Subjective Evidence of Gods

Hello every one. I hope you have all been doing well. Straggler you didn't post any of Chuck 77's comments so I am assuming you are talking about something like eyewitness testimony here. If so and so says they saw a space ship land in their back yard that's pretty subjective I think. However we can't discount subjective evidence simply because it is subjective. This kind of evidence is used all the time in our legal system. The more extraordinary the testimony is then I would say the more extraordinary the corroborating evidence needs to be.How many other people saw the space ship? How well did all the witnesses hold up under strong interrogation? Did all there testimonies basically agree without seeming too much like collusion? What mental state are the witnesses in? These questions all play a very important part in analyzing subjective evidence.Take for example the story of the resurrection of Jesus. The first question of how many claimed to see it? Over 500 people claimed they saw Jesus alive again for a period of 40 days after the crucifixion. And not just outsiders, but his closest followers- which would make an imposter hypothesis not plausible. The next question, how well did they hold up to strong interrogation? They were exposed to the most extreme form of interrogation possible, and they and their families were threatened to be tortured to death if they didn't recant their claims. They chose death. Since its unlikely you would ever find that many people willing to die for what they knew to be false (martyrs make terrible liars) this would seem to eliminate the possibility of collusion. Finally, since the possibility that maybe 500 people all had a mental hallucination simultaneously, is a bigger miracle than the actual resurrection, It's not likely they were all mental.The only conclusion based on the "subjective evidence" is that the event occurred.

Don't you think that a person claiming to have actually been the one to have seen the resurrected Jesus, would know if he or she was telling the truth or lying? Suppose I told you I had a "Bigfoot" sighting 3 years ago while I was camping in Yellow Stone National Park. Do you think I would know if I were telling the truth or not? Unless I was completely schizophrenic I would know the truth beyond all doubt. People are often confusing your "normal run of the mill martyrs," with actual first hand eye witnesses. There is a very big difference. Those people were not just dying for what they "believed," but for what they were claiming they actually saw.

Let's look at this comment first. You said, "different Christian religions," as if to imply irreconcilable differences. Is that what you meant to imply? That would be like trying to say don't buy your gas at Quik Trip because there are so many Quik Trips, who's got the "real gas?" The fact of the matter is that they are all selling the same quality of gas. There are only minor differences in the style and layout of the different stores which doesn't effect the main and plain thing. Likewise if they are really "Christian" (meaning followers of Christ) then they all have the same thing. The differences are all minor things that don't effect the main and plain thing. Your absolutely right. But Straggler asked for some examples of subjective evidence for God and I provided one. It's "subjective" in that we can't physically examine it. However we cannot just dismiss it either, because so many who made the claim seemed so willing to suffer so extreme for what they claimed they saw. In my analogy of the space ship, it employed a single historical event. Whereas your "editing" of my analogy seems to incorporate many historical events over vast and various times.If you want to discuss a topic on the inconsistencies and fallacies of various religious claims, then I suggest you consider starting such a thread.

Sure, for starters though lets unpack your multifaceted question into bits that can be chewed up. So since you first seem to reject the Bible's authorship, let me ask you a simple question. If I told you that the works of Homer of Iliad were all actually really written much later by an unknown author, then wouldn't you require (no expect) me to support my claims with documented evidence? The answer is, of course you would. So I expect the same courtesy. If you have evidence that the Bible was written by "an unknown source," then please do tell.Of course you have a big task at hand. First you have to explain away the evidence that says it (NT) had to have been written in the first century, within 30 years of the actual events? Evidence such as the thousands of manuscript copies that date as early as within 65 years, and spread so vastly around the world. Or the fact that the text has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple 40 years before it happened, yet makes no mention of its actual fulfillment. (Liars trying to propagate a new faith most certainly would have mentioned such a grand fulfillment.) So if you are unable to show that it was really written much later, then you must now explain why something so openly proclaimed, does not have a single piece of writing from that time period referencing any refutations of it as all lies or at least inaccurate? Not one. And also you have to explain away the extra-Biblical sources that collaborate with the officially accepted authorship? Also I would point out that these types of evidences are what historians use all the time to piece together other ancient texts. To exclude the validity of any of these tests, of authenticity and authorship simply because they also support the Bibles authorship, is just plain intellectual suicide.Next your comments suggest that the witnesses didn't really die for what they claimed, implies that the authors lied or embellished the story. Here's an analogy to help point out the problem here. If I claimed that last week I was on the court with Lakers NBA player Matt Barnes, and I smoked him... don't you think that there would be plenty of people who would stand up and say, "No, it didn't ever happen!"? The problem with lying about current events is the fact that they are still current. If I were preaching this lie in every town and city I came to, then I think there would be plenty of news papers making my lie very well known. But if it did happen then not a single refutation would emerge. So if the apostles were preaching and writing that eye witnesses who observed the resurrection were being executed, I think the people of the time would have said, "No, it never happened." But they didn't. In fact there are plenty of extra-Biblical sources from the first century that attest to the fact that the Christians were being executed. Not even a single record of one backing down and saying he or she lied.Thirdly you implied that you reject some sources. I would ask which specifically (name a couple commonly used) and why? Then I would ask if you use the same scrutiny on all ancient pieces of literature?

