Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 61 of 868 (689447)
01-30-2013 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by onifre
01-30-2013 2:41 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
onifre writes:
You seem to be arriving at your conclusion based on a very obvious misunderstanding of science.
If in fact you believe the accounts of the Bible to be true, then you don't need to twist up science to support your beliefs.
It depends what you mean about believing the accounts in the Bible to be true and I have no idea what you mean by twisting science. I’m just saying that science has discovered some pretty miraculous things about this planet like QM and for that matter evolution.
onifre writes:
Life is barely able to exist on a small planet in a vast, vast universe. In our solar system alone only 1 planet has life, and ONLY for a short period of time. It will eventually vanish either through catastrophic events on Earth or when the Sun has exhasted it's fuel.
Some design, huh?
Sure, but of course it is my view that this isn’t all there is, and although our current form of existence is obviously finite that we are all part of something bigger and more lasting.
onifre writes:
One species out of BILLIONS has a brain complex enough to have what yo u call "desires" and has given itself "purpose", but these qualities are not typical. It is not in abundance. No other species posses this,
Essentially I agree but I’m not sure my dogs would.
onifre writes:
so it's simply a by-product of one species evolution.
That’s your belief.
GDR writes:
It allows for our physical properties to change in order to better adapt to our environment.
onifre writes:
Our physical properties do no such thing. If I throw you in the ocean as a baby you will not produce gills by adulthood.
I think we both understand that the changes are generational such as the beaks Darwin’s finches.
onifre writes:
Then you have manipulated the evidence to fit a very narrow religious view.
No more than you do as when you make statements like you did above when you said so it's (intelligence and morality),simply a by-product of one species evolution.
onifre writes:
...and you continue to do it. What it will prove is that life DOES NOT need any intelligence to guide it, as it will obviously show that life can arrise from simple chemicalreactions.
Well, science is a long way from doing that so right now as I said it is simply science of the gaps but if it does happen it will require some scientist somewhere to figure out which chemicals and in what combination. If it is so simple then why don’t we see it happening all the time. We only see life forming from existing life.
onifre writes:
Where is this universe you speak of? I see one planet where ONE particular species has evolved a trait that is beneficial to them, but may end up destroying them. Some design. Some purpose. Is this what "god" intended?
As I said previously I don’t see the end of this planet being the end of everything.I believe that this universe is part of a greater reality that isn’t subject to decay. In the next life how about we re-constitute EvC and we’ll be in a better position to debate the quality of the design and purpose.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by onifre, posted 01-30-2013 2:41 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 01-30-2013 11:36 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 62 of 868 (689448)
01-30-2013 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Taq
01-30-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Should God be slanged or kept to oneself?
GDR writes:
They were written as historical documents and as such we can view them as we do any other historical documents.
Taq writes:
Joseph Smith's accounts of finding the golden tablets and having them translated by an angel are also written as history. That doesn't mean that they happened.
That was my point. We can read any historical document and make of it what we will. As I said before, if you go into a library in Washington and read about the Viet Nam war you are likely to get a very different understanding of what happened than if you read an account in a library in Hanoi.
Taq writes:
Is it rational to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around even though we do not feel the Earth move and can see the Sun moving?
Is it rational to believe that light can be a particle or a wave, but never both at the same time?
Is it rational to believe that fire is caused by an invisible gas?
The evidence has led us to many conclusions that seemed irrational at the outset. The importance is that we are following the evidence and not what we want to be true.
I agree with that, (although the fire thing is new to me), so I’m not sure what your point is. As I’ve read more and studied more I now believe that things that I believed 10 years ago were wrong. I look at the evidence and form my conclusions, which doesn’t mean that I will come to the same conclusions as you or anyone else given the same evidence.
Taq writes:
They can disagree all they want. What is important is that theists have failed to demonstrate that they are right. What we keep seeing is a set of beliefs that people want to be true, but can never demonstrate that they are true.
I can say the same thing about the atheistic POV.
You’re right in that I can’t demonstarte that my Christian or even my theistic views are true. It isn’t that I any more than anyone else form my beliefs by what I want to believe, but what I believe does for me make sense of the world that I experience and the world that I read about.
GDR writes:
The Theory of Evolution is as near as I can tell a well evidenced theory as to the process that led to life today. It is not evidence of why we exist. It would be like looking at a car assembly line and claiming that the assembly line just came into existence on its own and is solely responsible for the existence of cars.
Taq writes:
But we actually have evidence for people building car factories. That's the difference.
True, but you are talking about what is knowable. The fact still remains that evolution ticks along in much the same way that an assembly line does, and it is my unprovable belief that just as the assembly line required intelligence in order for it to produce cars that it is analogous to believe that intelligence was required for evolution.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Taq, posted 01-30-2013 4:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 01-31-2013 12:37 PM GDR has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 63 of 868 (689453)
01-30-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
01-30-2013 11:50 AM


