Evidence for God

Originally posted by shihulud

If the first organism produced was a virus, it COULD not have reproduced on its own. Viruses need to hijack the reproductive capability of living cells in order to replicate.

Granted but who said the first organism was a virus???

It is a possibilty that is raising itself...

"I'm probably one who has asserted most sternly that LUCA was viral," says Luis Villarreal, the director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California at Irvine. "The genes and gene functions suggest that we're dealing with one of the earliest and oldest forms of life. Mimivirus really stretches our sense of scale of what a virus can be."

www.discover.com...

Originally posted by shihulud
To be a martyr or maybe jesus didnt die on the cross or maybe its just an allegorical story.

He died because of his claim that he was the Son of God. Either he was the Son of God or he wasn't. If he wasnt why would he say he was and seal his fate of a horrible death? A martyr is a person who dies for his or her religious faith. If Jesus was the Son of God he doesnt have faith that there is God, he would know there is God.

There are just too many eyewitnesses for it to be a story.

Originally posted LancerJ1
The authenticity of the Bible has already been discussed.

And what did you come up with? That the bible and all thats in it is historically accurate? Well thats wrong for a start.

Yes, that is what i came up with. If it wasnt accurate why would archealogists use it? Using criteria that historians use to gauge the accuracy of ancient manuscripts, the bible is exceedingly the most accurate.

Your problem is not in not accepting but in not wanting to accept.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by LancerJ1But if Jesus' was lying, why would he go through the suffering and death he went through just for a lie? And then there are the hundreds that suffered similar fates because they preached Jesus' resurrection. All of this for a lie?

As I said, lots of people have died for lies, and not only religious ones.

The Bible.

The bible is not historical evidence. It's a collection of texts written over hundreds of years by unrelated people with no evidence that what is written really happened.

What people have died for things that they new weren't true?

If you cant accept the Bible as historical evidence, then you have no right to accept anything in our history as evidence. The bible was written mainly by eyewitnesses. The New Testament is certainly not written by unrelated people.

Jesus as a human being is real.
Im sure there was a man named jesus, who was ahead of his time. and believed in mankinds ability to do good, rather than follow blindly.

BUT, all his 'miracles' are either explained away with science, are the reuslt of chinese whispers over centuries, or simply never happened and are metaphorical.

Im sorry guys, If god created man kind...
why on earth did he put diinosaurs on the planet first?
Was god a dinosaur?

The bible is a great story... unforunately that is all it is a story.
If it gives people hope, and dreams and the ability to strive.. hey im all for that.
But dont try to convince me all the magical stuff in ti is real.

Its not realistic.

In all my life Ive never seen a man walk on water.
But I have seen a man walk on a sandbank, cm's below the water line.

God, Christianity, higher being heaven and hell, all that mumbo jumbo im afraid is simply just theories in your head.
We are living, breathing organic beings.
When we die, thast it... we dont go and shake the big fella's hand and walk on the clouds.

I am a human being, before I am anything else.

Live with it.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by shihulud
To be a martyr or maybe jesus didnt die on the cross or maybe its just an allegorical story.

He died because of his claim that he was the Son of God. Either he was the Son of God or he wasn't. If he wasnt why would he say he was and seal his fate of a horrible death? A martyr is a person who dies for his or her religious faith. If Jesus was the Son of God he doesnt have faith that there is God, he would know there is God.

There are just too many eyewitnesses for it to be a story.

Oh I forgot that there were hundreds of written eyewitness accounts for jesus and his death. Were you there to see him die??? Its possible also that a supposed jesus didnt think himself the son of god but it was the early christian writers that wrote that he was. There are all sorts of explanations not just clear cut either or's.

Originally posted LancerJ1
The authenticity of the Bible has already been discussed.

And what did you come up with? That the bible and all thats in it is historically accurate? Well thats wrong for a start.

Yes, that is what i came up with. If it wasnt accurate why would archealogists use it? Using criteria that historians use to gauge the accuracy of ancient manuscripts, the bible is exceedingly the most accurate.

Your problem is not in not accepting but in not wanting to accept.

I agree that it is accurate up to an extent but its not that accurate, villages that weren't there, camels when there should be none, fights that never happened, the exodus, all prime examples of inaccuracies.


G

Originally posted by LancerJ1
What people have died for things that they new weren't true?

