Hello

[HiggDo]

It would seem like you’re leaving the discussion. Could you please show me where to find the Roman accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, before you go?

I’m not leaving the discussion… I just need to get some work done!


Even if I were to show you, wouldn’t you likely find some way to refute or otherwise discredit them?

In the case of Jesus Christ, why does history become subjective or objective, based upon one’s viewpoint of the perceived ligitimacy of the source?

Honestly, I do not personally have the Roman accounts to “show you” but, the examples were discussed by a well-known and respected college professor of mine (A Phd with a lifetime of interest in Theology, spent researching these things and yes, with his own bias and presuppositions) but whom I trust to be credible and knowledgeable. I very much doubt he would make this up and thus does not cause unbelief for me because I didn’t physically see the Roman reporter writing the report. His knowledge in this matter is far superior to mine, especially in consideration my limited education. I will be happy to e-mail the professor, if you’d like, even though there will be no ultimate use or benefit in doing so.

And as such, I am sure you will view this issue then as easily discreditable.

Frankly, we “know” for certain less than 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (enough zeroes?) of what actually has happened in history, so how can we truly trust anything? We have historical revisionists, liars, those with self interests and even outright conspiracies.

This argument of “show me the proof” is futile and the point is moot, although it’s a fun intellectual exercise in one’s attempt to understand and gain knowledge. I suspect that there is no satisfactory proof for you because none would ever meet your logic of acceptable criteria. And this is where “reasoned-only” understanding fails me, because we are far too limited in this capacity to trust ourselves.

Short of a “smoking gun” or God almighty Himself appearing before your very eyes, is there any “thing” that will change your thinking or mine?

I guess all I could rhetorically ask is: Prove to me beyond a shadow of any doubt, that there is no God.

Peace and good things once again…!

 

[antonabe]

Wow! I can really have some fun with this wikianswers article you posted. You’ll notice that the individual (let me remind you wikianswers simply means an individual with his own bias and who knows how much or little integrity is answering your question) who answers this question is careful only to talk about biblical creationists, and doesnt even acknowledge the concept of intelligent design. He specifically chooses to use two very questionable (probably fundamentalist motivated) lists that have almost no PhDs on them…

Now look at the list I gave you…its almost entirely PhDs… Scientists in everything from micro-biology to mathematics. Its not associated with any Religious Organization.

I wonder why your wiki answerman chose not to acknowledge that list…selective hearing?

Thank you James924,your posts have been logical and very well compiled.I totally agree with you on all points.God Bless You.

 

[dawid]

Hi Annabea,

I believe that we should define some terms to clarify our discussion.
Firstly, God either exists or not.
If a person believes that God does exist, then they are believers, or theists.
People who believe that there is no god, are atheists.
Those who are unsure of the existence of a god, are agnostics.
Does this seem reasonable to you?

Kind regards
Dawid

 

[AtheistEnvoy]

It’s ma’am. It’s your belief, call it what you want. If you do not believe because there is no proof then you’ve just crossed over to agnosticism.

1. Sorry ma’am.
2. It’s not a belief, it’s the absence of a particular belief.
3. From your response all I can say is you are unable to differentiate between beliefs and knowledge. The first bold statement in your post is the definition of atheism, as you worded it I am in fact an atheist. The second bold statement is your own reasoning of why I am also agnostic. Hopefully by using your own words and explanation it becomes clearer to you.

 

[Tomas_Doubting]

I said in my post right above yours. I am quite young, 12 (which usually makes people stop talking to me). I do not know much and I am very willing to learn what I can about religious beliefs and the world in general. I am an atheist of choice. My parents are religious.

Excellent!!! It’s quite refreshing to find a respectable young person who has a mind of their own. Having faith in something of which there is absolutely no evidence of its existence is irrational and borders on the delusional.

I suggest you read the works of Richard Dawkins and there is a particularly excellent video series of his entitled The Root of All Evil? of which you can view episode one here:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

 

[mrhenrik]

I’m not leaving the discussion… I just need to get some work done!


Even if I were to show you, wouldn’t you likely find some way to refute or otherwise discredit them?

Absolutely, this is the only reasonable thing to do with historic accounts - especially these kinds of historical accounts which so much depends on.

In the case of Jesus Christ, why does history become subjective or objective, based upon one’s viewpoint of the perceived ligitimacy of the source?

I would assume the case of Jesus Christ is a special one in history for a number of points:

• Many people base their lives around him
• Many people try to influence other’s lives based on what he said
• Some people also wish to change school teachings and/or laws based on his teachings
• If he did not exist, it would be a very rough hit to the christian faith

I note that many of the debaters here likes to use Alexander the Great, or George Washington as an example of other things we cannot prove - but how many change their lives completely when they discover these people, and dedicate their lives to the teachings of one of them?

