@Mr:
Your evidence for Jesus being real is that a Roman said so and it has a large entry in an Encyclopaedia ???
Nice job.I gave a dozen sources and only two were Roman related. I do not rely on the Encyclopaedia, it is just another interesting additional source that is non-biblical. If Jesus was Mythical, a “logical” person would surely think that the Encyclopaedia would recognize this like it does for the Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and Celtic mythologies.
@Mr:
Quote from Wild2000 “Those who do not really want to find God will not. They will always find excuses. A person has to maintain an open mind to all things and remove the bias that it is not possible for God or the supernatural to exist.”
Oh you mean abandon logic, I see.
If your definition of logic includes only what we as humans are able to understand, then yes. I am sorry if I am asking someone to keep an open mind when trying to evaluate these things objectively. Do I have a bias? Yep. Do you? I am just trying to remind people that their personal bias affects how they accept any evidence placed before them.
I think it is one thing to look at all of the evidence and make a decision based on it. I can accept that. However, I get the feeling that for many of you, there is not any amount of evidence that could be provided that would make you accept the idea that God exists. - I think I will add that to the existence thread.
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.
:lol:
@Mr:
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.Please tell me what would you consider as a valid source of authority? Please show me where my fallacies are. I am not presenting fictious evidence. These are hostile sources which have no relation to Christianity.
Maybe what we need to do is define how a book of antiquity gains creditability. Any experts out there before I take a stab at it?
When I was searching web sites about prophecies I found every site, in there augrements for Bible truth, where saying something like " Well non-chirstans wrote about a Jesus". That is weak evidence in my opinion.
As well as saying Jesus was real because three men saw him rise from the grave and that they would rather die than say it was untrue.
Would they die for a lie? was there stance on it being valid agurment for truth.
Thats great evidence……its not eh.
@Mr:
@Mr:
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.Please tell me what would you consider as a valid source of authority? Please show me where my fallacies are. I am not presenting fictious evidence. These are hostile sources which have no relation to Christianity.
Maybe what we need to do is define how a book of antiquity gains creditability. Any experts out there before I take a stab at it?
When I was searching web sites about prophecies I found every site, in there augrements for Bible truth, where saying something like " Well non-chirstans wrote about a Jesus". That is weak evidence in my opinion.
As well as saying Jesus was real because three men saw him rise from the grave and that they would rather die than say it was untrue.
Would they die for a lie? was there stance on it being valid agurment for truth.
Thats great evidence……its not eh.
Actually many people saw Jesus after he had arisin - according to the scriptures - many more than 3.
Also when you are looking back 2000 years, there is going to be limited evidence left. How do we know that which happened 200 years ago (say the Napoleonic Wars) really happened? Because some books were written? How do we confirm those books as fact? Collaborating books written by other “observers”. Even if we had 200 year old people hanging about with any sense left, how could we believe them when they say that the war happened? How can we believe anything that is written about anything - historical, scientific, etc.?
The fact is, the bible has withstood the test of time quite nicely. Events in it are confirmed by independent/3rd party historians present at the time, as well as current archeologists (to a small degree).
tsssss, i NEVER said that was an argument for Atheism !!! I am just asking a question !!! I never even said Scientists were more atheist, i am just asking a question, i never use such fallacious argument to caution atheism. YB said the fact 85% of the poppulation is theist constitute an argument about the concept of god (and you support the fallacies), i just ask a question i never use that as an argument for atheism ! How can i be fallacious if i am not even making an argument ? It does not even implie anything, i have not said “why xx% of scientist and blablabla” !!!
it’s obvious you think i’m naive, but puh-lease. a person with an IQ greater than a hammer could have seen your implications a mile away. you were caught in a fallacious argument. Deal with it.
field marshall - i’ve many times wondered about the passages you quoted. There are others - the book of Job where God meets with his “sons”, and Romans where Paul refers to other "g"ods ("we know that there are other gods . . . "). I seriously consider that there are other celestial beings other than angels . . . kind of a la polytheistic religions. It would not surprise me to at the end of it all find that there is some kind of a pantheon out there that provides the fodder for all of the myths (not too say i yet believe in it). The important thing for Christians is that there is one "G"od - creator/saviour, etc.