They don't need to know it's a lie, they can believe this lie is the truth. All religious martyrs and suicide bombers died for that reason, because faith removed any fear of death or self-importance they could have, to the point were dying for this faith and even killing for it becomes acceptable.

"Guess you prefer a dark-age mentality"-I prefer truth, no matter how unpopular. Guess you prefer to ridicule rather than refute. Have you read the articles? Do you understand about fallacies in logic? If the answer to both is "yes" then it should be immediately aparent that many of those articles used faulty reasoning which is bad for science.

Who said anything about astrology? I certainly don't ascribe to it. Neither am I "desparate to change what science is" but I am determined to make science accountable for its pseudo-scientific claims and conclusions. Science is not the Almighty End All Be All. It's just a tool for discovery. If it leads one to discover something greater than itself then its importance has not been negated but affirmed.

"At one point in the past, no life, later, life". Therefore we know abiogenesis occured." And I counter with: At one point in the past, no life, later, life. Therefore we know that creation occured.

"We're searching for a good first replicator." You'll have better luck finding Nessie or Bigfoot. I "give up and invoke magical poofing"? ToE has produced no First Cause and never will because it's looking in the wrong direction.

ID is science. When the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to something greater than itself, it is not negated, but confirmed and affirmed. ToE is FULL of gaps.

Activity in lower levels of the brain do NOT allow one to survive WITHOUT outside intervention (intelligent intervention, I might add) like ventilators, feeing tubes, etc. Your position would not be supported with a simple tour through an ICU.

Do you imagine allegedly genetically protected humans would like to test their so-called immunity by living, eating and breeding with AIDS infected natives of Africa?

"Im just showing how ambiguous these information arguments are." And not doing a very good job of it.

I didn't say "it can not hapen, therefore God." I said it DID not happen the way ToE SAYS it happened and the evidence points to a very different explanation.

"Give us a chance." Take your time. God will still be around long after Darwin is just an embarassing memory.

When I say your "proofs beg the question" it is not "placing designer gaps in knowledge", it is asking for logical explanations to incredulous claims.

"Something can be changed from one form to another." Please explain how formaldehyde and cyanide can be changed into Cindy Crawford, 3-toed sloths, &/or rutabagas.

ID says a great deal about the Designer. God is unique, personal, intelligent, rational, powerful, CREATIVE, caring, purposeful, omnipresent. I could go on but you get the idea.

Quote from Meyer: "Ironically, to say that science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting because that statement in itself can not be tested by the scientific method. It's a self-defeating philosophical assumption."

"Any positive evidence for ID"? I could tell you of the hope that is in me but I suspect you're not looking for hope so let me offer a quote from Collins. "It's not conclusive in the sense that mathematics tells us 2+2=4, instead, it's a cumulative argument. The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility-all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."

BTW, I read both the articles you provided links to, Mel, and it's just straw man built on straw man with unsubstantiated guesses offered as "evidence".

Shihalud,
You grant "that there is faulty reasoning with some scientific responses." WHEN is it going to be rectified? What is the "faulty reasoning with the concept of God"?

"And God is not a preconceived notion?" God was a known certainty until man decided, like Satan, that he (man) would make his throne higher than the Almighty's. Rom.3:3- For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God of no effect? God forbid, let God be true but every man a liar.

"You never know what might hapen in other galaxies." Science is having a hard enough time explaining how THIS galaxy came to be and why it should exist at all. Let''s cut them some slack by not compounding their difficulties.

"Who said the first organism was a virus?" Melatonin suggested it and provided links.

No, I "have no problem thinking that a supernatural, faith-based Being constructed the universe" and I do "have a problem thinking that we might just be here because the chances were right". It takes more faith to believe in ToE than it does to believe in God. To believe in ToE one has to believe that "nothingness produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, non-reason produces reason." (Strobel) Believing in a Creator is much more reasonable.

"But you have no problem with the fact that molecules and atoms all line up in order?" I don't have a problem with the fact that molecules and atoms all line up in order, just with natural selections' explanation of how that phenomenon could possibly occur. Actually, natural sleection doesn't really have an explanation. Several otherwise educated people have taken a S.W.A.G. (sophisticated wild-assed guess) at it and come up short on explanation.

The "conditions were better on this other planet; you can't rule this out!" Until some (or any) other life producing/sustaining planet is found, I think I can safely rule it out. An assumption (that there's life on other planets) to support a guess (Darwin's theory) is bad science.