Honestly, I do not personally have the Roman accounts to “show you” but, the examples were discussed by a well-known and respected college professor of mine (A Phd with a lifetime of interest in Theology, spent researching these things and yes, with his own bias and presuppositions) but whom I trust to be credible and knowledgeable. I very much doubt he would make this up and thus does not cause unbelief for me because I didn’t physically see the Roman reporter writing the report. His knowledge in this matter is far superior to mine, especially in consideration my limited education. I will be happy to e-mail the professor, if you’d like, even though there will be no ultimate use or benefit in doing so.

There’s no urgency, hopefully I do have some years left on my life account. ;p

Jesus Christ as a historical vs. Biblical person is something which interests me though, and it would be great if you could PM me a link/source if you ever were to find it.

Short of a “smoking gun” or God almighty Himself appearing before your very eyes, is there any “thing” that will change your thinking or mine?

Right now, I don’t think there is. Nothing that I can imagine right now can make the god hypothesis less unlikely, although I am open-minded and enjoy learning about in this instance the catholic faith. If something comes along that is monumental enough to change my mind, perhaps I will. ;p

I guess all I could rhetorically ask is: Prove to me beyond a shadow of any doubt, that there is no God.

This is most likely impossible. I don’t think science will ever be able to prove with 100% accuracy that there is no god, because there are so endlessly many opportunities. Science may once perhaps be able to prove that there was no god which sent his son to earth, which later died for our sins and was sent to heaven, but if that happens I would assume the god hypothesis changes ever so slightly and you’d have to start over again. As far as I know it’s impossible to prove with 100% certainty that something doesn’t exist.

 

[jam070406]

This is a rather more nuanced topic for me than you seem to suggest. Try to imagine a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim reading the NT for the first time. What do they read?

Well, mostly they read about a man concerned with the method of salvation - a concept foreign to them and so for worldly ethics irrelevant to them. The other consistent feature is frequent use of platitudes and parables that could be interpreted any which way or no way at all. His followers consider them supreme genius but more often than not they can’t agree on what it is they mean. Geniuses can make themselves understood clearly.

On the matter of worldly ethics, Jesus seems to be mostly repeating what Hebrews and Greeks have written for centuries. It’s good stuff, alright, but nothing others haven’t already figured out.

Then just occasionally words and actions are attributed to him that are downright mean spirited and nonsensical, and never seem to be mentioned by Christian missionaries. The reader sees clearly why they are ignored by people preaching a message of love.

So that is my take on the teachings of the Logos as delivered to us in the NT. People have used the same source to justify all manners of things beautiful and brutal. It is so ambiguous, so inconsistent, so loosely worded that both and neither sides of any one ethical or theological debate can be said to be following the instructions.

I’m not expecting adherents to agree or like it, but that is how the majority of the world population, who are not Christians, sees the NT.

It’s not as complicated as you are making it. We were discussing the act of murder and Catholic leaders. Jesus was pretty clear on this topic. He even said that we are to love our enemies. This is a radical new concept. To which can be proven by the atheist who earlier in this thread said she could not love her enemies. So putting 2 and 2 together we can come to the conclusion that if a Catholic leader condoned murder of someone it was in direct contrast to what Jesus taught.

ndulge me for a moment. My wife and I have two friends who happen to be more or less fundamental Christians. One day the wife told us that her husband got a new job offer, but it required them to move. The husband really liked the offer. The wife has most of her family here. The wife told us that she had prayed intensely. She was 100% convinced that Jesus had told her to convince her husband to stay. Later, the husband who did not hear this part of the conversation was talking with us. It seems he too had prayed intensely. He was 100% convinced that Jesus had told him to take the offer and move with the family.

That is more or less how I consider “following Christ” to be effectively meaningless. Christians follow the same God and read the same books, and yet on issue after issue some Christians adamantly believe one thing and others something else.

Each side of the debate turns to their go to source, the NT to justify what they have already decided. Each side invariably finds support in the NT for what they want to do. I would venture a guess that there isn’t a single contemporary ethical debate that the Bible does not come down on both sides of the issue.

I know the common arguments… Perhaps the most common is people are corrupting the words. Why is a text revealed from God so easy to corrupt - so easy to disagree on? The U.S. Constitution is vague and did not anticipate many rancorous debates and provide more detail to head them off at the pass. I would expect that from a purely human work. I would not expect that from works where God had a hand in the text.