Re: Evidence
You deny that the Biblical witnesses are fair and trustworthy, but those who believe the Bible judge them to be so, millions of us back 2000 years. So you've eliminated that evidence from usefulness to you. Witness evidence IS evidence, but if you distrust the witnesses that's the end of that.
The Bible has shown itself to sometimes not be fair and sometimes not be trustworthy. These miracles are, of course, extraordinary events. It's not fair to just "believe the people who reported it" because it's quite possible that some of those people are mistaken or even misleading.
But this isn't just a FEW witnesses of a questionable kind. God is quite aware that extraordinary events need extraordinary evidence, and has provided it far beyond the requirement. The Bible is made up of 66 separate testimonies by over forty separate writers, over something like 1500 years, most of them historical in nature, that all testify to Him and to the miracles that attest to Him and to thousands of other facts that all work together to support the whole.
But once you start denying this part or that part eventually you'll make it all useless to you. That's what most people here have done. The rule is simple: Believe. That's exactly what you all refuse to do.
There are so many more people that do not believe in it and also have good reason. There doesn't seem to be any difference from believing or not believing.
Some believers are happy, some are sad. Some unbelievers are happy, some are sad. No significant advantage to either side.
Some believers are rich, some are poor. Some unbelievers are rich, some are poor. No significant advantage to either side.
Some believers are respected, some are despicable. Some unbelievers are respected, some are despicable. No significant advantage to either side.
I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you can't describe an actual difference between believers and unbelievers.
That's sad if so. I know I changed enormously when I became a believer but I also know I have a long way to go to be conformed to Christ. But the things you mention, being happy or sad, rich or poor, aren't differences I'd expect to see. If they are true believers, however, there should be a real joy beneath the surface sadness
This makes me think that there is no difference between believers and unbelievers. This may indicate that God exists and doesn't care to (or can't) make a difference. Or it may be because God doesn't exist.
But you saying that we should believe because others do isn't fair. There's lots of things others do that we shouldn't do.
True but this came up in answer to the challenge whether there is evidence for God or not, and my claim is that the great number of witnesses is strong evidence, especially the witnesses in the Bible but also those who believe in it -- and I'd even say that it ought to be special evidence that so many believe in it still these days considering all the ridicule we have to put up with.
The Bible IS evidence, but of course you can discount it. There's been an awful lot of effort to undermine the Bible's credibility which is going to trip up a lot of people, of course, and this generation may sadly not exhibit the qualities we should, either -- that I'd probably agree with, we may be a generation weak in faith, but if you go back to earlier generations of Bible believers, those who died willingly in the millions under torture for their faith, that I'd have to count as solid evidence too, millions more witnesses. (No, I don't think blowing yourself up for Allah compares).
You saying we should believe because some miracles are described in the Bible isn't fair. There's lots of miracles described in non-Bible books and places.
Oh no there are not. Nothing that qualifies as a real miracle such as the Bible reports on. Absolutely not. Supernatural events of various sorts, yes, the kind that demons can demonstrate, but not real miracles on the order that only God could do.
None of them seem to be true either, just like the ones from the Bible.
There are plenty of frauds and hoaxes, though there are also real "supernatural" events done by demons, but you have no basis for believing the Bible's reports are false. Actually I started on my own path to belief in the Bible by first believing in the supernatural as reported by Hindu gurus. They called what they were describing "God" so I believed that at first, then read my way through book after book until I believed the Biblical revelation is the truth.
Point is you've been given evidence. You've refused it. It's on your head.
This is not a threat, it's a simple fact. Saying this as if it is some sort of threat has the effect of making you seem unfair and untrustworthy.