"We will never know what happened to bring life to this planet." We will know and I sincerely hope you're ready for the answer.

"What did your ID creator use to build everything?" Glad you asked. Ps. 33:6-By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth." vs. 9- For He spoke and it was done; He commanded and it stoood fast." Jer. 10:12- He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom and has stretched out the heavens by His discretion. When He uttered His voice, there-a multitude of waters in the heavens and he caused the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightenings with rain and brings forth the wind out of His treasures. Every man is brutish in his knowledge." Jer. 27:5- "I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground by my great power and by my outstretched arm and have given it unto whom it seemed acceptable unto me."

Originally posted by whitewave
"Guess you prefer a dark-age mentality.... do you understand about fallacies in logic? If the answer to both is "yes" then it should be immediately aparent that many of those articles used faulty reasoning which is bad for science.

Show me the fallacy.

Who said anything about astrology? I certainly don't ascribe to it. Neither am I "desparate to change what science is" but I am determined to make science accountable for its pseudo-scientific claims and conclusions. Science is not the Almighty End All Be All. It's just a tool for discovery. If it leads one to discover something greater than itself then its importance has not been negated but affirmed.

Science will account for scientific conclusions. Those dabbling in pseudo-science can account for their conclusions, like the ID brigade.

Science will go where the evidence leads, if it leads to your omnipotent being of choice, then so be it. At this point, it doesn't.

"At one point in the past, no life, later, life". Therefore we know abiogenesis occured." And I counter with: At one point in the past, no life, later, life. Therefore we know that creation occured.

It's not impossible that abiogenesis involves your god, the spaggetti monster, or Thetans, did I say it didn't? However, if that is the hypothesis, we need to test it. Have any suggestions? If not, we'll carry on doing what science does.

"We're searching for a good first replicator." You'll have better luck finding Nessie or Bigfoot. I "give up and invoke magical poofing"? ToE has produced no First Cause and never will because it's looking in the wrong direction.

ToE won't produce a first cause. We just need the replicator, that is for those in abiogenesis research.

Again, you just criticising lack of knowledge. We will work to find possible answers with actual evidence. You will just conclude magic.

ID is science. When the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to something greater than itself, it is not negated, but confirmed and affirmed. ToE is FULL of gaps.

Show me the scientific evidence. You have none. Show me a scientific hypothesis that would lead one to conclude that ID is a real possibility, remember to be science, it needs to be testable and falsifiable.

Just because something is incomplete doesn't negate the theory. It just needs more work. You expect the whole story, a step-by-step explanation of the development of all life from basic chemicals after 100 years of research?

Activity in lower levels of the brain do NOT allow one to survive WITHOUT outside intervention (intelligent intervention, I might add) like ventilators, feeing tubes, etc. Your position would not be supported with a simple tour through an ICU.

In humans maybe, but a worm does well without a neocortex, higher cognitive processes, and consciousness. You still have not falsified the notion that consciousness could evolve

Do you imagine allegedly genetically protected humans would like to test their so-called immunity by living, eating and breeding with AIDS infected natives of Africa?

They don't need to some of these people already do have AIDS...

"Im just showing how ambiguous these information arguments are." And not doing a very good job of it.

Define information in the genome? How is it a problem for ToE?

I didn't say "it can not hapen, therefore God." I said it DID not happen the way ToE SAYS it happened and the evidence points to a very different explanation.

You have NO evidence to suggest that. You have only a negative argument.

"Give us a chance." Take your time. God will still be around long after Darwin is just an embarassing memory.

Yeah, I'm sure Zeus hoped the same...

When I say your "proofs beg the question" it is not "placing designer gaps in knowledge", it is asking for logical explanations to incredulous claims.

"Something can be changed from one form to another." Please explain how formaldehyde and cyanide can be changed into Cindy Crawford, 3-toed sloths, &/or rutabagas.

You want it in a step-by-step fashion?

ID says a great deal about the Designer. God is unique, personal, intelligent, rational, powerful, CREATIVE, caring, purposeful, omnipresent. I could go on but you get the idea.

ID says nothing scientifically useful. Your version is not the ID proposed by Behe et al, it's even more pseudoscientific...

Quote from Meyer: "Ironically, to say that science is the only begetter of truth is self-contradicting because that statement in itself can not be tested by the scientific method. It's a self-defeating philosophical assumption."

Who said science was the only begetter of truth? Will science show me that Picasso was a better painter than Van Gogh? Will it prove my love for my son?