I cannot or will not speak on the issues pertaining to your neighbors, sorry.

 

[josie_L]

Indulge me for a moment. My wife and I have two friends who happen to be more or less fundamental Christians. One day the wife told us that her husband got a new job offer, but it required them to move. The husband really liked the offer. The wife has most of her family here. The wife told us that she had prayed intensely. She was 100% convinced that Jesus had told her to convince her husband to stay. Later, the husband who did not hear this part of the conversation was talking with us. It seems he too had prayed intensely. He was 100% convinced that Jesus had told him to take the offer and move with the family.

That is more or less how I consider “following Christ” to be effectively meaningless. Christians follow the same God and read the same books, and yet on issue after issue some Christians adamantly believe one thing and others something else.

Each side of the debate turns to their go to source, the NT to justify what they have already decided. Each side invariably finds support in the NT for what they want to do. I would venture a guess that there isn’t a single contemporary ethical debate that the Bible does not come down on both sides of the issue.

I know the common arguments… Perhaps the most common is people are corrupting the words. Why is a text revealed from God so easy to corrupt - so easy to disagree on? The U.S. Constitution is vague and did not anticipate many rancorous debates and provide more detail to head them off at the pass. I would expect that from a purely human work. I would not expect that from works where God had a hand in the text.

Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed by thy name thy Kingdom come** thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven . . . **

The problem with your neighbors (and other Christians) is that they are not praying for God’s will to be done, but their own.

P.S. I will respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[happilycatholic]

Let’s be clear here. There are no coal fired, paddle wheel steam ships crossing the oceans. We use telegraphs only for historical re-creations. Darwin wrote his works when these technologies were cutting edge. A lot has happened since then, so it rather puzzles me that evolution opponents keep talking about Darwin as if he’s some kind of St. Paul of biology.

Is that really what you think the theory of evolution claims? Do you instead mean undirected?

Who cares who’s evolution theory we’re looking at, the point is (even though you never really answer any of my questions) that science will never explain when, where, how and why love entered the picture. Love is not biological. Science is not the source of love, God is.

I’m not claiming the theory of evolution claims anything. But apparently you came along later in this conversation than when is was theorized that love is preserved by natural selection. Sorry for assuming that you would make that connection. My bad.

 

[happilycatholic]

I’m not going to love a rotting (eh, he is soil by now) body whom I never knew. Don’t get me wrong, if someone I love dies, I’ll still love em. But I’ll remember them when they were alive…

It’s sad that you believe a rotting corpse is the sum of your life.

 

[happilycatholic]

1. Sorry ma’am.
2. It’s not a belief, it’s the absence of a particular belief.
3. From your response all I can say is you are unable to differentiate between beliefs and knowledge. The first bold statement in your post is the definition of atheism, as you worded it I am in fact an atheist. The second bold statement is your own reasoning of why I am also agnostic. Hopefully by using your own words and explanation it becomes clearer to you.

Okay, one more time. You can save yourself now or go down with the ship.

It wouldn’t matter if He showed up at your door for coffee, you’d still deny HIM. Agnostics can claim ignorance. Atheists cannot. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE.

If God does show up for coffee, will you deny Him? If you say no, then you are agnostic. Folks like yourself who are scared of committing 100% are the ones that created this so-called agnostic atheism. No such thing.

I don’t know what kind of game you’re playing with your conscience, but come to a realization, you don’t have hope if you keep claiming to be atheist.

 

[happilycatholic]

Indulge me for a moment. My wife and I have two friends who happen to be more or less fundamental Christians. One day the wife told us that her husband got a new job offer, but it required them to move. The husband really liked the offer. The wife has most of her family here. The wife told us that she had prayed intensely. She was 100% convinced that Jesus had told her to convince her husband to stay. Later, the husband who did not hear this part of the conversation was talking with us. It seems he too had prayed intensely. He was 100% convinced that Jesus had told him to take the offer and move with the family.

That is more or less how I consider “following Christ” to be effectively meaningless. Christians follow the same God and read the same books, and yet on issue after issue some Christians adamantly believe one thing and others something else.

I hope you don’t mind if I respond here. Your last comment speaks volumes as to why catholics hold so dear the Church that guides us.

I can’t discern for any Christian how they should communicate with God. If it were me and I was facing such a huge event, I would do more than get on my hands and knees and pray. I would first fast and get myself in the right frame of mind to enter into such an important conversation with God. Fasting is just a way to bring about a little deeper awareness of our reason for prayer and it reminds us of the suffering of Christ. With those things in mind, we can let God know we are serious and ready to submit to His will for us. It all sounds a little offbeat, but if you try it, maybe just for clarity sometime, you’ll see the results.