Hey Joseph, I like your thinking here. Would you call the fact that no one has ever observed something come from nothing, a scientific observation? Anything that has a beginning is by definition "finite." So since the universe began, as you so aptly pointed out, this means the universe came from something else. If there were ever a time when there were absolutely "nothing" then nothing would still be here because something cannot come from nothing. So the fact that something finite is here now tells us clearly that something infinite must exist from which the finite originated. Wouldn't you say we could arrive at that conclusion based on "scientific" observation?However that still leaves us wrestling with the question of, "What is It?" What is that infinite "thing" from which the universe sprang? Is there another observation that can be drawn from science that can help? For example is "IT" just a mindless force of infinite energy like on Star Wars (the force be with you Luke. Lol) Or does "IT" possess intelligence. This must be important when discussing evidence for God because the most basic of human definitions of God is: a supreme, infinite, intelligent creator of the universe. Without proving intelligence we are left with a mindless "force."So this means we need to know a clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence. Something that works in all situations no matter what. Well how about we take a look at what scientists already use as their "intelligence detector." For example marine biologists use specific patterns in dolphin communication to determine levels of intelligence. I am told that they even think that dolphins may name each other like humans do. Or in the field of archaeology, the scientist looks for specific recognizable patterns or function to tell if an object is natural or man made. Also SETI scientists search for specific narrow bandwidths in radio signals which have never been observed occurring naturally, and would indicate extraterrestrial intelligence.That's three very different fields of science, but all which have one thing in common when looking for intelligence. They all use specificity as the indicating factor. Specificity can be defined simply as: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. The question always arises as to how do we scientifically identify rather or not something is specified. Here's the simple explanation: Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response.
When the marine biologist recognizes a pattern in the dolphins communication and sees that it always brings about the same exact response with all the dolphins raised in that group, then they know they are observing "specificity" in Delphinus delphis communication. The same can be said for the archaeologist and the SETI scientist. Specificity is the key to detecting intelligence, and to date not a single case of something specified has ever been observed occurring naturally.I said all of that to point out that the DNA "code" in all living creatures in so highly specified that it makes the most complex and sophisticated of specified computer programs look like mere children's crayola scribbles in comparison. That means the only conclusion is that all life observed in the universe must have come from intelligence. Therefore the infinite "IT" that we scientifically demonstrated to exist above must also be intelligent.
What was the term again for an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe?

