L
Lance
Guest
Someone smarter than me once said, “For those who believe, no evidence is needed. For those who disbelieve, no evidence is enough.”
- Status
J
JimO
Guest
I had to finish my post quickly and leave for a meeting, so forgive the typos; I didn’t have a chance to proofread it. I also wanted to say something else to the OP. Honestly, what is your point here? Are you really interested in evidence of God because you want to know? If so, I would be happy to spend the time necessary to answer your questions, but my time is limited and I don’t want to waste it.
I know a lot of atheists who think that having faith is a crutch and a sign of weakness. They think that they are somehow more intellectually honest and intellectually superior to us “dumb theists.” I’ve even seen atheists come on these fora just to taunt those with faith and try to make them look foolish. Actually, I see this as a manifestation of insecurity. It’s like the Christian who is weak in their faith and aggressively tries to convert people, not because he is concerned for those people, but to make himself feel better by having more people agree with him. I hope this isn’t your motivation, but the tone of your responses suggest that you have no real interest in God’s existence and are trying to “enlighten” us. If you don’t want to believe in God, fine, nobody says you have to, not even God. That’s called free will. In fact, free will makes things very complicated for God because He limits Himself by not interfering with our free will. That has a lot to do with why there isn’t “scientific proof” that He exists.
If the Christian God is real, then He created the universe, is outside the universe, and cannot be contained by the universe. The universe wouldn’t be able to define Him, because He defines the universe. Thus, science is wholely inadequate and is not meant for this purpose. If He exists, then the order in the universe is a dim reflection of His order, beauty a dim reflection of His beauty, and our nature (at its best) a dim reflection of His nature. If this is so, then how could I possibly offer scientific “proof” of God? It’s not possible. If we could somehow describe and understand God with our intellects, then He wouldn’t be the infinite God of the Bible. The whole reason that we believe that He manifested Himself in the person of Christ was precisely so we could understand and relate to Him in human terms. But, if you reject all evidence of this visitation, then you are back to grasping at the infinite with the finite.
Look, I’m a scientist and I’ve wrestled with all the questions about God’s existence, the validity of the Bible, the existence of the soul, etc., etc. I’ve had debates on these issues over and over again with atheists; some who really wanted an intelligent discussion and others who wanted to make me look foolish. I have not ducked the tough questions and am satisfied with the answers that I have found. There is a lot more that I would like to say, but I honestly don’t want to waste my time either. You aren’t going to say anything that will make the people on these fora suddenly realize “Oh no, he’s right, God doesn’t exist.” And even if you did, would this please you? What good could that do? If you are right and there is no God, why would you want to convince someone else of that who was content and happy with their beliefs, even if it was a fairy tale? If someone did that, it would seem cruel and self serving to me.
Conversely, I have no delusions that I can say anything so profound as to cause you to suddenly change. So, if you really want to have a meaningful discussion, then I’m willing to engage in it. If you just want to prove me wrong, then say so straight up and I’ll bow out.
I know a lot of atheists who think that having faith is a crutch and a sign of weakness. They think that they are somehow more intellectually honest and intellectually superior to us “dumb theists.” I’ve even seen atheists come on these fora just to taunt those with faith and try to make them look foolish. Actually, I see this as a manifestation of insecurity. It’s like the Christian who is weak in their faith and aggressively tries to convert people, not because he is concerned for those people, but to make himself feel better by having more people agree with him. I hope this isn’t your motivation, but the tone of your responses suggest that you have no real interest in God’s existence and are trying to “enlighten” us. If you don’t want to believe in God, fine, nobody says you have to, not even God. That’s called free will. In fact, free will makes things very complicated for God because He limits Himself by not interfering with our free will. That has a lot to do with why there isn’t “scientific proof” that He exists.
If the Christian God is real, then He created the universe, is outside the universe, and cannot be contained by the universe. The universe wouldn’t be able to define Him, because He defines the universe. Thus, science is wholely inadequate and is not meant for this purpose. If He exists, then the order in the universe is a dim reflection of His order, beauty a dim reflection of His beauty, and our nature (at its best) a dim reflection of His nature. If this is so, then how could I possibly offer scientific “proof” of God? It’s not possible. If we could somehow describe and understand God with our intellects, then He wouldn’t be the infinite God of the Bible. The whole reason that we believe that He manifested Himself in the person of Christ was precisely so we could understand and relate to Him in human terms. But, if you reject all evidence of this visitation, then you are back to grasping at the infinite with the finite.
