Subjective Evidence of Gods

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.

What does any of these scientists religious affiliations have to do with the science they produced?It has not effect on it whatsoever.I agree that Newton was brilliant. Great. He was brilliant.But that does not change the fact that Newtonian Physics was superceded by Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.Even if he was the highest religious leader of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, it would not change the fact that his theories have been replaced with better ones.He was also an alchemist. How much extra credit does this get him for you?Einstein also did not believe in the personal god of the old testament. Not that this makes any difference whatsoever to the work that he performed. The science that you have said is madness in your rebuttal where you ranted against Hawking's theory.And Penrose is an athiest. Not that this makes any differnce to the scientific research he has performed.What about the process of science is it that you so blatantly missunderstand that makes you believe that one scientists works remain the best possible set of theories for all of time?What about the process of science is it that you so blatantly misunderstand that makes you believe that the scientists religious affiliation makes any difference to the work that they do?I am unsure why you are pushing these scientists as supporters of your cause. You spent the majority of your last post ridiculing it.I just want to confirm something though. How long have you been studying physics, what is your physics education background that has helped you come to such quick and easy conclusions refuting Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein and Roger Penrose (and Immanuel Kant in philosophy)?From how quickly and fully you ridiculed Stephen Hawking's work (and Einstein and Penrose), your theoretical physics background must be fantastic. Who is messing with the Old Testament. I cant help that your bronze age myth is not particularly credible. The scientists you chose to name performed scientific work. This scientific work happens to contradict your favourite myth. Regardless of the religious affiliation of the scientists, they still have viable scientific alternatives to your favourite creation myths.That was what you said did not exist.I have shown you they do indeed exist.So you original statement that they do not exist is wrong.It will do you no harm to admit this.You claimed that the theories I outlined did not exist. They do, I have shown them to you.You were wrong.Again.Trying to avoid this fact by cutting and pasting random bios of scientists whose work actually refute you comments is an unusual tactic.

IamJoseph, You go on to list a number of things. Many are not actually changes. So before the Hebrew Bible was written, the universe was infinite? What did it change from to become finite when the Hebrew Bible was written? How did this change make the universe finite? So, the Hebrew bible changed creationism. Changed it how. Changed it from what? How does thie effect the remainder of the universe? I was only aware of creationism being important to a minority of the total human species in the last 2000 years, not the whole universe. So the Hebrew Bible was around to change something into creationism? Of were the events currently known as creationism occuring prior to the existence of the Hebrew Bible? So, how did the Hebrew Bible change monotheism? How does this effect the entire universe? I thought that monotheism was one of the more recent ideologies in some areas of one planet in a single galaxy. How is this effecting the rest of the universe? Also, was the Hebrew Bible written before the events in the bible? That seems strange. How could the book, the Hebrew Bible change something into monotheism? I thought that the events written about in the bible occured before they were written? How did the Hebrew bible change the physical characteristics of the Earth? What shape was it before the Hebrew Bible changed it? How has this change to one planet among countless planets effected the universe? When did this change? How many years ago was the Earth flat? This is a personal theory of yours. It also does not make sense as an answer. I asked about a change. Where is the change in this answer? Read the question again and see if your answer makes grammatical sense. I will help you, it does not make sense. As far as I can tell from researching your hypothosis. It is an idea that exists only in your rantings. Also, how did the Hebrew Bible change light? What was light before the Hebrew Bible changed it? How did it change it and when did it change it? This is also a contested point. This answer also does not make grammatical sense. What was the change that you are talking about here? How does this change to one group of life forms, on one planet in the entire universe effect the universe? this is not only bullshit but also is not a change. again, bullshit and not a change. What? The stars are unaccountable for what? What action are they unaccountable for? What the fuck are you talking about? this is not a change.You started with some answer that actually made sense as answers. They are total bullshit but at least they made sense given the question that was asked. Then you went into auto IamJoseph mode and went through your reel of bullshit.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Anyone who rejects Last Thursdayism without testing it and instead confidently concludes that the Earth is billions of years old is, by the terms of your argument, a "pseudoskeptic". Which of course means that ALL conclusions, scientifically evidenced or otherwise, are mere opinions according to your argument.Because any evidence we can cite for anything could have been falsely placed in our minds when the universe was created 1 second ago.Can you name any high confidence conclusion that isn't just an opinion RAZ? Can we ever (even tentatively) know anything?If so - What? Can you give a specific example of a conclusion that can legitimately be considered high confidence?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I have done previously. Here are the same off the top of my head examples I gave before.Maybe something godlike used to exist but it distributed it’s consciousness amongst the multiverse such that our own individual consciousnesses are all that remains of it — collectively we (i.e. all that exists) are god. Maybe we are part of a something in which all physical and non-physical possibilities exist simultaneously in some quantum-like state and it is therefore both true that gods do exist and true that they don’t exist simultaneously. Maybe all that exists is blind mindless logic and all else follows from that including something that believes it is god. Maybe an immaterial unintelligent uncaused and eternal universe making machine blindly following mathematical rules is responsible for our existence. Maybe our existence is the result of a collective conscious of a vast number of individually unintelligent entities - Kind of like us being the mind where they are the neurons that produce that mind. Maybe the matrix just exists and we are in it. Maybe the concepts of time and causality as experienced by humans are a complete illusion and there is nothing to explain except the reason for our flawed perspective of reality. Maybe, maybe, maybe.........Maybe no human mind has yet conceived of the correct answer. Maybe the human mind isn't even capable of conceiving of the correct answer.I don't know. But there are an infinite number of philosophical possibilities and in the absence of any objective evidence any individual one is deeply improbable isn't it? And that certainly includes whatever concept it is you are advocating.