@cystic:
@Mr:
@Mr:
The problem is that what you claim is evidence is weak at best.
And your angrements for it are fallaicous in your appeals to authority.Please tell me what would you consider as a valid source of authority? Please show me where my fallacies are. I am not presenting fictious evidence. These are hostile sources which have no relation to Christianity.
Maybe what we need to do is define how a book of antiquity gains creditability. Any experts out there before I take a stab at it?
When I was searching web sites about prophecies I found every site, in there augrements for Bible truth, where saying something like " Well non-chirstans wrote about a Jesus". That is weak evidence in my opinion.
As well as saying Jesus was real because three men saw him rise from the grave and that they would rather die than say it was untrue.
Would they die for a lie? was there stance on it being valid agurment for truth.
Thats great evidence……its not eh.Actually many people saw Jesus after he had arisin - according to the scriptures - many more than 3.
Also when you are looking back 2000 years, there is going to be limited evidence left. How do we know that which happened 200 years ago (say the Napoleonic Wars) really happened? Because some books were written? How do we confirm those books as fact? Collaborating books written by other “observers”. Even if we had 200 year old people hanging about with any sense left, how could we believe them when they say that the war happened? How can we believe anything that is written about anything - historical, scientific, etc.?
The fact is, the bible has withstood the test of time quite nicely. Events in it are confirmed by independent/3rd party historians present at the time, as well as current archeologists (to a small degree).tsssss, i NEVER said that was an argument for Atheism !!! I am just asking a question !!! I never even said Scientists were more atheist, i am just asking a question, i never use such fallacious argument to caution atheism. YB said the fact 85% of the poppulation is theist constitute an argument about the concept of god (and you support the fallacies), i just ask a question i never use that as an argument for atheism ! How can i be fallacious if i am not even making an argument ? It does not even implie anything, i have not said “why xx% of scientist and blablabla” !!!
it’s obvious you think i’m naive, but puh-lease. a person with an IQ greater than a hammer could have seen your implications a mile away. you were caught in a fallacious argument. Deal with it.
field marshall - i’ve many times wondered about the passages you quoted. There are others - the book of Job where God meets with his “sons”, and Romans where Paul refers to other "g"ods ("we know that there are other gods . . . "). I seriously consider that there are other celestial beings other than angels . . . kind of a la polytheistic religions. It would not surprise me to at the end of it all find that there is some kind of a pantheon out there that provides the fodder for all of the myths (not too say i yet believe in it). The important thing for Christians is that there is one "G"od - creator/saviour, etc.
I see you what saying, however, people do not routinely rise for the grave, its not something that happens in the world we know. People do not walk on water and turn water into wine.
There is plenty of evidence to support that the above does not happen.
Poeple who wish to see UFOs usually claim they do.
If you chose to belive something enough and want to convice others, who knows what you’ll do.
All the porphecies about Jesus, as writing in the bible, came true. correct well that right there makes me wonder.
The Napoleonic war history does nothing that defies my sense of logic, so its easy to accept the general facts about that time period.
It Napoleon’s history was covered in stories of how he was walking on water, rising his soldiers from the dead and was born of immaculate conception, I wouldn’t belive it either.
it’s obvious you think i’m naive, but puh-lease. a person with an IQ greater than a hammer could have seen your implications a mile away. you were caught in a fallacious argument. Deal with it.
That was a question without implication, i am still asking why so many scientist cannot see god. Is it a new way to find excuse not to answer ? You are making paranoiac extrapolation, i never use this kind of fallacies.