Look, I’m a scientist and I’ve wrestled with all the questions about God’s existence, the validity of the Bible, the existence of the soul, etc., etc. I’ve had debates on these issues over and over again with atheists; some who really wanted an intelligent discussion and others who wanted to make me look foolish. I have not ducked the tough questions and am satisfied with the answers that I have found. There is a lot more that I would like to say, but I honestly don’t want to waste my time either. You aren’t going to say anything that will make the people on these fora suddenly realize “Oh no, he’s right, God doesn’t exist.” And even if you did, would this please you? What good could that do? If you are right and there is no God, why would you want to convince someone else of that who was content and happy with their beliefs, even if it was a fairy tale? If someone did that, it would seem cruel and self serving to me.
Conversely, I have no delusions that I can say anything so profound as to cause you to suddenly change. So, if you really want to have a meaningful discussion, then I’m willing to engage in it. If you just want to prove me wrong, then say so straight up and I’ll bow out.
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
I think this is right. I deal with the “no evidence” arguement in my book, where I say that Christians do not offer a “no evidence” position. I give three lines of evidence, miracles, first century history, and the moral integrity of the Church.
What happens is that atheists who read the chapter home in on miracles, because that is the easiest one to understand. However I don’t give a catalogue of miracles; I say that many thousands are alleged to have occurred, but that usually the strength of the evidence is dependent on your view of the witnesses. The reason is that I don’t think it is very fruitful to send atheists cahsing off on a hunt after miracles. If an atheist want’s to do that I won’t put any obstacles in his way, but God doesn’t want most people to be swayed by miracles.
This does lead to a more subtle question. Why does God not simply make atheism untenable as a philosophical position? I don’t think I really have the answer to that one. The free will answer doesn’t work because, historically, most people have not been able to choose their religions. The exceptions include today’s Western societies and the great cities of the Roman Empire. This coincidence means we tend to regard our situation as normal. However we are not obliged, as apologists, to understand every decision that God takes. As long as we can show that there are plausible reasons other than God’s non-existence, we’ve answered the objection.
This is the tactic used by creationists. They demand repeatable laboratory experiments that would potentially falsify the hypothesis of evolution. Of course that cannot be provided. Similarly holocaust deniers want the exact order signed by Hitler, before they will accept that the camp deaths were anything more than unfortunate starvations caused by food supplies being cut off by Allied bombing. This is seriously claimed. The Jesus Deniers want contemporary eyewitness accounts - by which they mean written down at the time of Jesus’ ministry. Otherwise no such person can have existed. If you are determined to say there is “no evidence” you can always find some reason why the evidence offered doesn’t count.
J
JimO
Guest
I suspect that even if such a document existed, it would be called a fake. In an era where photographs can be flawlessly altered digitally, people forget that 50 years ago “the camera never lied.” I’ve heard people are now claiming that the photographs have been digitally fabricated.
Again, if such documents existed, they would still say that the miracles and Resurrection were fabricated by the Apostles.
Lance captured the problem with most people in his post above.
V
Valke2
Guest
describe a tree. No matter how much detail you come up with, there is still something more. Something you missed. Everything stands for something more than it is. SOmething greater than its self. To be a Human"being" is to be. To be, is to stand for. We all stand for something greater than ourselves.
M
Maranatha
Guest
We don’t need to have faith in lifeless logical theories. We have faith in a man with impeccable morals and who rose from the dead. We have faith that what he said is true. The life and actions of Jesus of Nazareth are an historical question. They are not a philosophical question. The philosophical proofs justify the reasonableness of believing the resurrection.
S
SOUNDTRUTH
Guest
I’ve seen some interesting Bible Codes, and with good reason !]http://www.outersecrets.com/real/8_code.htm
They definitely seem to go against the odds of being just by chance occurrences. That means they prove that there are others out there somewhere, and are of vast intellect.
If not, if these codes are not valid, at least the one who proves this to be the case can then pick up the $100,000 dollar reward for providing such proof.
But most likely this will not happen. Believers will simply reject it as real, since believers always place belief above truth !
**What do you see ?
Do you see a Jesus on the Cross,
Two Heads confronting each other,
or do you see all three ?**
They definitely seem to go against the odds of being just by chance occurrences. That means they prove that there are others out there somewhere, and are of vast intellect.
If not, if these codes are not valid, at least the one who proves this to be the case can then pick up the $100,000 dollar reward for providing such proof.
But most likely this will not happen. Believers will simply reject it as real, since believers always place belief above truth !
**What do you see ?
Do you see a Jesus on the Cross,
Two Heads confronting each other,
or do you see all three ?**
M
Malcolm_McLean
Guest
Well said. It is quite an interesting exercise to discuss in an abstract sense the possibility of there being an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity pulling strings. However that discussion doesn’t have very much to do with Christianity.
