Biblical Miracles

[nitecrawlur]

Assuming that the Bible is a reference of historical fact )which it is not) you would agree that all unexplained events were due a supernatural intelligent being causing them.

If you look at recent history, you would also have to agree that all biblical miracles will dissappear with the progess of science.

[HypnoToad]

Assuming that the Bible is a reference of historical fact )which it is not) you would agree that all unexplained events were due a supernatural intelligent being causing them.
No.

Those who accept Scripture attribute Biblical miracles to God, not all unexplained events of all time outside of Scripture. Some may be miracles, some may have natural explanations.

If you look at recent history, you would also have to agree that all biblical miracles will dissappear with the progess of science.
Lol, no we don't "have to agree" to any such thing.

[nitecrawlur]

I don't understand how you could deny that the only reason religion has evolved into what it is today is the resulting consequence of scientific discoveries powered by reason and logic.

[HypnoToad]

I don't understand how you could deny that the only reason religion has evolved into what it is today is the resulting consequence of scientific discoveries powered by reason and logic.
I can "deny" it because you are simply making claims without providing any supporting evidence.

[nitecrawlur]

How can you argue lack of evidence when everything you, I assume, you believe is based on the pure lack of evidence?

But, to further entertain this topic I will not be providing evidence, I will provide fact.

1. The Bible was at one time taken completely in a literal sense. When you reference the "Adam and Eve" story, it is no longer taken literally because there is no evidence to support humanity began with two humans. Evidence actually points to evolution from not apes, but ape-like creatures. That is a fact because you can go to any book or lmuseum on evolution and see the for yourself that what I am saying is true.

2. Noah's Ark: Well I'm sure you can do the math yourself and realize that not two of every animal in existance can fit and coexist on a boat. That is also fact and you could try that experiment yourself.

These are just a couple of examples that at one time were taken literally but for common sense reasons and scientific reasons are no longer accepted as what really happened.

[HypnoToad]

Now you're changing your argument.

First it was assuming the Bible was historical fact, now you're assuming it's not.

Please decide what exactly you are trying to argue.

[nitecrawlur]

Actually, my arguement has been the same. I said "assuming it is historical fact (which it is not)" if you read it correctly.

You said I wasn't providing evidence for a subject in which you had said there was none.

Now that I have provided this evidence, you couldn't logically deny that the only reason religion has evolved into what it is today is the resulting consequence of discoveries of science powered by reason and logic.

If you can logically deny it, exlpain why/how you can.

If you need more debunked "biblical miracles" let me know.

[HypnoToad]

Actually, my arguement has been the same. I said "assuming it is historical fact (which it is not)" if you read it correctly.
Which contradicts itself. You can't go from a viewpoint assuming that it is historical and is not historical at the same time.

[nitecrawlur]

I really shouldn't have to spell this out because it's a waste of time but allow me to break it down for you "assuming it is historical fact" meaning: hypothetically saying it is but still maintaining the the recognition of the fact that it is not. Why are you having such trouble understanding this?

Why are you avoiding my question? I provided the evidence for you on subject of "religion has evolved into what it is today because of discoveries made by science powered by reason and logic". The evidence was the debunked biblical "miracles" which were at one time taken literally but science has shown that those stories could not have happened.

What is you're reply? If you don't have one just let me know and stop wasting time.

[HypnoToad]

If you're truly "assuming it's historical fact", then my first reply stands. Only what Scripture says is a miracle is attributed to God. Other events that are unexplainable may or may not be miracles.

[nitecrawlur]

Wow! I can't believe that you are this incapable of understanding what I am trying to say after I spelled it out for you the way I did.

You are making no sense whatsoever. Which may explain why you feel you need faith. Faith supplies simple, easy to understand answers. Most of which are incapable of providing proof which makes it easier to "just accept" as what is true.

You're wasting my time.

[HypnoToad]

Yes, it's always the other person. It can never be that you aren't explaining your point without ambiguity. Always the other person.

[nitecrawlur]

Yes, it's always the other person. It can never be that you aren't explaining your point without ambiguity. Always the other person.
Now you are changing your argument. Why is that?

Perhaps because you have backed yourself into a corner and can't find your way out of it.

This doesn't change my original point of "all biblical miracles will disappear with the progress of science".

I have provided proof that it has already begun and more proof will be discovered as time passes. Sorry to those of faith. You can deny it but you cannot change what is truth. And the Bible and God are far from it.

[HypnoToad]

The only thing you've "proven" is that you believe what some scientists have told you to believe. You haven't proven them to be correct.

[nitecrawlur]

And all you can prove is what your religion (which is backed by no evidence) has told you to believe.

Science is based on facts

Religion is based on stories, myths, and legends. All are fiction and you are told not to question them.

The proof I have provided is:
"But, to further entertain this topic I will not be providing evidence, I will provide fact.

1. The Bible was at one time taken completely in a literal sense. When you reference the "Adam and Eve" story, it is no longer taken literally because there is no evidence to support humanity began with two humans. Evidence actually points to evolution from not apes, but ape-like creatures. That is a fact because you can go to any book or lmuseum on evolution and see the for yourself that what I am saying is true.

2. Noah's Ark: Well I'm sure you can do the math yourself and realize that not two of every animal in existance can fit and coexist on a boat. That is also fact and you could try that experiment yourself"

Scientists did not tell me believe that that quantity of animals can't fit on a boat, that is common sense. The same applies to the Adam and Eve story. If that we're true, than we are a result of incest. Not only that, but Darwinism suggests that we are the result of evolution of ape-like creatures. You can go to a museum to see that evidence for yourself. That is what makes it a fact. Anyone can see the evidence for themselves.

[HypnoToad]

Oh, there's "science" for you, just take it on "common sense". (And Scripture never says two of every animal in existence was on the ark. You don't even know what you're arguing.

[FaultySurplus]

1. The Bible was at one time taken completely in a literal sense. When you reference the "Adam and Eve" story, it is no longer taken literally because there is no evidence to support humanity began with two humans. Evidence actually points to evolution from not apes, but ape-like creatures. That is a fact because you can go to any book or lmuseum on evolution and see the for yourself that what I am saying is true.

Actually, not so much. During my two years of genetics in college, we did learn that it was entirely possible for the human race to expand from only two ancestors.

2. Noah's Ark: Well I'm sure you can do the math yourself and realize that not two of every animal in existance can fit and coexist on a boat. That is also fact and you could try that experiment yourself. Scientists did not tell me believe that that quantity of animals can't fit on a boat, that is common sense.

Don't just rely on your common sense. Through the years, I've read a number of accounts of how the animals could have fit on the ark. I suggest a little more study on both points on your part before attempting to declare them as false.

Darwinism suggests that we are the result of evolution of ape-like creatures. You can go to a museum to see that evidence for yourself. That is what makes it a fact. Anyone can see the evidence for themselves.

Museum models don't 'prove' anything. Even evolutionists who are somewhat logical have realized that the fossil record don't support the 'slow changes over time' aspect of evolution. The problem was that they would examine the fossil record and discover that instead of transition fossils, the new species would just appear out of nowhere. Christians call that 'Creation', but the evolutionists chose to call it 'Punctuated Equilibrium'.

If you look at recent history, you would also have to agree that all biblical miracles will dissappear with the progess of science.

Not really. I was healed of scoliosis when I was 13. Science was preparing to surgically implant a fiberglass rod next to my spine to straighten it up. God healed it in about one second in front of hundreds of witnesses. My upcoming surgery never happened as it was no longer medically necessary.

[nitecrawlur]

Actually, not so much. During my two years of genetics in college, we did learn that it was entirely possible for the human race to expand from only two ancestors.



Don't just rely on your common sense. Through the years, I've read a number of accounts of how the animals could have fit on the ark. I suggest a little more study on both points on your part before attempting to declare them as false.



Museum models don't 'prove' anything. Even evolutionists who are somewhat logical have realized that the fossil record don't support the 'slow changes over time' aspect of evolution. The problem was that they would examine the fossil record and discover that instead of transition fossils, the new species would just appear out of nowhere. Christians call that 'Creation', but the evolutionists chose to call it 'Punctuated Equilibrium'.



Not really. I was healed of scoliosis when I was 13. Science was preparing to surgically implant a fiberglass rod next to my spine to straighten it up. God healed it in about one second in front of hundreds of witnesses. My upcoming surgery never happened as it was no longer medically necessary.
Yeah sure, God healed you. You were 13 24 years ago. Science and medical understanding is far, far more advanced now. If that had happened today, there would most likely be many credible theories that could explain what happened.

As for museum models, that's not what I was refering to. The evidence that supports what the models portray is what I was refering to.

Puncuated Equilibrium far more likely than a cosmic fairy making creatures. We've seen it happen. For example, evolution is nature changing to suite its environment. The increasing number of homosexuals is increasing. Ironically, so is the number of humans being born with genitals of both sexes. If for some reason this didn't happen then humanity would eventually end if homosexuality continued to increase. This is only a theory, but this is still more evidence and supports the much more likely theory of puncuated equilibrium.