When the validity of any religions "creation" story comes into question, there is an important question we must ask ourselves. How can we tell if it is a story with any merit? I mean if it was truly handed down to us from a divine all knowing God, how do we tell? The answer is to re-ask the question this way, "How can we tell if was not from a divine all knowing God?" In other words, if we could determine that something for sure was not from an all knowing God, then we should be able to reduce much of your list very quickly.Here's the test that I like to use to weed out the fakes. Babylonian Creation account claims that the earth is made of half of the corpse of the god Tiamat, and the sky is the other half. Therefore it violates test 2. The Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation MythAfrican Creation Myth says that the earth is a female deity, and that there is a "milk lake" under the earth which is absorbed by the grass and that is where the cows and goats get milk from. -violates test 2. DENICdirect-Informationsseite - DENIC eGNavajo Creation Myth describes a woman named "Changing woman," who married the literal sun and had two offspring from that marriage. Needless to say... -again violates test 2. ForbiddenNorse Creation Myth says that the earth is the actual dead body of a giant named Ymir, father of all giants. -again violates test 2. Norse Creation MythCreation Myth from India says that the deity Purusha formed all of the elements and then was sacrificed. His body parts made up the Indian people and also the sun, moon, and stars. violates test 2. http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00875/text/IndiaC.htmJapanese creation myth says that the Island of Onokoro is the result of a god stabbing the formless earth with a jeweled spear and the drops of blood that fell from the spear coagulated into the island. violates test 2. Common Errors in English Usage and More | Washington State UniversityComanche Creation Myth- Wow having this one in the list demonstrates to me that you are not even looking at your own rebuttals. The Comanche have not myth of the creation of the earth or the universe. Only the creation of their people. http://www.indigenouspeople.net/commcrea.htmChinese Creation Myth says that the universe began as a black egg in which the Chinese god Pangu emerged. The clear part of the egg became heaven and the heavier part became the earth. When Pangu died his breath became the wind and thunder and his eyes became the sun and the moon. http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00875/text/ChineseC.htmI could go on with your entire list but I'm tired... and bored.

Do you mean a universe that has no end, or an infinite end? Because the creation of anything infinite is an oxymoron. We have terms in English that have meanings. A square is never round because the definition of a square excludes this.The term infinite means without beginning or ending. The concept of a number line is infinite. God certainly could have created a universe that has an an infinite end, but according to science it definitely had a beginning.Again according to all scientific observations, something that came into being must originate from something else. That means something has always been here. If we try to make it an infinite number of finite things we have a problem. Finite things by definition cannot exist infinitely. Eventually even in a long chain of finite rebirths we have to come to a point where something infinite started the whole chain. The chain universe theory only pushes back the problem, it doesn't overcome it. I want to point out to you I didn't just say "patterns." I said patterns of "specificity." It's the specificity that is the key, not the patterns. Patterns occur all the time in nature. And as far as images in the clouds go, I can conjure up images in clouds all day long that might sort of look like Micky Mouse or Donald Duck. However we both know that if we saw the words "Eat at Joe's Cafe" in the clouds, that a specific pattern of English letters like that would require intelligence. Again I didn't suggest that "complexity" proves design. I suggested that "SPECIFICITY" requires design. That is because in order for something to have a particular purpose it had to have been formed for that purpose which requires it to have been "designed." Perhaps a "perceived" one no. But a clear purpose...yes. A key only fits a certain lock and performs a particular function of lining up all the tumbles and unlocking the the locking system. DNA code is much more specified than that. Jimminy Christmas. I didn't say anything about the "complexity" of DNA, I said it was highly "specified." So in other words... let's toss out all observation and go with what we hope to imagine to find some day. That's not science. Science is grounding your conclusions in what has been observed thus far. Not what you hope to observe someday. And thus far science has never observed anything with specificity form by random unguided processes. Oh... could you please point out where exactly I invoked "faith" here... because I missed it. And the only fallacies I see are where you keep misquoting me.