Why? The evidence has been given, far more than enough evidence, and salvation requires simply that you "Believe," That's the Biblical message, that's what Jesus said, that's the whole gospel in a nutshell. There IS a threat implied, although it's really more of a warning -- there is a real danger in not believing. We're talking the true God here, who has given everything a doubting human being could need to persuade us, and all He asks is that we believe Him. God REQUIRES us to believe, and He HAS given sufficient evidence for it, SO it IS on our own heads if we deny it. But a true seeker who is really looking for Him and needs time, no, He isn't going to abandon that sort of person, He's patient and kind. The threat and the warning are for those who have aggressively refused to believe. Plenty of those around here.
I think you are confusing things. Nobody is asking to simply witness a miracle by seeing it once. People are asking to be able to witness a miracle by verifying it. The verifying would likely be through some sort of scientific methodology. Not understanding this is, again, not fair.
But this is impossible. There is no way to scientifically verify a miracle. Miracles are one-time events. The only kind of verification you can have, besides your own experience of a miracle, is witness testimony, and there's so much of that in the Bible itself to require more is for YOU to be unfair. God has His reasons for not giving more in-your-face kinds of proofs, He's given enough to sort the sheep from the goats.
I never understand when someone tries to convince an unbeliever with the story of Thomas. Thomas did not believe and God came and convinced him personally. Regardless of the threatening (unfair, untrustworthy) moral of the story, bringing up Thomas only serves to add more fuel to an unbeliever feeling justified in asking to be personally convinced by God and not you because that's what God did in the story.
The story is there to illustrate the mentality of needing personal proof, and the uselessness of it, since what Thomas came to believe that way is something he could just as well have believed through the witness of the other disciples. What he learned that way is identical to what he would have learned by simply believing the testimony. It's a powerful illustration of the importance of the requirement to believe, to have faith. God gave tons of evidence to give us a reason to have faith, but we are to live by our faith, not by the evidence.
The story is supposed to be a help to those who require personal proof, so you could know that Jesus did graciously provide it to one person in the same position. But He also said that those who didn't need such proof are "blessed." Again, you learn exactly the same thing either way, either by physically seeing Him in person after you know He died, or believing those who tell you they saw Him raised from the dead. That's supposed to be the point of the story.
TL/DR - I've never met a fair and trustworthy God-witness who has convincing evidence for believing in God. If you know of one, feel free to point them out. Without such a thing, it certainly seems to me like we've gotten it backwards. God didn't make people, people made God.
Now it sounds like you've made up your mind about all this. Until now it wasn't that clear.
What do you think of John Bunyan who wrote Pilgrim's Progress? Did he have convincing proof when he refused the deal given him to be set free from prison if he gave up preaching, even though by staying in prison he committed his family to God? He trusted God to take care of them since he couldn't. A believer knows that by honoring God with such trust Bunyan protected his family better than he would have if he'd given in to the authorities.
What sort of evidence do you think you want anyway? Would you believe any of the martyrs described in Foxes Book of Martyrs or just dismiss them as deluded?
Sometimes small miracles still do happen. Would you consider this evidence? A Russian woman was about to be clubbed over the head by a KGB officer assigned to break up Christian meetings in the USSR, and prayed that God would forgive the young man who was about to club her. At that moment the man's arm was miraculously prevented from bringing the club down on her head and although he hated her for praying for him and wanted even more furiously to kill her he fled in fear because of being prevented from hitting her. This is reported in a book called The Persecutor about that young Russian's life. He became a believer starting with that incident although it took a while. He defected to Canada in the early 70s, where the KGB eventually caught up with him and murdered him. Would you believe that testimony or not? The book is probably still available.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 01-30-2013 11:50 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 8:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2013 2:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 84 by Stile, posted 01-31-2013 1:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 114 by Phat, posted 12-17-2017 11:09 AM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 64 of 868 (689461)
01-30-2013 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
01-30-2013 8:17 PM