Give an example on how all the species of creatures on earth could have fit on one boat. Not only that, the main point is they would be incapable of co-existing in one singular place. Plus there would have to be a surplus of food and other supplies. Sorry, but not likely.

We may have come from two ancestors, but it was definately not from Adam and Eve who were created by a supernatural mega-daddy who were convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit from a magical tree.

[nitecrawlur]

Oh, there's "science" for you, just take it on "common sense". (And Scripture never says two of every animal in existence was on the ark. You don't even know what you're arguing.
Science and common sense are two very different things. Religion possesses no use for either.

Genesis 7


1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-162a)] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-180b)] , [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-180c)] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days

As you can see, Noah was told by God to take two of every kind of animal on the ark.

It appears you do not know what you are talking about. (not to mention it says Noah was 600 years old? Yeah, ok.

[HypnoToad]

As you can see, Noah was told by God to take two of every kind of animal on the ark.
Two of every "kind" - where do you come to the conclusion that "kind" is "species" as you claim?

[nitecrawlur]

Two of every "kind" - where do you come to the conclusion that "kind" is "species" as you claim?
what does "kind" mean (in your opinion) The word "species" didn't exist when the Bible was compiled so what other translation is there?

keep in mind, you are once again changing your argument which was originally me providing proof, which I have, and now that you cannot not answer or retort for my statement you are now challenging a definition. Which, by the way, has nothing to do the original topic of this whole debate.

[Hentenza]

[quote=nitecrawlur;46171387]And all you can prove is what your religion (which is backed by no evidence) has told you to believe.

Already then.

Science is based on facts
Yep!

Religion is based on stories, myths, and legends. All are fiction and you are told not to question them.

Any proof of that. Ooops, I forgot, there isn't any.

The proof I have provided is:
"But, to further entertain this topic I will not be providing evidence, I will provide fact.
No, you are providing your opinion.

1. The Bible was at one time taken completely in a literal sense. When you reference the "Adam and Eve" story, it is no longer taken literally because there is no evidence to support humanity began with two humans. Evidence actually points to evolution from not apes, but ape-like creatures. That is a fact because you can go to any book or lmuseum on evolution and see the for yourself that what I am saying is true.

LOL!!!! This is your opinion with no substance whatsoever. Tell me, logical one, do you have any real evidence other that your own "intellect".

2. Noah's Ark: Well I'm sure you can do the math yourself and realize that not two of every animal in existance can fit and coexist on a boat. That is also fact and you could try that experiment yourself"
Wow!!!! The logic is overwhelming. Duh!!! What was I thinking!!!!
Again, can you actually provide a logical argument versus your illogical pov. No meat here.

Scientists did not tell me believe that that quantity of animals can't fit on a boat, that is common sense. The same applies to the Adam and Eve story. If that we're true, than we are a result of incest. Not only that, but Darwinism suggests that we are the result of evolution of ape-like creatures. You can go to a museum to see that evidence for yourself. That is what makes it a fact. Anyone can see the evidence for themselves.
Really, what exactly does the fossil record show concerning the "ape like creatures" that you so eloquently have described? Are the apes and humans from the same genus? Did you find the missing link?

Please no cut and pastes so that no one else can speak for you. ;) After all, logic is part of science.

[NewGuy101]

Science and common sense are two very different things. Religion possesses no use for either.

Genesis 7


1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-162a)] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."
5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-180b)] , [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=7&version=31#fen-NIV-180c)] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days

As you can see, Noah was told by God to take two of every kind of animal on the ark.

It appears you do not know what you are talking about. (not to mention it says Noah was 600 years old? Yeah, ok.
The perspective on genesis differs among Christians. I think we should seek to understand before we cram everyone toghether and judge.

[NewGuy101]

Yeah sure, God healed you. You were 13 24 years ago. Science and medical understanding is far, far more advanced now. If that had happened today, there would most likely be many credible theories that could explain what happened.

As for museum models, that's not what I was refering to. The evidence that supports what the models portray is what I was refering to.

Puncuated Equilibrium far more likely than a cosmic fairy making creatures. We've seen it happen. For example, evolution is nature changing to suite its environment. The increasing number of homosexuals is increasing. Ironically, so is the number of humans being born with genitals of both sexes. If for some reason this didn't happen then humanity would eventually end if homosexuality continued to increase. This is only a theory, but this is still more evidence and supports the much more likely theory of puncuated equilibrium.

Give an example on how all the species of creatures on earth could have fit on one boat. Not only that, the main point is they would be incapable of co-existing in one singular place. Plus there would have to be a surplus of food and other supplies. Sorry, but not likely.

We may have come from two ancestors, but it was definately not from Adam and Eve who were created by a supernatural mega-daddy who were convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit from a magical tree.
When you explain to me how evolution started...and give me emperical evidence for macroevolution then we can both stop speaking mindless religious dogma.

[NewGuy101]

How can you argue lack of evidence when everything you, I assume, you believe is based on the pure lack of evidence?
There is a lot of misconceptions going on here so I'm going to correct you. Scripture is our axiom, just like for you nature seems to be your axiom. To argue that we lack evidence means that you lack evidence to show how nature is uniform or we can learn anything from it.




But, to further entertain this topic I will not be providing evidence, I will provide fact.

1. The Bible was at one time taken completely in a literal sense. When you reference the "Adam and Eve" story, it is no longer taken literally because there is no evidence to support humanity began with two humans. Evidence actually points to evolution from not apes, but ape-like creatures. That is a fact because you can go to any book or lmuseum on evolution and see the for yourself that what I am saying is true.
Actually, the interpretaion of Adam and Eve has always been in dispute going back to the 4th century and Saint Augustine. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "literally" every orthodox Christian holds that there was two physiocal people Adam and Eve and yes this conflicts with macroevolution which is just a theory not a scientific fact. Every nutty fundie believes in microevolution which is a scientific fact.




2. Noah's Ark: Well I'm sure you can do the math yourself and realize that not two of every animal in existance can fit and coexist on a boat. That is also fact and you could try that experiment yourself. I agree, the genre of this passage refers to the animals which were in the immediate area when the population was small. It didn't mean every single animal through out the whole world. But thats just my interpration, I could be wrong...and a lot of other Christians disagree with me...thats cool too.

These are just a couple of examples that at one time were taken literally but for common sense reasons and scientific reasons are no longer accepted as what really happened.
What exactly do you mean by reason? Are you implying that there is logical inconsistancies with scripture? What are they? Is it that it violates reason or it violates your naturalistic assumptions?

[Criada]

Hi nitecrawlur,
Thanks for introducing an interesting topic of discussion. I am a scientist, trained as a zoologist, now teaching science. I am also a Christian, and believe that scripture is literally true. And the more I study, the more convinced I become of the guiding hand of a Creator. The world is too complex to have happened by chance! And one of the things that first made me look to Christianity... well, at that stage, to religion generally.... was my study of evolution in particular.
When you have eminent scientist so unable to make their theory fit the reality that they have to come up with 'punctuated equilibrium', and then , even more ludicrous, "spontaneous creation" (:scratch:), one has to wonder what they are trying to avoid...

I would love to discuss this with you in a civil manner... if we can respect one another and avoid getting personal!

[nitecrawlur]

When you explain to me how evolution started...and give me emperical evidence for macroevolution then we can both stop speaking mindless religious dogma.
I will argue quite the opposite in that case. When you can supply physical evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer, then we will stop arguing. Since most evidence found from science supports evolution.

I can tell you multiple credible locations to find such information that supports this theory. I would recommend Wikipedia since they usually supply where its
information came from.

[nitecrawlur]

There is a lot of misconceptions going on here so I'm going to correct you. Scripture is our axiom, just like for you nature seems to be your axiom. To argue that we lack evidence means that you lack evidence to show how nature is uniform or we can learn anything from it.



Actually, the interpretaion of Adam and Eve has always been in dispute going back to the 4th century and Saint Augustine. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "literally" every orthodox Christian holds that there was two physiocal people Adam and Eve and yes this conflicts with macroevolution which is just a theory not a scientific fact. Every nutty fundie believes in microevolution which is a scientific fact.




I agree, the genre of this passage refers to the animals which were in the immediate area when the population was small. It didn't mean every single animal through out the whole world. But thats just my interpration, I could be wrong...and a lot of other Christians disagree with me...thats cool too.


What exactly do you mean by reason? Are you implying that there is logical inconsistancies with scripture? What are they? Is it that it violates reason or it violates your naturalistic assumptions?
With the lack of evidence: Science nor do I claim to have all the answers. Science has theories that can be answered (usually) after reviewing specific details and/or with the progress of technology and/or understanding.

Religion seems to have all the answers without or very little evidence. When asked about details of a proposed answer, (example: "why are we here?") the usual response is "God wants it that way and we shouldn't question it". That is no way to live in my opnion. If it weren't for the question "why" which religion tries so hard to avoid, then we wouldn't have cars, TV, telescopes...ect.