Or as I say, we don’t believe in an old man with a beard. We believe in a young man with a beard.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
If you can provide evidence that these things do in fact actually exist then I will accept that these things exist. However, even if you show that some paranormal things do exist, I do not see how that is evidence of the existence of God much less a specific God. Many of the claims of paranormal events have nothing to do with God.
If you can present evidence that these personal experiences are actually true. Again there are numerous people of different religions that make mutually exclusive claims about personal experiences. There are even people that make claims of having personal experiences of there being no God.
I don’t doubt that there was historical existence of Jesus, but this does not estabish that all the claims about him are factually true or that all the claims in the Bible are true. There is ample evidence that the Bible is not completely historically accurate. There is also further evidence that the writers of the Bible were not even trying to create factually accurate writings
It it is accurate then it is accurate. The problem is that nobody has established that it is accurate.
I am not unwilling to look at logical proofs. But you have to admit that these to not establish the actual existence of God, but only the possibility. There are many things at are logically possible but that do not in fact exist.
And you have simply choosen to twist my position to create a straw man.
If you take away the intellect and a critical analysis of the evidence for the actual existence aren’t you just going to pick the the logically possible position that you desire to be true? If you are not going to look at the matter critically, don’t you have to say that the atheist, the Muslim, and the Catholic are all equally justified in their beliefs since that are all logically possible. Aren’t you endorsing a form of relativism in regard to the positions that individuals should find justified?
It seems that once you bring in critical analysis the only reasonable position is that we do not know if there is God and that we do not have evidence to justify the belief in the actual existence of God (much less a specific God).
S
SOUNDTRUTH
Guest
I’ve seen some interesting Bible Codes, and with good reason !
outersecrets.com/real/8_code.htm
As long as you continue to believe, then you will never be capable of seeing truths. Thanks to belief, the mind deceives itself, it locks itself within a prison, hence it can not and will not reach for truths.
A mind that does not reach for truths, will simply argue against or ignore any truth presented to them.
Do not DECEIVE yourselves.
If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age,
he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise.
**What do you see ?
Do you see a Jesus on the Cross,
Two Heads confronting each other,
or do you see all three ?**
outersecrets.com/real/8_code.htm
As long as you continue to believe, then you will never be capable of seeing truths. Thanks to belief, the mind deceives itself, it locks itself within a prison, hence it can not and will not reach for truths.
A mind that does not reach for truths, will simply argue against or ignore any truth presented to them.
Do not DECEIVE yourselves.
If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age,
he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise.
**What do you see ?
Do you see a Jesus on the Cross,
Two Heads confronting each other,
or do you see all three ?**
T
thistle
Guest
Judging by all your threads and home site you need serious medical help! Please stop promoting in these forums the rubbish from your website.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Yes, some are called Thrones, others Dominations, Powers, Arch-angels and Angels
I do not agree. I has always been my contention that it is the duty of every Believer to seek the truth and when they think they have found it: test it and try it by fire, since if it IS the truth it can be ‘done to’ and it will at the end still remain ‘the Truth’!
There are lots of Believers out there who are seeking ‘The Truth’ beyond that which has been revealed through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
M
Maranatha
Guest
Since you admit the Jesus existed historically, who do you say that he was?
The factual historical accuracy of the entire Bible is not the issue. The historical accuracy of some books of the Bible are not meant to be history.
As for the Gospels, if you look at the very beginning of Luke, you’ll see that he claims to write an orderly account of the truth.
(Luke 1:1-4) Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. (RSV)
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
A man.
M
Maranatha
Guest
If he was just a man, why is so much written about him?
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
A further point.
While the idea of a God can be shown to be logically possible, the idea of the Christian God (at least most popular versions including the Catholic version) is logically impossible. The idea of the Trinity is a logical impossiblity. To accept the the Trinity one has to reject basic logic.
1+1+1=3
If A = B
and B = C
then A = C
Saying that the Trinity is a mystery is just a copout.
While the idea of a God can be shown to be logically possible, the idea of the Christian God (at least most popular versions including the Catholic version) is logically impossible. The idea of the Trinity is a logical impossiblity. To accept the the Trinity one has to reject basic logic.
1+1+1=3
If A = B
and B = C
then A = C
Saying that the Trinity is a mystery is just a copout.
M
Maranatha
Guest
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
Many men have a lot written about them. Moses, John Lennon, George Bush, Budda, and Hilter have all had a lot written about them. They are all only men.
A
Ammonius_Saccus
Guest
No, addition is the proper method
M
Maranatha
Guest
God created mathematics and you and you can tell him how to describe himself.
- Status