I've actually been studying the Christian creation account for some time and have yet to find a single case where it does. I have seen people twist verses out of context or try to spin an unintended meaning into the texts, but no fairly examined texts violate any of those rules. In fact there are many cases where the scriptures actually demonstrate a knowledge beyond what was possible for the authors to have possessed at the time. Thereby giving a clear indication of divine rather than human origin. Sure thing. First let me point out that the law of non-contradiction, which is the basis for all logical thinking, states that; a thing can not be both (A) and (non-A) at the same time and place and manor. It can not be both day time and night time over New York at the time of the twin tower attacks. We would expect any Book truly inspired by God to be consistent.The Koran fails the contradictory test. The Koran states that all creation took Allah Six days in Sura 7:54, but in Sura 41:9-12 it took him a total of eight days. The Koran itself, claims to be free from contradictions. Sura 39:23, 39:28. However, the Koran also says it is not supposed to be translated out of the, so called, uncorrupted language of Arabic. Yet the original manuscript contains well over 100 foreign words and phrases, such as, Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Syrian, Akkadian, Ethiopian and Persian. The Koran states that Moses was the first to believe. Sura 6:14. Then it states that Abraham was the first. Sura 7:143. The Koran states that Allah first appeared to Mohammed, as a man, to call him to service. Sura 51:19-34, 53:2-18 It then claims Mohammed was first called by the Holy Spirit. Sura 16:102, 26:192-194. Then the Koran states that angels came down to first call him to service. Sura 15:8. Finally The Koran states that it was only the angel Gabrielle who issued the call to Mohammed. Sura 2:97.The Koran fails the scientific test. The Koran calls the moon a male deity, the sun a female deity, and the stars, their offspring. Sura 41:37. The Koran states that the sun sets every night in the waters of a muddy spring. Sura 18:85,86.The Koran fails the historic test. The Koran claims that Abraham , (father of the Jewish nation), moved to Mecca and rebuilt the Kabah. Yet it is a known archeological fact that this never happened. Archeology reveals that the Kabah was originally first built to "worship the black stone that fell from the sky," not Allah. The Koran fraudulently attributes false speeches to people such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Moses, Mary, and Jesus. It has them using words like, Muslim, and Islam, which did not yet even exist. It would be like trying to pass off a so called authentic journal of Julius Caesar of Rome, that makes statements like, "his favorite meal was a Big Mac and fries at McDonald's." Sura 2:60, 2:126-128, 2:132-133, 2:260, 3:48-52, 3:67, 6:74-82, 7:59-63, 7:120-126, 10:71-72, 18:60-70, 19:16-33. The Koran makes crucifixion the form of execution during the time of Pharaoh in Egypt. Sura 7:124. Crucifixion did not yet exist. The Koran has the building of the tower of Babel taking place during the time of Moses. Sura 27:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24, 40:36-37. The Koran states that Alexander the Great, was a Muslim and lived to an old age. Sura 18:89-98 He died a young man. The Koran has Noah's flood taking place during the time of Moses. Sura 7:59, 7:136. The Koran confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary the sister of Moses. Sura 19:28. They are two separate people who lived centuries apart.

No, actually I'm quite aware of some who stoop so low. They compromise the scriptures, thinking that it needs defending, when in truth it stands up just fine on its own. But people are people and there are bad apples in every lot. Pointing this out does nothing to aid the discussion. Except now we have the suggestion that planet formation is the result of god's dying. Also I think you should read the myth again and pay particular attention to the quote below. FYI Tiamat was a "she."

quote:

---

"With his unsparing mace he crushed her skull. (130) When the arteries of her blood he had severed,"

---

As you can see by the text, her body was made up of skull bone, arteries, and blood (not earth as you suggest). You also should notice that all through the epic there are directional winds coming from the North, South, East, and West. There are storms and oceans etc... This is a big problem if it is Tiamat's body that was used to create the earth. How are directions like these possible before the Earth was formed, without a "globe" with North and south axis' and what contained the oceans?

quote:

---

there is a Zulu myth in which people go in search of the milk-lake under the earth, from where the milk is absorbed by the grassroots so that the cows and goats have milk from the earth. Where else could the milk come from? Our own flesh is earth; even the name Adam means 'earth'. All creatures are earth. Fire too, lives in the earth, which sometimes spits it out when in anger. Fire comes out of wood, so it, too, must come from the earth. Wind too, it is believed, comes out of caves in the earth. Thus all four elements come out of the earth.?

---

I'll tell you what, you produce for me the actual Zulu transliteration that shows "milk really means water" and I'll give you that comment. But in the mean time how about you explain fire coming from wood rather than consuming wood, and also caves being the earths source for wind? Again show me the transliteration. How do you misinterpret the statement, "She married the sun and bore two son, twins?" The story does not say that Changing Woman was a god, so how exactly does a human procreate with the physical sun anyway? Honestly I'm bored with this particular conversation. I have at least shown you that my analysis of three of them held up under close scrutiny. If I were more in to it I could go on and do the others. But I'm not. Perhaps another time.