With Noah's Ark, I understand it didn't mean every single animal in the world, I quoted it as "two of every animal" meaning that a pair of every type of animal. So out of all the hawks in the world, only two were taken a male and a female. And out of all the rats in the world, two were taken, a male and a female. But even with that small quantity of each animal, there were still thousands of species on the planet then so it still makes no sense at least in my opinion. If you can understand how thousands (if not tens of thousands) animals could fit on a boat back then please explain so it will help me better understand. It also mentions Noah being 600+ years old. Fossil evidence shows that most humans that long were lucky to live to the age of 30.

[nitecrawlur]

Hi nitecrawlur,
Thanks for introducing an interesting topic of discussion. I am a scientist, trained as a zoologist, now teaching science. I am also a Christian, and believe that scripture is literally true. And the more I study, the more convinced I become of the guiding hand of a Creator. The world is too complex to have happened by chance! And one of the things that first made me look to Christianity... well, at that stage, to religion generally.... was my study of evolution in particular.
When you have eminent scientist so unable to make their theory fit the reality that they have to come up with 'punctuated equilibrium', and then , even more ludicrous, "spontaneous creation" (:scratch:), one has to wonder what they are trying to avoid...

I would love to discuss this with you in a civil manner... if we can respect one another and avoid getting personal!
I am very excited to finally meet some one on here who is both scientific and religious. It is very hard to find someone who strongly believes both theories (intelligent design and evolution).

I'm happy to see we agree that the world is very complex. And it's complexity is actually the reason I find Darwinism more logical and I will explain why.

I guess I will start at "the beginning". As humans we naturally believe in a beginning and an end since we are both mind and body finite. Why is it so hard to believe that, since a God could have just "always been there" why not the universe? Why can't it be possible that instead of an intelligent designer, the universe could be eternal. When I say universe, I don't mean the one that we know today, I am talking about what makes up the universe and everything in it, energy.

Now onto what you call "ludicrous spontaneus creation" which implies that we were created by "mistake" or "pure chance". The theory is sound if a few links could be discovered to make all the puzzle pieces fit. I'm sure you've heard of using amino acids and electricity and so on. It's obviously a more complex procedure than that which I'm not sure how exactly it works but from what I do understand, this theory is the most likely and is accepted as the "default theory" in science. Just because it is the default theory in now way makes it fact. Also, when you have intelligent people who believe in science yet still accept the theory of a "magical supernatural being" who created "existance" instead of a theory which physical evidence supports, one wonders what he/she is trying to avoid. (On that note, please refrain from using any insulting word(s) such as "ludicrous" to describe a theory. Just because it is not a theory you support in no way makes it an inferior theory)

[Criada]

I apologise if my choice of words was offensive.
The theory I was referring to was not abiogenesis... which, whilst I do not accept it, has at least some credibility as a theory. I meant the theory which was around briefly during the '80s that individual species were 'created' without benefit of a creator... a theory which unsurprisingly never gained much popularity. I am sure that you will agree that that is indeed ludicrous!


The issue with abiogenesis is that, whilst in carefully controlled conditions I may be able to produce self -replicating proteins by use of electricity, the chances of anything being produced that would survive are infinitesimal.

(1) the original microbe would have to be an obligate anaerobe
(2) it would have had to be chemosynthetic
(3) it would have had to evolve the ability to reproduce in the span of
one lifetime
(4) it would have had to be particualrly resistant to the effects of UV

etc. etc.

To me, this seems unlikely.

It is not, however, that on which I base my faith... that is based on what I see God doing in my life and those of others, and on a relationship with Him which, even when I have tried, I am unable to deny.

[NewGuy101]

I will argue quite the opposite in that case. When you can supply physical evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent designer, then we will stop arguing. Since most evidence found from science supports evolution.
Again show it...dont just state it. How is it that according to you evolution is more credible than ID?




I can tell you multiple credible locations to find such information that supports this theory. I would recommend Wikipedia since they usually supply where its
information came from.

BTW "credablity" is kind of subjective. I dont find many liberals in universities crediable since their pressupositions tend to get in the way of interpreting the evidence. So how about you just present the arguments and to each their own as to how credible it is.

[NewGuy101]

With the lack of evidence: Science nor do I claim to have all the answers. Science has theories that can be answered (usually) after reviewing specific details and/or with the progress of technology and/or understanding. Science is based on the discovery or the natural world. It's not meant to answer metaphysical questions hence why Science and Relgion intertwine. All the fathers of Modern Science were Christian, Newton, Kepler, Pascal must I say more?


Religion seems to have all the answers without or very little evidence. When asked about details of a proposed answer, (example: "why are we here?") the usual response is "God wants it that way and we shouldn't question it". That is no way to live in my opnion. If it weren't for the question "why" which religion tries so hard to avoid, then we wouldn't have cars, TV, telescopes...ect.
huh? The problem with your propositions is that the question could be answered a million and one ways depending on your framework. The bible states we are here because God us and his image and has purpose for each of us to Glory him through us. A Buddhist (depending on his or her view) will tell you that we are here to reach englighment to reach a state of death or peach. A naturalist (if hes honest) will show that the our purpose here on earth is utterly useless. We have a short amount here on earth and we can do whatever we want and with the expansion of the universe eventually life as we know it will cease to exist. Secondly, I dont know a single religions or non-religious person who is opposed to inventions. I'm an engineering student, I love to discover the natural world that God created and use it to help those around us. The laws of nature seem to be strucutred so we can work around them. Hence why we can create amazing stuff with it such as cars, tv, computers...ect.



With Noah's Ark, I understand it didn't mean every single animal in the world, I quoted it as "two of every animal" meaning that a pair of every type of animal. So out of all the hawks in the world, only two were taken a male and a female. And out of all the rats in the world, two were taken, a male and a female. But even with that small quantity of each animal, there were still thousands of species on the planet then so it still makes no sense at least in my opinion. If you can understand how thousands (if not tens of thousands) animals could fit on a boat back then please explain so it will help me better understand. It also mentions Noah being 600+ years old. Fossil evidence shows that most humans that long were lucky to live to the age of 30. As far as noahs arks goes, I agree with you. That verse is speaking in a hyperbolic format. God didn't intent to destroy the entire world but the entire KNOWN world since the population of that time was so small. In the ark Noah as able to fit all the known animals and have pleanty to feed them with.

Secondly, our comtemporary views on how people live, are based on how we view things now. With repeated experimentation we come to conclusions on how things are now. The fact is we dont know how people lived back then. Also, God using his control over the natural world could have offered Noah an extension of his life...God can do anything.:)

[nitecrawlur]

Science is based on the discovery or the natural world. It's not meant to answer metaphysical questions hence why Science and Relgion intertwine. All the fathers of Modern Science were Christian, Newton, Kepler, Pascal must I say more?

huh? The problem with your propositions is that the question could be answered a million and one ways depending on your framework. The bible states we are here because God us and his image and has purpose for each of us to Glory him through us. A Buddhist (depending on his or her view) will tell you that we are here to reach englighment to reach a state of death or peach. A naturalist (if hes honest) will show that the our purpose here on earth is utterly useless. We have a short amount here on earth and we can do whatever we want and with the expansion of the universe eventually life as we know it will cease to exist. Secondly, I dont know a single religions or non-religious person who is opposed to inventions. I'm an engineering student, I love to discover the natural world that God created and use it to help those around us. The laws of nature seem to be strucutred so we can work around them. Hence why we can create amazing stuff with it such as cars, tv, computers...ect.



As far as noahs arks goes, I agree with you. That verse is speaking in a hyperbolic format. God didn't intent to destroy the entire world but the entire KNOWN world since the population of that time was so small. In the ark Noah as able to fit all the known animals and have pleanty to feed them with.

Secondly, our comtemporary views on how people live, are based on how we view things now. With repeated experimentation we come to conclusions on how things are now. The fact is we dont know how people lived back then. Also, God using his control over the natural world could have offered Noah an extension of his life...God can do anything.:)
The fathers of modern science may have been and probably were Christian. What that has to do with anything is clearly beyond me. However if they were religious, regardless of which one, it was most likely because it was how they were raised. Perhaps victims of childhood inductation still happens today. If you were raised Christian, then you too are victim. You were never really given a choice as to what religion you liked most. Again this hypothetical since I don't know if you were or were not raised Christian. Also, why should children today be labelled with their parents religion. If God wants us to choose based on free will, that is far from it. Most children aren't labelled by their parents political party as they are considered too young to have an opinion on it, so why religion?

As for the statement I made about "why are we here?" my intention was not to ask that question, it was emphasize the reason why religion avoids the word "why". As religion generally only provides simple answers to complex questions. I was also not saying that religion is against technological advances either, simply showing how asking "why" can result in such great accomplishments. As far as life having no purpose, I can only agree that to say life has no purpose would make one disqualified for having it in the first place.

You stated a remark about God being omnipotent. I have questions for that as well. Jesus shouldn't have been necessary as an omnipotent God should been able to, since he is capable of anything, just simply forgive. Saying that a God must punish would mean God had rules and being omnipotent should have also been able to change those rules at will as he no one to answer to. Saying he was restricted by guidelines would be saying that he was less the most powerful being as a more powerful being would have made the rules for him to HAVE to abide by.