Tell me of one advance that was due to theology? The proof is in the pudding.

"Any positive evidence for ID"? I could tell you of the hope that is in me but I suspect you're not looking for hope so let me offer a quote from Collins. "It's not conclusive in the sense that mathematics tells us 2+2=4, instead, it's a cumulative argument. The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility-all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."

Yeah, good for Francis Collins, however, I doubt he used any scientific evidence to come to that conclusion, just incredulity and ignorance - god of the gaps.

BTW, I read both the articles you provided links to, Mel, and it's just straw man built on straw man with unsubstantiated guesses offered as "evidence".

I think you mean 'hypotheses'. However, give us 100 years and I'm sure these scientific hypotheses will have likely accumulated evidence, ID will still be bleating on about the lack of a theory of everything.

Again I'll ask. Show me the scientific evidence for ID. The actual postive evidence that leads to a conclusion of ID.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by whitewave

No, I "have no problem thinking that a supernatural, faith-based Being constructed the universe" and I do "have a problem thinking that we might just be here because the chances were right". It takes more faith to believe in ToE than it does to believe in God. To believe in ToE one has to believe that "nothingness produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, non-reason produces reason." (Strobel) Believing in a Creator is much more reasonable.

Wow, since when did ToE explain all that? There was me thinking it was a scientific theory that explains the origin and diversity of species...

Again I don't see anything intelligently designed in this universe. And if this is the best God can do than he does have some serious competition. even we can design a better eye than him. Look at how awsome our cameras are. And with nanotach they would be able to reproduce eventually.

Originally posted by shihulud
Oh I forgot that there were hundreds of written eyewitness accounts for jesus and his death. Were you there to see him die??? Its possible also that a supposed jesus didnt think himself the son of god but it was the early christian writers that wrote that he was. There are all sorts of explanations not just clear cut either or's.

I wasn't there to see him die, but having many eyewitness accounts that do not contradict is rather impresive. If Jesus didnt claim he was the Son of God then why was he crucified? The eyewitness accounts claim he said he was the Son of God.

I agree that it is accurate up to an extent but its not that accurate, villages that weren't there, camels when there should be none, fights that never happened, the exodus, all prime examples of inaccuracies.

Please give me some actual examples.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Jesus as a human being is real.
Im sure there was a man named jesus, who was ahead of his time. and believed in mankinds ability to do good, rather than follow blindly.

BUT, all his 'miracles' are either explained away with science, are the reuslt of chinese whispers over centuries, or simply never happened and are metaphorical.

Im sorry guys, If god created man kind...
why on earth did he put diinosaurs on the planet first?
Was god a dinosaur?

The bible is a great story... unforunately that is all it is a story.
If it gives people hope, and dreams and the ability to strive.. hey im all for that.
But dont try to convince me all the magical stuff in ti is real.

Here is a site that helps explain the dinosaurs. It's possible that dinosaurs were around with early humans. This site also may have answers for other peoples questions.www.christiananswers.net...

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by LancerJ1
What people have died for things that they new weren't true?

They don't need to know it's a lie, they can believe this lie is the truth. All religious martyrs and suicide bombers died for that reason, because faith removed any fear of death or self-importance they could have, to the point were dying for this faith and even killing for it becomes acceptable.

So Jesus believed he was the Son of God. That's a massive claim. You would have to be crazy to say such a thing if it wasnt true. Jesus was a moral teacher who was very wise and was able to influence many people. This is not the character of a crazy man.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by shihulud
Oh I forgot that there were hundreds of written eyewitness accounts for jesus and his death. Were you there to see him die??? Its possible also that a supposed jesus didnt think himself the son of god but it was the early christian writers that wrote that he was. There are all sorts of explanations not just clear cut either or's.

I wasn't there to see him die, but having many eyewitness accounts that do not contradict is rather impresive. If Jesus didnt claim he was the Son of God then why was he crucified? The eyewitness accounts claim he said he was the Son of God.

Where are these eyewitness accounts? And maybe just maybe they crucified him because he wrecked the temple moneylenders and the romans decided they were for none of it and nailed him up for the sheer hell of it. Thats assuming that it even happened and is not a story.

I agree that it is accurate up to an extent but its not that accurate, villages that weren't there, camels when there should be none, fights that never happened, the exodus, all prime examples of inaccuracies.

