great pyramid? And what paraphenalia do you refer to if there is some?

The word ark comes from the Hebrew word aron, which means a chest, box. Its dimensions are described by the bible as 2.5 cubits by 1.5 cubits by 1.5 cubits (45 inches by 27 inches by 27 inches). Curiously, this is the exact volume of the stone chest or porphyry coffer in the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid in Egypt. This coffer was the only object within the King's Chamber, as the Ark was the single sacred object within the Holy of Holies, in the Temple. Also the laver, or basin, that the priests used to wash their feet had the identical cubit dimensions.

In addition, the cubit dimensions of the inner chamber of the Temple, the Holy of Holies, are precisely identical in size to the King's Chamber in the Pyramid and the same volume as the molten sea of water on the Temple Mount as prepared by King Solomon. Since the Pyramid was built and sealed long before the days of Moses, when he built the Ark and the Holy of Holies, and had remained sealed for over twenty-five centuries until the ninth century after Christ, there is no natural explanation for the phenomenon of both structures having identical volume measurements.