[nitecrawlur]

Again show it...dont just state it. How is it that according to you evolution is more credible than ID?




BTW "credablity" is kind of subjective. I dont find many liberals in universities crediable since their pressupositions tend to get in the way of interpreting the evidence. So how about you just present the arguments and to each their own as to how credible it is.
The liberals in the universities generally look at evidence with open minds to any possibility at least that is what I have found. To be a scientist you must continually try to prove yourself wrong. The may have pressuppositions, but it is their job to prove those theories wrong. That is the only way to truly find out if you are right.

So I find these liberals far more credible than anyone who bases their belief on a book written 2000+ years ago. Since these people usually only try to prove themselves right and prove others wrong.

As for showing evidence, I could type all day, but to save me the time, I can give you locations to find such information. You can start with your local library. If you choose not to look then don't bother continuing this debate. I assume you don't consider me as credible since I'm liberated so there is no sense in me "showing" evidence.

[nitecrawlur]

I was raised Christian. That's probably why I'm an Atheist now. I was forced to go to church and brought to believe that there is an omnipotent being that watches everything I do everywhere I go at all times. And he will punish you when you don't do what he wants. Also if you don't do what he likes, example blasphemy, then you go to hell. That seemed to me that this religion was trying to guilt me into doing whatever it said I should. That didn't seem right.

Science has never held requirements over me beyond the laws of nature which is inescapable. With this way of life I am free to think whatever I want without consequence or fear of spening eternity in a place of misery. In religion you are required to think a certain way withing certain guidelines.

So I guess that is why I don't find relition appealing nor have I have ever witnessed a miracle that couldn't be explained by science or have heard any voices of a supernatural being trying to start a spiritual relationship with me.

Take this for what it is, and without offense: "When one person hears a voice that isn't there or sees something that isn't there, he/she is crazy, but when a number of people hear/see something, it is religion."

Perhaps you hear from your God because you truly do believe that one exists which I don't doubt that you do. When the mind wants something bad enough, it can create it and to its owner can make it seem real.

[NewGuy101]

The fathers of modern science may have been and probably were Christian. What that has to do with anything is clearly beyond me.
You just said that Religion restricts people, I just showed you it doesn't.

However if they were religious, regardless of which one, it was most likely because it was how they were raised. Perhaps victims of childhood inductation still happens today. If you were raised Christian, then you too are victim. You were never really given a choice as to what religion you liked most. Again this hypothetical since I don't know if you were or were not raised Christian. Also, why should children today be labelled with their parents religion. If God wants us to choose based on free will, that is far from it. Most children aren't labelled by their parents political party as they are considered too young to have an opinion on it, so why religion? Let me just start of by asking you to research more about Christianity. You seriously have a lot of misconceptions and flawed views.

First, if you claim that people should be allowed to choose religion and not follow what their parents raised them to be that is not only impossible but could be possed on any world view. Why should people be atheist if your parents are atheist? Or agnostic or anything. The thing is that people tend to lean torts what their parents teach because thats what people value. And although some people force on their kids thats not always the case and thats certainly not my view. I will show them Christian principles but my kids (if I have any) will follow them because God's grace. No matter how much you try to force anything on kids now a days they have the freedom to not believe it at anytime..especially here in the US when they are more likely to be indoctrinated by the culture rather than the church. We teach our worldview (no matter what it is) because thats what we think its true that happens with anyone no matter what "religion" you are or even an atheist.

The following response which I have for you is not the view of most fundies now a days but its the view of most of the original protestants and its my view as well. We don't have free will, we cannot choose God based on our free will because we are fallen we are incapable because of our sin. Only God can open our eyes so that we choose God and that's stricly by his grace.

As for the statement I made about "why are we here?" my intention was not to ask that question, it was emphasize the reason why religion avoids the word "why". Again as stated above, my religion and as far I know muslims don't avoid the question why. I always ask whym, I'm trying to understand God and his creation every day. And you are right a lot of churches dont answer questions and thats wrong but that's not everyone.

As religion generally only provides simple answers to complex questions. Again this is incorrect as well. Have you seent he arguments for God's existance? How many theology books have you read? Just trying to read Luthers bondage of the will drives me crazy since its so hard to understand. Or Cornellious Vantils Apologetics which is written in a higher level language.

I was also not saying that religion is against technological advances either, simply showing how asking "why" can result in such great accomplishments. Why what? Why can be asked infinitely in regression and never be answered. The same can be said for any world view, naturalism basically states that all that exists is the natural world...thats their answer to the why question. While the Christian world view the answer is that God made the natural world how is former more rational or better than the latter? If anything I would argue that God made the natural world is more rational and presents a more coherent worldview but we can address that another time. Also if something is simple or very complicated it doesn't validated the argument anymore. It's about truth.


As far as life having no purpose, I can only agree that to say life has no purpose would make one disqualified for having it in the first place. So we agree, not to mention it makes ethics obsolete.

You stated a remark about God being omnipotent. I have questions for that as well. Jesus shouldn't have been necessary as an omnipotent God should been able to, since he is capable of anything, just simply forgive. Saying that a God must punish would mean God had rules and being omnipotent should have also been able to change those rules at will as he no one to answer to. Saying he was restricted by guidelines would be saying that he was less the most powerful being as a more powerful being would have made the rules for him to HAVE to abide by. God is omnipontent in the sense that he can do anything BUT violate his nature. For example God cannot lie since that would violate his nature. God cannot violate the laws of logic since that would also violate his nature. So too does God need his justice satisfied. This is why there needs to be a punishment for sin in which he regenertes those whom he wishes to save. You seem to be implying that God NEEDs to save everyone...he doesn't its up to him. God can do whatever he wants (except violate his nature). And yes, this is different than what most fundies preach thats because a lot of them diverged from their reformed beginnings.

[NewGuy101]

I was raised Christian. That's probably why I'm an Atheist now. I was forced to go to church and brought to believe that there is an omnipotent being that watches everything I do everywhere I go at all times. And he will punish you when you don't do what he wants. Also if you don't do what he likes, example blasphemy, then you go to hell. That seemed to me that this religion was trying to guilt me into doing whatever it said I should. That didn't seem right. I'm sorry to hear that but they were expusing the wrong view of God.

Science has never held requirements over me beyond the laws of nature which is inescapable. With this way of life I am free to think whatever I want without consequence or fear of spening eternity in a place of misery. In religion you are required to think a certain way withing certain guidelines. Science doesn't address the issue of the afterlife. All it does is answer the questions of the natural world. Secondly, I dont wanna answer for "religion" I think that a lot of religions are wrong but I will answer for Christianity. Christianity basically states that to be saved if you repent. When you repent God will help you change to be a better person and you can never lose that.

So I guess that is why I don't find relition appealing nor have I have ever witnessed a miracle that couldn't be explained by science or have heard any voices of a supernatural being trying to start a spiritual relationship with me. Me either, I have never felt any supernatural experience. I came to the Christian worldview through reasoning through my views. I was a former atheist raised in a deist home.

Take this for what it is, and without offense: "When one person hears a voice that isn't there or sees something that isn't there, he/she is crazy, but when a number of people hear/see something, it is religion." I agree. Fortunately I dont consider Christianity just "a religion" but the truth.

Perhaps you hear from your God because you truly do believe that one exists which I don't doubt that you do. When the mind wants something bad enough, it can create it and to its owner can make it seem real. I never heard from God as I stated before, I might never will in this world. I don't need to hear from him a voice. I have the bible, that's who how communicates with his Children.

[nitecrawlur]

You just said that Religion restricts people, I just showed you it doesn't.

Let me just start of by asking you to research more about Christianity. You seriously have a lot of misconceptions and flawed views.

First, if you claim that people should be allowed to choose religion and not follow what their parents raised them to be that is not only impossible but could be possed on any world view. Why should people be atheist if your parents are atheist? Or agnostic or anything. The thing is that people tend to lean torts what their parents teach because thats what people value. And although some people force on their kids thats not always the case and thats certainly not my view. I will show them Christian principles but my kids (if I have any) will follow them because God's grace. No matter how much you try to force anything on kids now a days they have the freedom to not believe it at anytime..especially here in the US when they are more likely to be indoctrinated by the culture rather than the church. We teach our worldview (no matter what it is) because thats what we think its true that happens with anyone no matter what "religion" you are or even an atheist.

The following response which I have for you is not the view of most fundies now a days but its the view of most of the original protestants and its my view as well. We don't have free will, we cannot choose God based on our free will because we are fallen we are incapable because of our sin. Only God can open our eyes so that we choose God and that's stricly by his grace.

Again as stated above, my religion and as far I know muslims don't avoid the question why. I always ask whym, I'm trying to understand God and his creation every day. And you are right a lot of churches dont answer questions and thats wrong but that's not everyone.

Again this is incorrect as well. Have you seent he arguments for God's existance? How many theology books have you read? Just trying to read Luthers bondage of the will drives me crazy since its so hard to understand. Or Cornellious Vantils Apologetics which is written in a higher level language.