Anyway what implication, that all scientist are atheist ? You and I know it is false…
@Mr:
I see you what saying, however, people do not routinely rise for the grave, its not something that happens in the world we know. People do not walk on water and turn water into wine.
There is plenty of evidence to support that the above does not happen.Poeple who wish to see UFOs usually claim they do.
If you chose to belive something enough and want to convice others, who knows what you’ll do.All the porphecies about Jesus, as writing in the bible, came true. correct well that right there makes me wonder.
The Napoleonic war history does nothing that defies my sense of logic, so its easy to accept the general facts about that time period.
It Napoleon’s history was covered in stories of how he was walking on water, rising his soldiers from the dead and was born of immaculate conception, I wouldn’t belive it either.
Fair enough. So in your mind, the fact that these miracles are listed in the bible are evidence that the whole thing is a corrupt myth? Or part myth/some history? Or interesting literature piece (except for the book of Numbers and Leviticus)?
*Still waits for Wilds reply :) *
Another word for religion is faith. The best defination of faith I ever heard was from the character Archie Bunker from All in the Family. Archie said, “Faith is believing in something common sense tells you not to.” One of his few intellegent comments.
For those who believe, nothing can shake their faith. For the non-believers, nothing will convince them. It’s the people sitting on the fence that are up for graps!
:lol:
:lol:
Belief and faith are two separate things. I can say that I believe I have no faith. I still believe also that facts and evidence are outside the scope of this discussion. I’ll side with the previous poster, religion and God are a matter of faith…
:lol:
I agree that faith can be based without reason. But Christianity is one religion that faith can be based on evidence. I think faith is a lot easier to justify when it is based on evidence.
Only empirical/personal evidence. And these evidence can caution every religion. You cannot justify god with logic and rationality, anyway i never saw an argument for god that was not fallacious (not from my point of view; from a logical point of view, by using law of logic)
I agree that faith can be based without reason. But Christianity is one religion that faith can be based on evidence. I think faith is a lot easier to justify when it is based on evidence.
Only empirical/personal evidence. And these evidence can caution every religion. You cannot justify god with logic and rationality, anyway i never saw an argument for god that was not fallacious (not from my point of view; from a logical point of view, by using law of logic)
Here here!
@cystic:
@Mr:
I see you what saying, however, people do not routinely rise for the grave, its not something that happens in the world we know. People do not walk on water and turn water into wine.
There is plenty of evidence to support that the above does not happen.Poeple who wish to see UFOs usually claim they do.
If you chose to belive something enough and want to convice others, who knows what you’ll do.All the porphecies about Jesus, as writing in the bible, came true. correct well that right there makes me wonder.
The Napoleonic war history does nothing that defies my sense of logic, so its easy to accept the general facts about that time period.
It Napoleon’s history was covered in stories of how he was walking on water, rising his soldiers from the dead and was born of immaculate conception, I wouldn’t belive it either.Fair enough. So in your mind, the fact that these miracles are listed in the bible are evidence that the whole thing is a corrupt myth? Or part myth/some history? Or interesting literature piece (except for the book of Numbers and Leviticus)?
I belive the bible has some historic value and is certainly an interesting piece of literature.
I do not belive it has any logical evidence to convince me that its writings are true.
What some people are claiming are as fact/proof , which clearly is not in a logical sense( and I don’t know another way), is what really gets me.
I havn’t read much of the bible, but what I know of it, is suspect right from the beginning.
I’m I suppose to belive that the human race was started with just 2 people. Thats a big family( with a big history of incest).
How does the bible explain the dinosaurs fossils?The history of the bible does not span millions of years.
How does it explain evolution?
Why do humans have different skin color,/facial features/
Just 2 in the beginning, remeber?
How does it explain monkeys on one side of a river having tails and monkeys on the other side of the same river having no tails.
Why are apes and man so close in appearance? Did God run out of imagination?
I dont mean to rant or rag on you in particular CC I just thinking out loud here.