Please give me some actual examples. OK No archaelogical or written evidence for the Exodus - plus the fact that when moses supposed exodus took place JUDEA was under Egyption rule anyway so they wouldn't be escaping the Egyptians. Biblical fights by the Israelites are NOT archeaological supported. Jerusalem at the time of Solomon was no more than a small village NOT a huge city as the bible states. There are no references to david or solomon by any of the surrounding countries and cultures. There are mention of camels in the bible at a time when camels didnt exist in that area. Want some more?????



G

Originally posted by shihulud
Where are these eyewitness accounts? And maybe just maybe they crucified him because he wrecked the temple moneylenders and the romans decided they were for none of it and nailed him up for the sheer hell of it. Thats assuming that it even happened and is not a story.

The Bible. Also non-christian accounts such as those i gave in original post. What he did in the temple wouldnt lead to crucifixion. I thought we were past the fact that it is not a story. Check out this site if you still dont believe. www.allaboutthejourney.org...

OK No archaelogical or written evidence for the Exodus - plus the fact that when moses supposed exodus took place JUDEA was under Egyption rule anyway so they wouldn't be escaping the Egyptians. Biblical fights by the Israelites are NOT archeaological supported. Jerusalem at the time of Solomon was no more than a small village NOT a huge city as the bible states. There are no references to david or solomon by any of the surrounding countries and cultures. There are mention of camels in the bible at a time when camels didnt exist in that area. Want some more?????

Just because things dont add up doesnt necessarily mean they aren't true. Where is this historical evidence from? Perhaps it is incorrect. Really, we cant conclusivly prove that camels didnt exist in a particular area over 2000 years ago. Check this out about the Exodus. www.sciencedaily.com... ge=8

Originally posted by LancerJ1
The Bible. Also non-christian accounts such as those i gave in original post. What he did in the temple wouldnt lead to crucifixion. I thought we were past the fact that it is not a story. Check out this site if you still dont believe. www.allaboutthejourney.org...

You might not think it's a story but there are a lot of us who do. However on your extra historical evidence - these prove nothing bar vague references to a christian cult and your link does nothing for me. And why did jesus get crucified? Because he said he was the son of god?

OK No archaelogical or written evidence for the Exodus - plus the fact that when moses supposed exodus took place JUDEA was under Egyption rule anyway so they wouldn't be escaping the Egyptians. Biblical fights by the Israelites are NOT archeaological supported. Jerusalem at the time of Solomon was no more than a small village NOT a huge city as the bible states. There are no references to david or solomon by any of the surrounding countries and cultures. There are mention of camels in the bible at a time when camels didnt exist in that area. Want some more?????

Just because things dont add up doesnt necessarily mean they aren't true. Where is this historical evidence from? Perhaps it is incorrect. Really, we cant conclusivly prove that camels didnt exist in a particular area over 2000 years ago. Check this out about the Exodus.

Just because things dont add up might mean the aren't true. Why is it that when archaeologists provide evidence for bits in the bible then its ok but when the same archaeologists provide evidence that goes against what is said in the bible then all the excuses in the world come out. Tell me why cant they conclusively state that camels werent there but you can say whats in the bible is conclusively true?



G

Originally posted by shihulud
You might not think it's a story but there are a lot of us who do. However on your extra historical evidence - these prove nothing bar vague references to a christian cult and your link does nothing for me. And why did jesus get crucified? Because he said he was the son of god?

His claim to be the Son of God is what got him crucified.

Just because things dont add up might mean the aren't true. Why is it that when archaeologists provide evidence for bits in the bible then its ok but when the same archaeologists provide evidence that goes against what is said in the bible then all the excuses in the world come out. Tell me why cant they conclusively state that camels werent there but you can say whats in the bible is conclusively true?

They are not providing evidence as such, but basing their conclusion on the lack of evidence.

As i said before if God is real then the Bible has to be true. God cannot lie.

I have posted some evidence that you might like taking a peek at if your mind is open. For the past 2 years I've been trying to prove/find God and I believe I have finally succeeded, but I'm still not giving up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They are not providing evidence as such, but basing their conclusion on the lack of evidence.

The Bible doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever to the things it claims either.
And if there were camels living in judea there would have been evidence, like fossils and other traces they would leave in any region they'd live in. No traces, no camels.

As i said before if God is real then the Bible has to be true. God cannot lie.

First you will need to prove it's existence, but that's not possible.

[edit on 15-10-2006 by DarkSide]