Why what? Why can be asked infinitely in regression and never be answered. The same can be said for any world view, naturalism basically states that all that exists is the natural world...thats their answer to the why question. While the Christian world view the answer is that God made the natural world how is former more rational or better than the latter? If anything I would argue that God made the natural world is more rational and presents a more coherent worldview but we can address that another time. Also if something is simple or very complicated it doesn't validated the argument anymore. It's about truth.


So we agree, not to mention it makes ethics obsolete.

God is omnipontent in the sense that he can do anything BUT violate his nature. For example God cannot lie since that would violate his nature. God cannot violate the laws of logic since that would also violate his nature. So too does God need his justice satisfied. This is why there needs to be a punishment for sin in which he regenertes those whom he wishes to save. You seem to be implying that God NEEDs to save everyone...he doesn't its up to him. God can do whatever he wants (except violate his nature). And yes, this is different than what most fundies preach thats because a lot of them diverged from their reformed beginnings.
I don't think you have shown me anything as far as religion being or not being restricted. I still hold my opinion on it and this is why: If science could and did prove that no God could possibly exist (keep in mind this is hypothetical) than most of those who did believe in a God would not agree making an excuse that something has to be wrong (not to say there wouldn't be something done incorrectly because science is practiced by humans who are imperfect) in the math. However when done correctly, math is a perfect science.

I completely understand but somewhat disagree with how you view religion having to be passed down as a family tradition. In most cases of child inductation the child is taught that what they are told is right. They may have the right to refuse a religion but why and how should they if are not taught how to disagree with it? If you are Christain for primarily moral reasons, it is entirely possible to pass those morals to them without bringing Jesus into the equation. Again most religions that I am aware of including Christianity teach their children that Christianity is truth and nothing else is. They aren't, in most cases, taught that Christianity is based on theory which it is. They are taught that is true, which is not correct, necessarily as it hasn't been proven. So if you were to have kids, and you taught them that Christianity was/is true, you would not be honestly teaching them at all.

That leads me to free will. I have been told by a friend of mine who is minister a United Methodist church educated at Wake Forest University in NC that God does want us to choose on our own free will. If he didn't then he would have fully revealed himself in some way to force us to have no choice but to believe. But that would not be free will. If you argue Jesus as a full revealing of Him, then I would argue that there is no evidence to definately supports that Jesus did exist. Jesus' existence is not fact. However based on what I have read, I do lean torward the theory that he did. I do not in anyway beleive that he is the son of God. If only God can open our eyes, then why do Christian churches recruit?

I'm glad we somewhat agree on the "why" situation as well as the "life's purpose".

Again with God being omnipotent, you said "he is capable of anything except going against his own nature". That is a contradiction. If there is one thing, even if it were only one, that he is incapable of doing, that would make him not omnipotent.

By the way, how do you put multiple quotes on a post, I only know how to do the whole thing.

[nitecrawlur]

I'm sorry to hear that but they were expusing the wrong view of God.

Science doesn't address the issue of the afterlife. All it does is answer the questions of the natural world. Secondly, I dont wanna answer for "religion" I think that a lot of religions are wrong but I will answer for Christianity. Christianity basically states that to be saved if you repent. When you repent God will help you change to be a better person and you can never lose that.

Me either, I have never felt any supernatural experience. I came to the Christian worldview through reasoning through my views. I was a former atheist raised in a deist home.

I agree. Fortunately I dont consider Christianity just "a religion" but the truth.

I never heard from God as I stated before, I might never will in this world. I don't need to hear from him a voice. I have the bible, that's who how communicates with his Children.
The post I made that you responded to wasn't actually geared torward you, I just forgot to add the quote from someone else but thank you for responding and giving your input on it.

I envy how you were raised. It seems as though nothing was forced on you and you found religion for your own reasons. That is an admirable way of being a Christian and all I can do is congragulate you. You had to opportunity to find what you personally liked instead of raised a certain way and being told it's not good to disagree with your parents religion.

I'm also impressed in the manner how you say you don't hear from God. I'm glad to hear you aren't insane.

As for me being raised Christian, I fear that is the way most religions keep such a high population. I honestly think that if kids were taught it was ok to disagree, not to be confused with disobey, with their parents or authority figure and that it is also alright to choose what they think is right and wrong. I do agree that there are certain morals that need to be embeded in children such as don't rape, murder...ect. But those can be taught without the virus of religion being imposed.

[NewGuy101]

]I don't think you have shown me anything as far as religion being or not being restricted. I still hold my opinion on it and this is why: I don't have show you anything to prove that Christianity does not restrict, you made up your mind already without any evidence. You are assuming other wise even if historically speaking the fathers of modern science are Christians. Its up to you to open your mind and see that Christians love science, I certainly do.

If science could and did prove that no God could possibly exist (keep in mind this is hypothetical) than most of those who did believe in a God would not agree making an excuse that something has to be wrong (not to say there wouldn't be something done incorrectly because science is practiced by humans who are imperfect) in the math. However when done correctly, math is a perfect science. This is just a dogmatic guess based on an empty notion that religious people are too stupid to give up their beliefs. I could easily say that there is no way an atheist would give up his beliefs even if God showed himself to him. An unfair assessment isn't it? Again science doesn't address the issue of the supernatural, it only speaks of the natural by its own assumptions.

I completely understand but somewhat disagree with how you view religion having to be passed down as a family tradition. Religious people are required by their own conviction to teach their kids their religion. If you didn't you would basically stating "my beliefs dont mean anything to me let this kid figure out on his own." No seriously believer of any system would do that and it would be unfair not to mention unconstituional to make them do that.


In most cases of child inductation the child is taught that what they are told is right. They may have the right to refuse a religion but why and how should they if are not taught how to disagree with it? If you are Christain for primarily moral reasons, it is entirely possible to pass those morals to them without bringing Jesus into the equation. Again, there is no objective point in this view. If you preach anything you will be preaching a FAITH even if is agnosticism or relativism and atheism. If you are a responsible parent with any ethical background you have an obligation to teach it to your children.


Again most religions that I am aware of including Christianity teach their children that Christianity is truth and nothing else is. They aren't, in most cases, taught that Christianity is based on theory which it is. They are taught that is true, which is not correct, necessarily as it hasn't been proven. So if you were to have kids, and you taught them that Christianity was/is true, you would not be honestly teaching them at all. I don't get it. Why would you teach kids something else if what you hold to you think its right? No world view is proven, not atheism not agnosticism, nor skepticism and all of their adherents teach their views as truth. BTW without God ethics is meaningless, it becomes relative.

That leads me to free will. I have been told by a friend of mine who is minister a United Methodist church educated at Wake Forest University in NC that God does want us to choose on our own free will. If he didn't then he would have fully revealed himself in some way to force us to have no choice but to believe. But that would not be free will. Methodists tend to be arminian in their theology. I know that you don't know what that means and that's ok but that's not a view I hold to. God saves by his soverign election which is by his grace alone.

If you argue Jesus as a full revealing of Him, then I would argue that there is no evidence to definately supports that Jesus did exist. Jesus' existence is not fact. However based on what I have read, I do lean torward the theory that he did. I do not in anyway beleive that he is the son of God. If only God can open our eyes, then why do Christian churches recruit? Well if you dont believe in Jesus then you better not believe in Geroge Washignton, or Julius Ceasar, or Shakespsear. The existance of Jesus is a historical FACT.

I'm glad we somewhat agree on the "why" situation as well as the "life's purpose". Well that's the logical implications of your world view. I know them well since I was an atheist.

Again with God being omnipotent, you said "he is capable of anything except going against his own nature". That is a contradiction. If there is one thing, even if it were only one, that he is incapable of doing, that would make him not omnipotent. That's by your definition. Again the historic definition of omipotent is that God can do anything besides violate his nature. It states that in bible itself God cannot lie. If you want to press your own views there is nothing I can do about that but that would be unreasonable.

By the way, how do you put multiple quotes on a post, I only know how to do the whole thing.
When you are typing in right side of the panel there is a bible, count 4 icons from right to left which is the quotation icon. Highlight what you want to quote and then click the icon.

[NewGuy101]

I envy how you were raised. It seems as though nothing was forced on you and you found religion for your own reasons. That is an admirable way of being a Christian and all I can do is congragulate you. You had to opportunity to find what you personally liked instead of raised a certain way and being told it's not good to disagree with your parents religion.
I wish I was raised a Christian to be honest with you. It's a necessary source for ethics and purpose and without those I don't see how any human being can keep going. Secondly, there is no way to find what you like personally without being attacked either the culture or someone you run into. I get attacked by people in school and at work for being a Christian. Whatever worldview you hold to, there will always be another view that oppses it.

I'm also impressed in the manner how you say you don't hear from God. I'm glad to hear you aren't insane There is nothing to be impressed about. God by all means could speak to some, I don't think he does for theological purposes but he certainly COULD do it.