Re: Evidence
Sometimes small miracles still do happen. Would you consider this evidence? A Russian woman was about to be clubbed over the head by a KGB officer assigned to break up Christian meetings in the USSR, and prayed that God would forgive the young man who was about to club her. At that moment the man's arm was miraculously prevented from bringing the club down on her head and although he hated her for praying for him he fled in fear because of being prevented from hitting her. This is reported in a book called The Persecutor about that young Russian's life. He became a believer starting with that incident although it took a while. He defected to Canada in the early 70s, where the KGB eventually caught up with him and murdered him. Would you believe that testimony or not? The book is probably still available.
Anecdotes are not evidence. Nothing here is miraculous. Also, this book has been shown to not be real accurate. In actuality it looks like most of it it plainly untrue.
Forgive me, Natasha and Sergei! – Russian History Blog

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:57 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 868 (689462)
01-30-2013 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Theodoric
01-30-2013 8:48 PM


Re: Evidence
I don't know about the book about "Natasha," I'm talking about a book called "The Persecutor."
OK, you prefer to believe the debunkery, fine, you've made your choice. That's what everybody here does. Give the story of a Christian hero, what you get back here is "evidence" that the person was really a rotten human being. THAT you'll believe.
Stories ARE the evidence we're given. You believe them or you don't. You will apparently always choose the people who discredit the stories, that's what you do. They're just stories too, you know, by people with an axe to grind as well and your method of proof is belief, just as it is for Christians.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 8:48 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 9:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 66 of 868 (689463)
01-30-2013 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
01-30-2013 8:57 PM


Re: Evidence
I don't know about the book about "Natasha," I'm talking about a book called "The Persecutor."
Are you really that incurious? Totally incapable of even the most basic research or ability to read the links?
quote:
The Persecutor, also known as Forgive Me Natasha and less commonly as Sergei, is the autobiography of Sergei Kourdakov,
The Persecutor
That it was the same author should have been something of a hint for you.
OK, you prefer to believe the debunkery, fine, you've made your choice. That's what everybody here does. Give the story of a Christian hero, what you get back here is "evidence" that the person was really a rotten human being. THAT you'll believe.
Stories ARE the evidence we're given. You believe them or you don't. You will apparently always choose the people who discredit the stories, that's what you do. They're just stories too, you know, by people with an axe to grind as well and your method of proof is belief, just as it is for Christians.
If research does not support the claims it would be stupid to believe the stories. That would define delusion.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 9:26 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 868 (689464)
01-30-2013 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
01-30-2013 9:17 PM


Re: Evidence
I remember seeing the debunkery years ago and really I do not want to bother to consider ANYTHING you have to say about it. It takes enormous amounts of time to investigate such stuff, various details, the credibility of this or that person. Forget it, I have other things on my mind. The "research" is just as subject to question as anything else. Again, you believe what you want to believe, it's just a story too, just as anecdotal. Have at it, I could NOT care less.
Wikipedia seems to give the story straight as I read it, however. And there I see that it is the same story under a different title, but who cares. I don't: Sergei Kourdakov - Wikipedia
Oh but it does mention that Richard Wurmbrand had something to do with the story, and Wurmbrand has ENORMOUS credibility among Christians. A Rumanian Jewish convert who spent 14 years in prison for his faith. Go on, disparage HIM.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 9:17 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 10:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 68 of 868 (689472)
01-30-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
01-30-2013 9:26 PM


Re: Evidence
Still no evidence. Just you throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 9:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 12:03 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 69 of 868 (689477)
01-30-2013 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
01-30-2013 7:19 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
I’m just saying that science has discovered some pretty miraculous things about this planet like QM and for that matter evolution.
Maybe it's your own astonishment that's leading you to believe it's a miracle, or just a choice use of words to veer it toward the miraculous, but those who understand QM doen't call it miraculous. That would imply it's supernatural, and QM is very natural, predictable and testable.
Sure, but of course it is my view that this isn’t all there is, and although our current form of existence is obviously finite that we are all part of something bigger and more lasting.
But if we're going to exist beyond the physical world in your opinion, if that's even possible or something that even makes sense, what's the point then of bringing up this physical universe and it's design qualities?
You said this universe seems designed, I pointed out that life has only existed for a tiny amount of time and will eventually be gone, and now you're telling me about another place where we'll go after that happens...and I'm imagining we'll be there for eternity. Ok, fine. So then, shouldn't your point be that we are actually designed for the afterlife, since we'll be there, well, forever?
No more than you do as when you make statements like you did above when you said so it's (intelligence and morality),simply a by-product of one species evolution.
Well, isn't it a by-product of an evolution you clearly agree happened? Even if you believe the God of the Christian Bible gave it to us, you would have to agree that he did so through the process of evolution and we've developed it (intelligence and morality) to the levels you find today throughout the world.
How else do you believe it would have happened if not like that?
Well, science is a long way from doing that so right now as I said it is simply science of the gaps but if it does happen it will require some scientist somewhere to figure out which chemicals and in what combination.
It's much closer than you're suggesting it is. In fact, it's very close and I invite you again to search the thread here that cover it.
If it is so simple then why don’t we see it happening all the time. We only see life forming from existing life.
Even when life is being created from other life, it's no more complicated than chemical reactions. Which are themselves nothing more complicated than a collection of elements.
In the next life how about we re-constitute EvC and we’ll be in a better position to debate the quality of the design and purpose.
I get to be Percy in the next life!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 01-30-2013 7:19 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 01-31-2013 11:58 AM onifre has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 70 of 868 (689481)
01-31-2013 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
01-30-2013 10:27 PM