Gen. 1:6-13 Is not describing the forming of the "planet" earth, but the formation of the land masses and the seas and the atmosphere. Verse 1 describes the "planet" Earth already existing before the events of your verse 6. The planet Earth existed by the end of day one, read the text, the Earth had no form and was shrouded in darkness. Since there are three types of "heavens" in scripture you must use the context to tell if it is talking about the atmosphere, outer space, or the presence of God. In this case the context makes it clear it is talking about the atmosphere. The passage you referenced in Genesis 2 refers to "the day" the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, as meaning the time period, not a literal 24 hour period. The context of 1:29 says the end of creation took place on day six. And just in case we mistook its meaning, it is confirmed in scripture again in Exodus 20:11 Incorrect again. The Bible does NOT mean the earth sits upon pillars literally. In fact it says otherwise. For example in Job 9:6 he describes God's power saying: "He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble" Pillars represent the most solid portions of a large building and therefore it is meant as a metaphor that God alone possesses that power. And just so we wouldn't think he really believed the earth rested on literal pillars Job went on to say in 26:7: "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." Job is saying that the north (pole) is not conected to anything but empty space, and of course NOTHING supports the earth.See these are obvious examples of scriptures twisted completely out of context, its a desperate grasp at straws. Any fair examination of the text in its context will reveal this. Wow, now you just opened up a whole other can of worms. This is one of my favorite topics, and I can present tons of evidence for a global flood. However I'm afraid that the sysops would probably scold us if we discussed it here. Is there a thread you would be willing to discuss the topic in more detail?

You are welcome to think this, but it isn't true. The journey to the center of truth can take as simple a map as this:

First we have hints to the executions in the scriptures themselves. The first one we hear about is Stephen being stoned to death in Acts 7:59. Then King Herod was violent against the Christians and executed John's brother James with a sword in Acts 12:1-2. In Acts 9 we are told that Saul had letters giving him the authority to capture any Christians he might find and bring them to Jerusalem for punishment and execution. As you said, 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul mentions the 500 eyewitnesses, among whom he says were all the apostles. But over in the 4th chapter of that same book he gives us a glimpse of the kind of thing they have had to face for the sake of their eye witness testimony. He says they go hungry and thirsty, beaten, homeless, poorly clothed, being defamed, defiled, and persecuted, and finally they have become men who are a spectacle to the world who are condemned to die. And in Romans 8 he describes them as sheep being led to the slaughter. Now if they knew they had concocted the resurrection story, why on earth would they endure such suffering to the point of death?Passed down traditions seem to support these texts. Peter is said to have been crucified upside down. His brother Andrew was crucified spread eagle. Philip was martyred at Hieropolis. Bartholomew was flayed or skinned alive, and then beheaded in India. Thomas was speared to death near Madras. Matthew and James, son of Alphaeus, both martyred. Jude and Simon the zealot were both hacked to death. And Paul is said to have been beheaded.We also have the writings of a non-Christian Jewish first century historian, named Josephus, which described the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" which dates around 93 AD. There are the writings of a non-Christian Roman first century historian, named Tacitus, which described the Christian persecutions by Emperor Nero. And there are the writings of a first century Roman governor, named Pliny the Younger, which described how he would ask the prisoners if they were Christians. Pliny said that he would warn them that the penalty was death and if they admitted to it 3 times he would execute them.

Just FYI "A" and I (dr. left out intentionally) have a "colorful" past (to put it politely) and I no longer have anything to do with him nor do I bother ever to read a single thing he types. If he raised any issues that you find valid, you or someone else would have to literally re-post it for me to ever even see it. That is not true, take for example the two passages that indicate the number of days it took Allah to create. A close examination of the text (in its context) does not in either case clear up the problem as I demonstrated it does in the Biblical text. All so called problematic areas in the Biblical text are in fact cleared right up by the text itself. I have been walking to and fro elsewhere on the world wide web, and were not aware of those threads. But within 24 hours I will give you my evidence on the thread, "Potential Evidence for a Global Flood"

Perhaps I owe you this much. It's actually been a year ago or more. I had another screen name at the time. You said some very unkind and degrading things to me and the sysop at the time allowed it to continue. My faith teaches me that with all that is in me, to dwell at peace with those I interact with. I have no ill will or hard feelings towards you. However to "dwell at peace" with you requires that I no longer interact with you. I wish you only the best and pray you have a long and healthy life. As for your PhD. I wasn't aware you held that title. Therefore out of respect for the title, I will resume use of doctor in referring to you.regards
Brad

It's interesting that when you re-quoted what I said you only quoted the bold portion and omitted the portion that actually gave it context. I have driven the point home already that there is a big difference between a person dying for what they first hand witnessed, and your regular "run of the mill martyr" dying because they think it wins them brownie points with Allah. The fact that you have chosen to not only ignore this point, but to even go so far as to disingenuously misquote me, has told me all I need to know about trying to continue to have a reasonable conversation with you.