Apparently not. No, in spades. No. This is why on the numerous occasions where it conflicts with known science, you either have to deny the science (as with the Flood) or explain that the Bible doesn't mean what it says (as with the pillars of the Earth). Of course not. Yes. You should read the Book of Dr Adequate.

He says this of himself, a non-eyewitness. Passed down traditions say a lot of things. For claiming to be an eye-witness to the resurrection? This isn't mentioned. Tacitus wrote his Annals c. 116 A.D, which is the second century and eighty years after the crucifixion, and he does not say that anyone was put to death for claiming to be an eyewitness to the resurrection. In fact, he says that the Christian superstition was "checked" by the crucifixion, which would hardly have been the case if it had been followed in mere days by the resurrection. ... who was actually governor of Bithynia from 111-113 AD, which is the second century and eighty years after the crucifixion. Any eyewitnesses to the resurrection would be thin on the ground by that time, and he does not in fact say that he put anyone to death for making such a claim.

Which would imply that you consider any invocation of anything uncaused as illegitimate.But I suspect you are going to special plead the object of your own belief as an exception anyway.Go on. Prove me right........

Flood Thread For "Just being real".You're welcome.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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"

Since I have a Ph.D, and you are a creationist, that is at least consistent with your modus operandi. Yeah, round here if you want to avoid the truth you have to start by avoiding me.

The biblical flood breaks several of the tests you listed, so - since our discussion is rapidly heading off-topic - I will instead wait for your post in the 'flood' thread.

I've looked at his previous posts, and it turns out that I have proved him wrong before. I don't see that I did so in a "colorful" way, but I guess I'm just a colorful guy.

quote:

---

Which would imply that you consider any invocation of anything uncaused as illegitimate.

---

Yes. Its, at the very least, unscientific. Yet today's neo science loves it. I suspect they do so because they are fed up with the dominating theologies, which they never confront directly, instead smashing the only one which is scientific.

quote:

---

But I suspect you are going to special plead the object of your own belief as an exception anyway.

---

I have found the objections and charges made of the Hebrew bible totally fake in a blatant, shameless way. Its become like a psychosis: of billions of evidential stats not seen anywhere else they will pick a grain of sand which they say is not a real grain of sand, and also disregard every fake grain in two other religions. One is a bad career move the other is a good one with a 5 minute glory period. Go ahead - deny it.

Chess champs make poor war generals.