Re: Evidence
You have no evidence yourself, that's the point. You just threw up a debunkery site just cause that's the sort of thing you guys always do, you dohn't know if there's anything to it or not, You're happy just as long as it makes a Christian out to be a liar. That's REALLY all you8 care about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 01-30-2013 10:27 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 71 of 868 (689487)
01-31-2013 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
01-30-2013 8:17 PM


Re: Evidence
quote:
You deny that the Biblical witnesses are fair and trustworthy, but those who believe the Bible judge them to be so, millions of us back 2000 years. So you've eliminated that evidence from usefulness to you. Witness evidence IS evidence, but if you distrust the witnesses that's the end of that.
Of course quite a bit of the Bible ISN'T "witness evidence". We can be pretty sure that none of the three Synoptic Gospels were written by witnesses, for instance.
And it would be foolish to deny the prejudices of the Bible authors, too.
quote:
But this isn't just a FEW witnesses of a questionable kind. God is quite aware that extraordinary events need extraordinary evidence, and has provided it far beyond the requirement. The Bible is made up of 66 separate testimonies by over forty separate writers, over something like 1500 years, most of them historical in nature, that all testify to Him and to the miracles that attest to Him and to thousands of other facts that all work together to support the whole.
Not all the Bible is testimony, you exaggerate the time period involved and assume that a selective and biased collection of writings constitutes "extraordinary evidence". Do you believe in the miracle stories associated with Catholic Saints ? For modern Saints there's investigation beyond anything that likely went into the Bible.
quote:
But once you start denying this part or that part eventually you'll make it all useless to you. That's what most people here have done. The rule is simple: Believe. That's exactly what you all refuse to do.
By that one statement you admit that the evidence does not support you. Evidence-based reasoning requires investigation and questioning. If your "evidence" does not stand up to that, too bad for your "evidence".
quote:
True but this came up in answer to the challenge whether there is evidence for God or not, and my claim is that the great number of witnesses is strong evidence, especially the witnesses in the Bible but also those who believe in it -- and I'd even say that it ought to be special evidence that so many believe in it still these days considering all the ridicule we have to put up with.
Of course it isn't that amazing at all. Especially once you exclude the Catholics who account for about half of those considered Christian in the usual counts. Lots of people believe things that aren't true for various reasons.
quote:
The Bible IS evidence, but of course you can discount it. There's been an awful lot of effort to undermine the Bible's credibility
A lot of people have gone to find the truth and the Bible was found to fail. I know that contradicts the preachers and theologians you choose to believe but, as I already said, a lot of people believe things that aren't true.
Really it seems to me that what you say really amounts to the idea that we must set up men as false Gods and worship them, even placing them above the Bible - or even God. That certainly is not Biblical teaching, nor is it in any way truly Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 01-30-2013 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 868 (689489)
01-31-2013 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
01-31-2013 2:06 AM