After fasting not only would I pray, but I would pray in a way that further lets God know I am seriously asking for His will to be done, not mine. In other words, the words I use are important since this is how we convey intention. I’m not saying your neighbors weren’t well-meaning, but there is a lot more to having a conversation with God than getting on your knees and talking.

Next is where I pray. As a catholic I have the option of going and sitting in the presence of our Savior. I would certainly do that. I would be on my knees, maybe even prostrate if I’m so moved and I would pray earnestly for God’s will to be done.

Further, IMHO God answers our prayers to His liking, not ours. He answers our prayers so that we can further His cause, not ours.

His will will be done, so pray for that and the rest will come. You cannot determine from the different answers they came up with that it’s God’s fault or that God doesn’t exsist. It was human cause and effect that caused them to come up with different answers.

If all else failed, at that point hubby and I would have gone to our priest and started the process all over.

The point to all this is. If you determine by “unanswered prayer” that God does not exsist, then you are not praying for His will, because that prayer was answered.

“effectively meaningless” --This is in relation to your own effect and meaning and therein lies the problem.

 

[Roy5]

A LITTLE POETRY

 I'm not an atheist. This majestic, mammoth and mysterious universe certainly leads me to believe in God. To think: maybe a million solar systems! It blows my mind.

 I view myself as a Christian, who tries to follow the basic teachings of Jesus when it comes to living a Christian life. But I do have trouble with orthodox Christian theology. A little rime I heard many years ago may help explain why I am a Christian freethinker. It goes like this:

 God published a tale of a girl and a ghost, of devils in pigs and his son on a cross.
 He gave it to us to believe it or roast. Yea, his mercy endureth forever.

 Traditional Christian thology can seem quite bizarre in modern times. It's understandable that people could believe it all before the telescope and miscroscope, when knowledge was sparse and superstitions ran rampant. But in 2009? Not easy. 

 This has led me to think for myself, with due respect for all fellow human beings who find answers, comfort and courage in whatever religion they adopt. Most of us, of course, follow broadly the faith of those families that raised us. Maybe we switch from, say, Baptist to Methodist because of a church's location, pastor, choir, children's program, schedule, friendliness, parking, etc. Once our pastor asked how many had been in that denomination all their lives. Not more than 20% raised their hands. About 30% had been Catholic. The other half had attended different Protestant churches, as they moved from one community to another. They hadn't 'converted' - just simply found a new church home they liked. I hate to say it, but to millions theology isn't all that important.

 

[mrhenrik]

Okay, one more time. You can save yourself now or go down with the ship.

It wouldn’t matter if He showed up at your door for coffee, you’d still deny HIM. Agnostics can claim ignorance. Atheists cannot. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE.

If God does show up for coffee, will you deny Him? If you say no, then you are agnostic. Folks like yourself who are scared of committing 100% are the ones that created this so-called agnostic atheism. No such thing.

I don’t know what kind of game you’re playing with your conscience, but come to a realization, you don’t have hope if you keep claiming to be atheist.

If god showed up at my door for coffee and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was in fact god, I’d accept him, sure. This is not agnosticism. That’s simple reason. You can say that there’s no three km high dinosaurs, but if one shows up at your door for coffee, what do you do? It’s HIGHLY unlikely, but still hypothetically - what would you do?

I’m not scared of committing 100%. I’m saying that there is NO WAY to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that something does not exist, so theorietically it’s not 100% sure that god does not exist. It is however, very, very, VERY unlikely.

Hope for what?

 

[Jossy]

Well, first guide to not spitting on my shoes is not try to win my love my complimenting me please. And your comment is so basic its hurtful.

Annabea,
I have never come across a 12 year old like you. Don’t you understand that the people
who are answering your questions, etc, are trying to be helpful and not hurtful.
Your comments are very rude, coming from a child your age so I all I can say is that
you are the Devil’s incarnate.
May God deliver you from the devil’s hands.
Josey

 

[mrhenrik]

Your comments are very rude, coming from a child your age so I all I can say is that
you are the Devil’s incarnate.
May God deliver you from the devil’s hands.
Josey

Oh PLEASE.

 

[josie_L]

If god showed up at my door for coffee and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was in fact god, I’d accept him, sure. This is not agnosticism. That’s simple reason. You can say that there’s no three km high dinosaurs, but if one shows up at your door for coffee, what do you do? It’s HIGHLY unlikely, but still hypothetically - what would you do?

I’m not scared of committing 100%. I’m saying that there is NO WAY to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that something does not exist, so theorietically it’s not 100% sure that god does not exist. It is however, very, very, VERY unlikely.