As for me being raised Christian, I fear that is the way most religions keep such a high population. I honestly think that if kids were taught it was ok to disagree, not to be confused with disobey, with their parents or authority figure and that it is also alright to choose what they think is right and wrong. I do agree that there are certain morals that need to be embeded in children such as don't rape, murder...ect. But those can be taught without the virus of religion being imposed.Well sorry to tell you that without God, ethics pretty much become obsolte. Murdering is no different than helping someone since there is no transcendent source of truth. No one can say that anything is right or wrong since we would all be guessing to pushing our opinion on others which logically there is no difference since we cannot in anyway justify hence communism.

[nitecrawlur]

Its up to you to open your mind and see that Christians love science, I certainly do.

Christians should love science. To me it seems that love dissappears when science contradicts their beliefs. I don't think that is the case with you. You seem very liberal.


This is just a dogmatic guess based on an empty notion that religious people are too stupid to give up their beliefs.

I am not saying religious are too stupid. I feel they would be too stubborn to give up what they have been basing their lives around. To them it would be "unbelievable" in my opinion. This is based on personal experience dealing with conservative christians.

Religious people are required by their own conviction to teach their kids their religion.

But that in itself should be considered wrong since the child is technically unable to choose for themselves as they are unaware of other opportunities.

If you are a responsible parent with any ethical background you have an obligation to teach it to your children.

There is no obligation whatsoever. I am a parent and I can teach good ethics and morals without referencing any religion at all.


I. BTW without God ethics is meaningless, it becomes relative.

This is absurd. So you think without God it's OK to rape, murder, commit genocide ect. When in the Bible all of those are done in God's name. I don't believe in God yet I still think it wrong to do harm on others. This is completely inaccurate.

The existance of Jesus is a historical FACT.

Show me how it is FACT that Jesus existed.

Again the historic definition of omipotent is that God can do anything besides violate his nature.

If God is omnipotent, then he is also omniscient by default since it doesn't go against his nature. If he is omniscient then he would've known that Jesus would've had to have died to absolve humanity of original sin. Also he would've known that Adam and Eve would've screwed things up for everyone so he just wasted time making them stay in the garden waiting for them to sin. Anyway if he knew Jesus would've had to have died, why not just take care of that in the beginning?

When you are typing in right side of the panel there is a bible, count 4 icons from right to left which is the quotation icon. Highlight what you want to quote and then click the icon

Thank you.

[Criada]

I was raised Christian. That's probably why I'm an Atheist now. I was forced to go to church and brought to believe that there is an omnipotent being that watches everything I do everywhere I go at all times. And he will punish you when you don't do what he wants. Also if you don't do what he likes, example blasphemy, then you go to hell. That seemed to me that this religion was trying to guilt me into doing whatever it said I should. That didn't seem right.

That is very sad... and very wrong! God is a God of mercy.
I was raised to be 'open minded' with a mother who was a social church-goer and a father influenced by Hinduism..
I explored many religions..Christianity was, and remans, the only one that made sense.


Science has never held requirements over me beyond the laws of nature which is inescapable. With this way of life I am free to think whatever I want without consequence or fear of spening eternity in a place of misery. In religion you are required to think a certain way withing certain guidelines.

I can see the appeal. But sometimes what is easy is not the truth..

So I guess that is why I don't find relition appealing nor have I have ever witnessed a miracle that couldn't be explained by science or have heard any voices of a supernatural being trying to start a spiritual relationship with me.

No, God tends not to work like that.. or faith would be redundant!
I have seen miracles... but if you try hard enough, you can squeeze anything into the 'science' box.... just as some can squeeze anything into the 'religion' box. My God is beyond boxes..


Take this for what it is, and without offense: "When one person hears a voice that isn't there or sees something that isn't there, he/she is crazy, but when a number of people hear/see something, it is religion."

Perhaps you hear from your God because you truly do believe that one exists which I don't doubt that you do. When the mind wants something bad enough, it can create it and to its owner can make it seem real.

No offence taken.I agree, a religious 'mob mentality' is dangerous.
Thing is, though, my mind really didn't want it... at the time atheism seemed much more intellectually viable and socially acceptable.
I was a very reluctant convert!

[nitecrawlur]

What is your take on my statement of God being both omnipotent and omniscient? I noticed you didn't respond to that.

[Criada]

Yes, He is both. But you are not taking into account free will here. Because God knows that something will happen does not mean that He makes it happen.
Adam and Eve had a choice... as do we all.

[nitecrawlur]

Yes, He is both. But you are not taking into account free will here. Because God knows that something will happen does not mean that He makes it happen.
Adam and Eve had a choice... as do we all.
Yes, I understand the concept of free will. If a being is omniscient and knows what will happen, that means that the future is already decided. The human didn't decide anything, fate did. That would nullify any illusion of free will.

[Criada]

If I offer my son a bar of chocolate and an apple, he will choose the chocolate.... I know that, because I know him.
But I am in no way forcing him to make that choice... he has total free will.
God is not bound by time - He sees the past, present and future. Tthat doesn't mean that He makes it happen.

[nitecrawlur]

If I offer my son a bar of chocolate and an apple, he will choose the chocolate.... I know that, because I know him.
But I am in no way forcing him to make that choice... he has total free will.
God is not bound by time - He sees the past, present and future. Tthat doesn't mean that He makes it happen.
Yes, so why offer the apple? Does it make you feel better that you gave him a choice? For that matter if you did just ask him if he wanted it, why not just give it to him without vocally offering? You know he's going to take it so there never was a choice.

Also, you're not omniscient, or if you are then the first paragraph would apply, but since you're not you can only assume that he would take the chocolate that's why you do offer a choice.

For example, today is NFL draft day. A very exciting day for me and other NFL fans. Matt Ryan is assumed to the the fist pick. But since the powers that be in the NFL aren't omniscient, they have to allow the team with the first pick to make the choice. Otherwise the NFL would just issue the first pick team with Matt Ryan.

[NewGuy101]

Christians should love science. To me it seems that love dissappears when science contradicts their beliefs. I don't think that is the case with you. You seem very liberal.
Again, it all depends on your system. There is a lot of implications when doing science. First you have to realize that its a system based on our senses and we can come to the wrong conclusions from it. For me like every other fundie the bible is the inerrant word of God. I will always stand by that, science is a way of looking at the natural world but we cannot make it a metaphysical philosophy which is what a lot of people do hence why we get naturalists saying that science = atheism. Again you are completely relying on sense experience which are FLAWED.

.


I am not saying religious are too stupid. I feel they would be too stubborn to give up what they have been basing their lives around. To them it would be "unbelievable" in my opinion. This is based on personal experience dealing with conservative christians.
Well in a way you are right, many Christians are stubborn. But I can assure you many atheists are as well, since my conversion I have been talking to a lot of atheists and they are extremly stubborn as well and will never give up their beliefs. Funny how much alike they are?:D

.


But that in itself should be considered wrong since the child is technically unable to choose for themselves as they are unaware of other opportunities.


There is no obligation whatsoever. I am a parent and I can teach good ethics and morals without referencing any religion at all.
These kind of go together. Okya please do so, how would rationlize any ethics without a transcedent source of truth? Again science doesnt answer that question so you are stuck.





This is absurd. So you think without God it's OK to rape, murder, commit genocide ect. When in the Bible all of those are done in God's name. I don't believe in God yet I still think it wrong to do harm on others. This is completely inaccurate.
Without God there is no RATIONAL explination for ethics. Secondly, in the OT those things occured because they needed to happen under the cicumstances except for rape which I am sure you are taking things out of context.



Show me how it is FACT that Jesus existed. Again a historical FACT. Read this when you get a chance. Just the amount of infomartion we have regarding the NT is incredable.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/history.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Besides if you do your research I can recommend some books that I cannot post on here on the historicity of Jesus. Again, the vast majority of biblical scholars agree that some guy named Jesus did exist even if you dont agree withe all the miracles that were performed.



If God is omnipotent, then he is also omniscient by default since it doesn't go against his nature. If he is omniscient then he would've known that Jesus would've had to have died to absolve humanity of original sin. Also he would've known that Adam and Eve would've screwed things up for everyone so he just wasted time making them stay in the garden waiting for them to sin. Anyway if he knew Jesus would've had to have died, why not just take care of that in the beginning?
To be honest with you, I don't know. The scriptures don't answer that question in detail. All I can tell you that everything that happened God wanted it to happen and is happening exactly how he wants it to happen. But you are right about all of your deductions, I made them myself. I just trust God with everything that happens and I know since he is perfect he will always make the right decision. And I came to that conclusion since I know I am finite and subject to error.

[NewGuy101]

Before we get into the subject of free will I would like to state that I agree we have a "free will" but it depends what you mean by it. We have a free will in the sense that we do that which we most desire, but that is bound to Gods soverign will. I suggest we leave that conversation there and go there later since thats a debate between Christians.

[nitecrawlur]

Again you are completely relying on sense experience which are FLAWED.

I could argue this against Christians as well. Senses are all we have to make judgements on which would mean that Christians use their FLAWED senses to make the decision on believing in an intelligent designer. Having said that, there is more evidence that supports darwinism than ID which logically would tip the scale of likeliness in sciences favor.