Re: Evidence
It's ALL witness testimony, and CERTAINLY the Synoptics are. You've just bought the lies of the unbelieving "scholars" who dedicated their lives to destroying the Bible. How sad for you. Why not try doubting THEM and believing what the true believers believe instead? What makes you have to trust the debunkers?
ALL the Bible is testimony in one way or another. I already said MOST of it is history, but ALL of it is testimony.
I exaggerated nothing. THe Bible was written over a period of 1500 years. It's you who prefer the lies to the truth, those who refuse to believe the miracles and so redate the Bible so that the prophecies aren't prophecies.
Catholicism lies about everything it does, lies, murders, tortures, commits idolatry, molests children. Demons do some things that some people mistake for miracles.
The command to "BELIEVE" is based on the fact that you've been given a ton of evidence. John said he wrote about all the signs "so that you will believe." That's the point of all of it. The evidence is given so that you will have a basis for believing. God gave all that evidence and God said "Believe."
The Bible was never "found to fail" except by people who wanted it to fail and therefore used the kind of sophistic reasoning you are using to make it seem so. As so many here do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2013 2:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 01-31-2013 3:29 AM Faith has replied
 Message 74 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2013 8:41 AM Faith has replied
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 01-31-2013 12:01 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 73 of 868 (689494)
01-31-2013 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
01-31-2013 2:56 AM


Re: Evidence
quote:
It's ALL witness testimony, and CERTAINLY the Synoptics are. You've just bought the lies of the unbelieving "scholars" who dedicated their lives to destroying the Bible. How sad for you. Why not try doubting THOSE idiots and believing what the true believers believe instead? What sort of twisted pride makes you have to trust the debunkers?
I trust the people who disagree with your "authorities"- who are not all "debunkers" by any means - in part because they have relevant expertise and in part because when I do check them out they tend to be right. Which is more than can be said for you or your "authorities"
For instance I doubt that you could consider Proverbs to be even largely "witness testimony". And the earliest account of Mark that I know of attributes it to follower of Peter working from his memories of Peter's teaching but sometimes getting events in the wrong order. Neither eye-witness testimony, nor infallible. And let's not get into the conflicts between Luke and Matthew.
The rest, pretty much better describes your position than mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 12:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 602 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 74 of 868 (689499)
01-31-2013 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
01-31-2013 2:56 AM


Re: Evidence
It might be 'witnessing', but the bible was not written by 'witnesses' for the post part. You are using the logical fallacy of 'equivocation' here. Isaiah might have been a 'eye witness' to the events in Isaiah part 1, since he was relaying his personal experience, although the self promotion there certainly gives rise to caution. The 'historical' section of 1 kings/ 2 kings might have been eye witnesses too.. but the gospels/? No.. they were decades later.
This kind of equivocation is quite obvious , and IMO deceitful. I have to wonder about that valdity of any faith that has to go through such lies to promote itself

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 2:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 01-31-2013 12:08 PM ramoss has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 75 of 868 (689500)
01-31-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by GDR
01-30-2013 6:34 PM


Re: What Constitutes Evidence?
GDR writes:
Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true. We do not know that an unguided process of evolution created intelligence and morality.
It's not me that's saying it - it's published science. Stacks of it.
We know that an unguided process of evolution produced all life on this planet including us. It produced many intelligent life forms, one of which, us, has developed it to a relatively high level.
Our moral sense is a necessary part of social development and is an emotion developed from empathy - which is seen in other primates.
The alternative is that some unknown god created an enormous universe 14bn years ago, left it alone to see what would happen then plonked intelligence and morality into an ape on one remote planet about quarter of a million years ago.
I choose the former because there is evidence to support it.
The latter is without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
I’ve never understood your point but I’ll somehow manage to get over my self-importance as that seems to be what you’re implying.
My point is that Gods are invented by pretty much all societies - they're all different but they have a lot in common. The majority promise an afterlife if certain rules are met - mostly about only worshipping the correct god which just happens to be the one your tribe worship and not behaving anti-socially.
Every so often a new organisation rises to challenges the old god and creates a new one or re-defines the rituals necessary to appease the existing god. (You know, "the not a real christian/muslim/hindu" thing.). We're still inventing gods and rituals today.
All of this is about human society trying to get along with itself and come to terms with the fact of their own deaths. We invent gods in order to deal with the tragedies of life and to maintain social control.
To accept this god idea, it's necessary to believe that you (ie the human species, not GDR) are special - god loves love or has a plan for you, takes an interest in you and so on. Without this hubris, we'd just be another animal doomed to die - we need to believe we're special. If there's a god looking after us, then we must be special mustn't we.
That's all.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 01-30-2013 6:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 01-31-2013 2:14 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024