Hope for what?

It’s also very, very very, very ,very, very, very . . . unlikely that life (as we know it on our planet in our universe) was created by chance .

Please let me quote from: Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case against God.

" If Dawkins cannot assume without proof that chance indeed was the cause of the universe’s stunning fine-tuning, then we are back to a question of probability framed within the anthropic principle rightly understood. Given that the universe is known to be fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree right from the beginning of the Big Bang and running all the way down to the exacting conditions that allow for life on Earth, which is the more likely explanation of the miracle of life, an intelligent God or Blind Chance?

“Here we must invoke our maxim: No event that is more miraculous than the miracle that seeks to discredit can be used as an explanation to deny that a miracle actually occurred. Consider two possibilities: the fine-tuning of our universe by Blind Chance or an Intelligent Creator. If Blind Chance is a more probable, more miraculous cause than God, then Dawkins’ choice of Blind Chance as his anti-diety would violate this quite reasonable maxim. Unless blinded by devotion to God’s non-existence, a reasonable person would infer that existence of a creative Intelligence as the cause of fine-tuning is far less miraculous than the aimless gropings of Chance.”

“Dawkins says of the “multiverse” theory that, even though he’s read that “the idea is hated by most physicists . . . I think it is beautiful - perhaps because my consciousness has been raised by Darwin.” (Taken from The God Delusion, 145) In other words, Dawkins believes the multiverse theory allows for natural selection among universes, thereby affirming the power of Darwinism in cosmology as well as biology. He doesn’t mention the reason most physicists would hate the multiverse theory: there is absolutely no evidence to support it, and in fact, no way ever to gather evidence for it since other hypothetical universes are obviously impossible to investigate or verify. In short, the multiverse theory is interesting in only one respect: it is good evidence of the desperation of both Dawkins and some physicists in wanting to avoid the obvious conclusion that fine-tuning of our universe demands divine explanation. We have more evidence for fairies in our gardens, given that we at least have gardens.”

The odds of a very simple protein with only 100 amino acids, is by far beyond the billion to one advocated by Dawkins (in the God Delusion). The odds are actually 12 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to 1 against getting the simplest protein structure by chance.
"

 

[mrhenrik]

It’s also very, very very, very ,very, very, very . . . unlikely that life (as we know it on our planet in our universe) was created by chance . "

I don’t know enough about the exact math or science behind the quote you gave, so I’m unfortunately not able to respond to that. The general idea is that life is very very very very unlikely to be created, yes, but when given enough time and enough places where it may be created, surely at some point in time it would, yes?

There are somewhere around 200 billion stars in our galaxy only. Now I don’t know how many planets there are revolving around those stars but it’s probably a quite large number when you add it all up. The upgraded hubble telescope has observed 3,000 galaxies, and calculations show that the number of galaxies may be around 125 billion.

Now let’s say there’s 125 000 000 000 galaxies, with - ok - 200 000 000 000 stars. Each of those stars has, perhaps two planets in average? That gives us 50 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets. Given enough time, wouldn’t it be logical that something would happen at one of those planets?

Surely I don’t know much about the theories of life’s creation to make an educated response, but those are my guesses.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t know enough about the exact math or science behind the quote you gave, so I’m unfortunately not able to respond to that. The general idea is that life is very very very very unlikely to be created, yes, but when given enough time and enough places where it may be created, surely at some point in time it would, yes?

There are somewhere around 200 billion stars in our galaxy only. Now I don’t know how many planets there are revolving around those stars but it’s probably a quite large number when you add it all up. The upgraded hubble telescope has observed 3,000 galaxies, and calculations show that the number of galaxies may be around 125 billion.

Now let’s say there’s 125 000 000 000 galaxies, with - ok - 200 000 000 000 stars. Each of those stars has, perhaps two planets in average? That gives us 50 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets. Given enough time, wouldn’t it be logical that something would happen at one of those planets?

Surely I don’t know much about the theories of life’s creation to make an educated response, but those are my guesses.

You have no material proof of multiverses (A kind of faith on your part, would you not say so?).

P.S. How old is the planet? And how long do you think it would take for life to begin on earth, if it takes 12 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to 1 to make one very small protein of 100 amino acids by chance? A cell requires many proteins. Do the math?

 

[mrhenrik]

No chance in the world for me to do the math on that. ;p

I never claimed multiverses, where did you read this?

Earth is approx. 4,5 billion years old. Now remember that there could be 50 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets in the universe - at least.

This is just hypothesizing from my part though - there’s people out there with far more knowledge on the subject than what I can offer you right now.