Well in a way you are right, many Christians are stubborn. But I can assure you many atheists are as well

On a scale of 1 to 10 10 being there is absolutely no God and 1 being there absolutely is a God I am a 9.9. I sincerely deny the the fact there is one, but I am open to the idea there may be. So I agree with you as far as Atheists and religious people being stubborn, but keep in mind EDUCATED Atheists, which I think are the majority of Atheists are required by their belief and education to be open minded so they are by this base less likely to be as stubborn. (This theory is completely irrelavant to our debate but I thought it still worth mentioning.)


These kind of go together. Okya please do so, how would rationlize any ethics without a transcedent source of truth? Again science doesnt answer that question so you are stuck.


I would rationalize my ethics by explaining how morality is subjective and not absolute as most religions claim. In other words, morals are set based on ones opinion and not by a supernatural being. This is true even in religion contradicting its absolute truth theory.

Rev. Paul Hill murdered a doctor who performed abortions. The Bible indicates that murder is wrong yet his morality became subjective when he took the law into his own hands. I don't expect you to answer for Rev. Hill nor apologize for him. This is just and example of how, no matter what your belief is, morality is a matter opinion.


Without God there is no RATIONAL explination for ethics. Secondly, in the OT those things occured because they needed to happen under the cicumstances except for rape which I am sure you are taking things out of context.


Judges 19

22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

In the biblical sense, to know, meant to have sex with. Even if the men from the city were evil, the master and his guest (who was a clergy by the way) were willing to give up his daughter and wife. But to do such an act on a man was unheard of? Seriously? In no way have I taken this out of context. This shows the status of woman in the Bible. And religion claims morality is derived from an absolute ruler who's "word" preaches such hideous things. Not to mention if you read further that the Levite found that his concubine was dead after the rape so he chopped her up and spread her remains all over the country. Ethics, huh?


Again a historical FACT. Read this when you get a chance. Just the amount of infomartion we have regarding the NT is incredable.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/history.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

I was not able to open these links for some reason. I will try later.

Again, the vast majority of biblical scholars agree that some guy named Jesus did exist even if you dont agree withe all the miracles that were performed.

A theory is still a theory. It doesn't matter if it is the only theory, without hard physical proof, it will be nothing more than an assumption. (I also haven't read your factual evidence for reasons I previously stated. This assuming it is what you claim it is. I can only imagine that it is evidence but evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything)

[nitecrawlur]

Again a historical FACT. Read this when you get a chance. Just the amount of infomartion we have regarding the NT is incredable.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/history.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

"We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate."

This only indicates that it evidence that alludes to his existence. Historians "consider" it to be accurate. This "considering" is quite frequent throughout the first web page listed which doesn't prove that Jesus was FACT. This is still just a theory. However as much as I am contesting it, I do believe Jesus did exist. As for the miracles, well I'm not religious so.........

If you look at George Washington, there are documents he himself wrote, signatures, a grave, memorial, there is significantly more factual evidence to support his existance and shouldn't even be compared to Jesus' existance because of that.

[nitecrawlur]

Thing is, though, my mind really didn't want it... at the time atheism seemed much more intellectually viable and socially acceptable.
I was a very reluctant convert


There are very few places that I have been in the United states where Atheism is socially acceptable. It is quite the other way around in my opinion. Christianity is more acceptable in my experience.

[Hentenza]

Again a historical FACT. Read this when you get a chance. Just the amount of infomartion we have regarding the NT is incredable.

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/history.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

"We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate."

This only indicates that it evidence that alludes to his existence. Historians "consider" it to be accurate. This "considering" is quite frequent throughout the first web page listed which doesn't prove that Jesus was FACT. This is still just a theory. However as much as I am contesting it, I do believe Jesus did exist. As for the miracles, well I'm not religious so.........

If you look at George Washington, there are documents he himself wrote, signatures, a grave, memorial, there is significantly more factual evidence to support his existance and shouldn't even be compared to Jesus' existance because of that.

But there is plenty of secular evidence also that Jesus did indeed existed. Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus is available from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is, in fact, overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Evidence like what you required to prove the existence of George Washington. The biblical evidence, of course, is huge and you have to consider the fact that even throughout the centuries (including all of the prosecutions which attempted to destroy all Christian writings) the scriptures have the most extant documents of any other literary writing. Heck, the Iliad, which is the closest, doesn't even come close.

[nitecrawlur]

But there is plenty of secular evidence also that Jesus did indeed existed. Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus is available from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is, in fact, overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Evidence like what you required to prove the existence of George Washington. The biblical evidence, of course, is huge and you have to consider the fact that even throughout the centuries (including all of the prosecutions which attempted to destroy all Christian writings) the scriptures have the most extant documents of any other literary writing. Heck, the Iliad, which is the closest, doesn't even come close.
Hello Mr. Hentenza. I'm slightly reluctant to reply to your posts.

Well, it seems as though you have proven me wrong.....oh, wait, silly me, no you haven't.

I will start by restating that I do believe that Jesus did exist to ensure there is no confusing.

What you have listed are documents written by people other than Jesus. This evidence cannot match what evidence that "I require" to prove the existence George Washington. My evidence that I presented with Mr. Washington was things such as Washington's writings and signatures, he has a physical grave which would allude to a body being in it which could provide DNA which could be match by his younger brothers descendants as he was unable to have his own. The two children he did raise were from his wife's (Martha) previous marriage.

Anyway, that is what is called "physical evidence". That means this is evidence that could potentially be used through scientific process to prove or disprove a theory.

Written documentation is NOT physical evidence.

But just for the heck of it I will say it again, I do believe that Jesus did exist. It is because of this "overwhelming" secular written evidence that I hold this opinion. His existence is anything but fact.

[Hentenza]

Hello Mr. Hentenza. I'm slightly reluctant to reply to your posts.

Well, it seems as though you have proven me wrong.....oh, wait, silly me, no you haven't.

I will start by restating that I do believe that Jesus did exist to ensure there is no confusing.

What you have listed are documents written by people other than Jesus. This evidence cannot match what evidence that "I require" to prove the existence George Washington. My evidence that I presented with Mr. Washington was things such as Washington's writings and signatures, he has a physical grave which would allude to a body being in it which could provide DNA which could be match by his younger brothers descendants as he was unable to have his own. The two children he did raise were from his wife's (Martha) previous marriage.

Anyway, that is what is called "physical evidence". That means this is evidence that could potentially be used through scientific process to prove or disprove a theory.

Written documentation is NOT physical evidence.

But just for the heck of it I will say it again, I do believe that Jesus did exist. It is because of this "overwhelming" secular written evidence that I hold this opinion. His existence is anything but fact.

So tell me, do you accept written "man made" evidence for other historical figures?

[nitecrawlur]

So tell me, do you accept written "man made" evidence for other historical figures?

No, actually nothing comes to mind. Perhaps this is the remanence of my religious up-bringing. You must know what I am talking about, right? The whole "believe what you are told without question" concept?You have helped me realize the error I was making. I don't think I can logically believe in Jesus anymore since nothing available at this time can potentially prove scientifically that he did exist. At least nothing I am aware of. I would be happy to change my belief once such information unearths itself. Maybe you can help me find it.

[Hentenza]

[quote=nitecrawlur;46447808]No, actually nothing comes to mind. Perhaps this is the remanence of my religious up-bringing.
It must have been tough. I know, I had one of those also and only led me to become an agnostic for over 15 years.

You must know what I am talking about, right? The whole "believe what you are told without question" concept?
But, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. Look up the meaning of "belief".

You have helped me realize the error I was making. I don't think I can logically believe in Jesus anymore since nothing available at this time can potentially prove scientifically that he did exist.
LOL!!! And nothing ever will other than historical proof, sociological proof, literary proof, archeological proof, etc, etc, etc,

At least nothing I am aware of. I would be happy to change my belief once such information unearths itself. Maybe you can help me find it.
I already listed some for you to start with. I can't really do nothing. You have to be the one to believe it.
Tell me, what do you think of scientific study that starts with a bias or rules related items out from the beginning?

[nitecrawlur]

But, there is nothing wrong with asking questions. Look up the meaning of "belief".


You're belief is based almost completely on faith. Look up the definition of "faith". Nevermind I already did it for you:

Faith - belief that is not based on proof

Sounds similar to "hope" doesn't it?

Hope - believing that something is possible even when there is some evidence to the contrary


LOL!!! And nothing ever will other than historical proof, sociological proof, literary proof, archeological proof, etc, etc, etc,


"LOL"? You laugh at my logic when your theory of Jesus is almost entirely in complete lack?


I already listed some for you to start with. I can't really do nothing. You have to be the one to believe it.
Tell me, what do you think of scientific study that starts with a bias or rules related items out from the beginning?


I'm not certain I understand the question.

If you are asking how I, in my opinion, think everything started, then I would answer that I am uncertain. My thoughts would be the big bang theory but that's not really the beginning since the energy that makes up the universe would've had to have been there first. Although it is FACT that energy is eternal. So my question to you would be: How can you believe there is an eternal supernatural being, but you choose not to believe that what makes the universe could've always been there just like you claim your God has been?