If the Bible has claim to a few “prophecies” which have come true( also, this is subject to Self-fulfilling prophecies) I still think there is enough questionable things running against it.
@Mr:
I belive the bible has some historic value and is certainly an interesting piece of literature.
I do not belive it has any logical evidence to convince me that its writings are true.
What some people are claiming are as fact/proof , which clearly is not in a logical sense( and I don’t know another way), is what really gets me.
I havn’t read much of the bible, but what I know of it, is suspect right from the beginning.
I’m I suppose to belive that the human race was started with just 2 people. Thats a big family( with a big history of incest).How does the bible explain the dinosaurs fossils?The history of the bible does not span millions of years.
How does it explain evolution?
Why do humans have different skin color,/facial features/
Just 2 in the beginning, remeber?How does it explain monkeys on one side of a river having tails and monkeys on the other side of the same river having no tails.
Why are apes and man so close in appearance? Did God run out of imagination?
I dont mean to rant or rag on you in particular CC I just thinking out loud here.
No problem mr. Ghoul :D - we’re both adults here.
wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).
If you take the bible literally, it does not seem to explain fossils very well. Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.
Different people - well, an anthropoligist might make the best out of that. From a biblical standpoint, one might suggest that the 3 sons of Moses spawned the people of Mongolian descent, the people of African descent, as well as the semetic/aryan races - the slavs would be a mixture of some kind (i don’t know - just postulating).
As for monkeys, apes, chimps, and man - i am a Christian who does not believe that the human form being crafted from a lower primate is such a problem. Our bodies are merely organic casings for the soul - subject to the constraints of this world. They are, in the end, a tomb.
(i havn’t nailed down this all yet, but they are some of my more “heretical” musings :D)
wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).
What kind of metaphor ? I mean… are’nt you using the term “metaphor” a little too much ? When i argue such concept as good & evil were stupid you answer me Christianism was made to be simple (agreed!!!), well it does not seem to be so simple if everything is a metaphor.
Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.
As a matter of fact it does conflict with the bible and you are not going to say the “ark of noah” is metaphorical ? Also are you really serious when you say the flood can be consider a “Theory” ?
As for monkeys, apes, chimps, and man - i am a Christian who does not believe that the human form being crafted from a lower primate is such a problem. Our bodies are merely organic casings for the soul - subject to the constraints of this world. They are, in the end, a tomb.
You still did’nt answer me and falk about why animals does not have souls but we have ?
wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).
What kind of metaphor ? I mean… are’nt you using the term “metaphor” a little too much ? When i argue such concept as good & evil were stupid you answer me Christianism was made to be simple (agreed!!!), well it does not seem to be so simple if everything is a metaphor.
I don’t know what kind of metaphor. I said at the outset i didn’t know. God did not make me omniscient. Sure i am using the term “metaphor” but i don’t where i don’t think it likely applies. Jesus used metaphors all over the place. So did the prophets. You nicely took one aspect of a speculation in answer to a question and tried to tear that apart leaving the rest of my argument alone. Stop that.
Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.
As a matter of fact it does conflict with the bible and you are not going to say the “ark of noah” is metaphorical ? Also are you really serious when you say the flood can be consider a “Theory” ?
A) It does not conflict with the bible if you do not believe in a 7 24-hour creation
B) I believe the flood happened. People who believe in the flood have a theory about the young earth that i find interesting.
C) I never said the flood was a theory.
now you’re just misquoting me. Stop that.
You still did’nt answer me and falk about why animals does not have souls but we have ?
Right. I asked my friend’s pet cat about that the other day and it told me that it was because they asked not to have a soul, thinking that meant that they would have to wear afro’s, listen to Mo-town, and eat weird food. I guess they confused “having soul” with “having a soul”.
Give me a break. I don’t know.
Does my lack of knowledge on the subject discredit me?
Wild2000 - Exactly. Matters of faith cannot be proven true or false. What “evidence” do you refer to when saying Christianity is based on it?