[Hentenza]

[quote=nitecrawlur;46448179]You're belief is based almost completely on faith. Look up the definition of "faith". Nevermind I already did it for you:

Faith - belief that is not based on proof

Sounds similar to "hope" doesn't it?

Hope - believing that something is possible even when there is some evidence to the contrary


Belief:

Date:12th century 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believed); especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Evidence
Date:14th century 1 a: an outward sign : indication (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indication) b: something that furnishes proof : testimony (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testimony); specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

What is your proof or evidence that Jesus did not exist?



"LOL"? You laugh at my logic when your theory of Jesus is almost entirely in complete lack?

I have no theory only historical evidence. I have not seen an attempt to refute it from you yet.


I'm not certain I understand the question.

If you are asking how I, in my opinion, think everything started, then I would answer that I am uncertain. My thoughts would be the big bang theory but that's not really the beginning since the energy that makes up the universe would've had to have been there first. Although it is FACT that energy is eternal. So my question to you would be: How can you believe there is an eternal supernatural being, but you choose not to believe that what makes the universe could've always been there just like you claim your God has been?

Which energy is eternal, kinetic or potential? Any idea?

[nitecrawlur]

What is your proof or evidence that Jesus did not exist?

Well, I'm glad to see we agree on what the definition of "belief" and "evidence". I didn't think that was what the question was about. Again, your belief is based on faith, you can use your source to find it's definition.

"Proof Jesus didn't exist?"? Well, to whether he existed is irrelavent. It's important to you not me. I don't need Jesus to exist or not exist to fit any of theories. But, anyway, can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. If you can't that must mean that it does right? I'm not real sure what you were getting at with this question.



I have no theory only historical evidence. I have not seen an attempt to refute it from you yet.


You're theory of Jesus exists because of the Bible (which is not a book of historical events) supplies it. It does have support from other TEXT. These writings can not be used by a scientific process to prove anything which, for right now, is the only way we are capable of aquiring proof.

Which energy is eternal, kinetic or potential? Any idea?

Why are limiting what type of energy? I don't claim to have all the answers so I'm not going to pretend. I don't know. I would assume both. For example in the big bang theory, assuming that's what started the universe that we know today, the potential energy would be all of the matter in the universe being forced together in a small extremely dense singular form. The intense gravity would cause everything to heat up, (potential energy) resulting in some form of nuclear fision, kenetic energy and spreading all matter that we know into space. How is that theory? Like I said I don't know.

But anyway, that's a general way of putting what I meant as energy anyway. I was referring to what makes up matter. Energy makes up everything. For example energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's what makes it eternal. So, if you had a plastic cup and vaporized it, the cup would no longer exist but what made the cup, still does. It was transformed into a different form of matter, in this case vapor.

[Hentenza]

Well, I'm glad to see we agree on what the definition of "belief" and "evidence". I didn't think that was what the question was about. Again, your belief is based on faith, you can use your source to find it's definition.

"Proof Jesus didn't exist?"? Well, to whether he existed is irrelavent. It's important to you not me. I don't need Jesus to exist or not exist to fit any of theories. But, anyway, can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist. If you can't that must mean that it does right? I'm not real sure what you were getting at with this question.




You're theory of Jesus exists because of the Bible (which is not a book of historical events) supplies it. It does have support from other TEXT. These writings can not be used by a scientific process to prove anything which, for right now, is the only way we are capable of aquiring proof.



Why are limiting what type of energy? I don't claim to have all the answers so I'm not going to pretend. I don't know. I would assume both. For example in the big bang theory, assuming that's what started the universe that we know today, the potential energy would be all of the matter in the universe being forced together in a small extremely dense singular form. The intense gravity would cause everything to heat up, (potential energy) resulting in some form of nuclear fision, kenetic energy and spreading all matter that we know into space. How is that theory? Like I said I don't know.

But anyway, that's a general way of putting what I meant as energy anyway. I was referring to what makes up matter. Energy makes up everything. For example energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's what makes it eternal. So, if you had a plastic cup and vaporized it, the cup would no longer exist but what made the cup, still does. It was transformed into a different form of matter, in this case vapor.

And yet, you have not addressed the historical evidence that I posted back in post 54.:scratch:

[nitecrawlur]

And yet, you have not addressed the historical evidence that I posted back in post 54.:scratch:
Ok, you have evidence. I did address it acutally on post 55 stating that you had written evidence.

Again, this is far from proof since nothing in this evidence can be used to provide definate proof that he did indeed exist. I'm not arguing that he did or did not exist, I'm arguing that the evidence that does exist is not enough to say that is existance is FACT. Unlike George Washington.

Other than that I don't know what to say. If that can't answer your question, perhaps I am misinterpreting it.

[Hentenza]

Ok, you have evidence. I did address it acutally on post 55 stating that you had written evidence.

Again, this is far from proof since nothing in this evidence can be used to provide definate proof that he did indeed exist. I'm not arguing that he did or did not exist, I'm arguing that the evidence that does exist is not enough to say that is existance is FACT. Unlike George Washington.

Other than that I don't know what to say. If that can't answer your question, perhaps I am misinterpreting it.

NC,

Look, I just find it interesting that there is a double standard concerning what proof is necessary to prove Jesus existence as a fact but then many accept as fact that other secular famous people from antiquity lived with less evidence that what I have presented. Personally, I think that some folks just don't want to believe in the evidence irregardless of what evidence is presented. Sure, GW is a recent figure of which most of the evidence is extant and clearly visible so there is no way that evidence from someone's existence from 2000 or 3000 years ago can be as clear or as plain. But properly cataloged and recognized evidence is factual evidence.

That is my point.

[nitecrawlur]

NC,

Look, I just find it interesting that there is a double standard concerning what proof is necessary to prove Jesus existence as a fact but then many accept as fact that other secular famous people from antiquity lived with less evidence that what I have presented. Personally, I think that some folks just don't want to believe in the evidence irregardless of what evidence is presented. Sure, GW is a recent figure of which most of the evidence is extant and clearly visible so there is no way that evidence from someone's existence from 2000 or 3000 years ago can be as clear or as plain. But properly cataloged and recognized evidence is factual evidence.

That is my point.
Yes, I understand your point. I guess what my point is, is that Jesus, as far as I know and could be wrong, was crucified around 33 A.D. All evidence that mentions Jesus is carbon dated to after that. Not only that, we have yet to find anything written by Jesus. All other well known, as well as not so well known, historical figures provide identifiable authored texts. One must assume that Jesus, being the influential person that he is made out to be must have written something, such as about God since he was the Son. Perhaps it does exist and has yet to be unearthed.

But that is the sort of thing that differs Jesus' evidence from GW.

You really seem like an intelligent individual and I don't understand how you, either, refuse or can't understand the point I am making. I understand that you believe Jesus existed, but that is still only a belief. Saying Jesus is a historical fact is a far stretch from the truth.

That is my point.

[Criada]

Jesus was a carpenter, in a time when very few could read or write...
But, the thing you are missing here is that Christianity is not an academic study, though studying it is interesting.
But it is primarily experiential.... i spent years studying religion, but until I actually decided to take god at His word and make a leap of faith, it was just words.

Can I challenge you to do something?
Pray... ask God, if he is there to reveal Himself, if you really want to know the truth, rather than proving a point.
Because faith is a gift... and without it you can talk for ever, but you won't find the truth.

[nitecrawlur]

Jesus was a carpenter, in a time when very few could read or write...
But, the thing you are missing here is that Christianity is not an academic study, though studying it is interesting.
But it is primarily experiential.... i spent years studying religion, but until I actually decided to take god at His word and make a leap of faith, it was just words.

Can I challenge you to do something?
Pray... ask God, if he is there to reveal Himself, if you really want to know the truth, rather than proving a point.
Because faith is a gift... and without it you can talk for ever, but you won't find the truth.
I have prayed. I was brought up in Christianity so praying was a big part of my life. Praying, I think, was a main contributor in my losing of faith. Things that I asked for were never granted. Not just selfish things for myself like asking for the Eagles to win the Superbowl, but non-selfish alike such as a friend of mine was made fun of every day for being overweight. I asked God to help him. Nothing happened and he dealth with it until mid high school. Ironically he prayed for the same thing and that is THE reason he lost his faith. I then realized that prayer may not be intended for requests only. So in my prayers after that I just started telling God about my day and different ideas I had. But I got about no satisfaction out of it. I would have had more response if I was talking to a tree.

To find the main reason I lost faith you can read my profile.

I understand Christianity (almost any religion really) is not academic. But Jesus is seriously looked at as a historical figure so that makes him academic whether you relate him to Christianity or not. Even in history class in high school I remember many parents complained (mostly indians and muslim families) about Jesus being in our history books. But because of his potential infuence on certain events, he has to be mentioned.

[NewGuy101]

I could argue this against Christians as well. Senses are all we have to make judgements on which would mean that Christians use their FLAWED senses to make the decision on believing in an intelligent designer. Having said that, there is more evidence that supports darwinism than ID which logically would tip the scale of likeliness in scie