Evidence for God

I'm glad that you are willing to hang in there. Love is everywhere that you seek it. When love is seeked by a being love is in turn seeking a being. It will be found. Some can instantly manifest the emotions that they desire, for others it takes a bit longer because of binded temporal circumstances. Anyway, concentrate on it =) It's there... it's here. It's you.

Infinite love and eternal peace.

(You've put a smile on my face and warmed my heart)

Originally posted by shihulud
Where are these many eyewitness accounts? Maybe in the vatican archives eh?

Bible is one source. I guess they could have some in the archives.

There is NO real evidence from the links you offered. Tacitus mentions only Christus - not real evidence for the existence a biblical christ only that the leader was known as christus. The Josephus account is not really viable as it might have been doctored by early christian leaders - as Josephus was a pro roman jew writing for the romans why would he have mentioned jesus as the messiah and all the wonderful things that jesus did?

Tell me what you will accept?

Because maybe it was just true. Tell me why it just cant be true? It fits with the other accounts. This now comes down to your pride. You do not want to lose an argument and admit that there is some truth in it all.

Logic if you like it all not, does side with that Jesus was real and was crucified.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Tell me what you will accept?

Because maybe it was just true. Tell me why it just cant be true? It fits with the other accounts. This now comes down to your pride. You do not want to lose an argument and admit that there is some truth in it all.

Logic if you like it all not, does side with that Jesus was real and was crucified.

I admit that the likelyhood that a historical jesus (from which the biblical jesus arose) did exist and also admit that someone - well many people actually but not necessarily the historical jesus were crucified.
There is more than one viable explanation for the events in the bible (which you must admit is a very biased version of events and is therefore unlikely to contain the full truth ) and also the fact that the jesus story has a basis in pagan godmen with over 200 varifiable similarities to the Horus story alone.
So there is really no pride nor wanting to win an argument in it, all the evidence presented (in my eyes) makes me see the bible as fable with historical background. The OT as well steals from other religious cultures and also bends the historical truth.
The bible story is based on tradition not true history.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
I admit that the likelyhood that a historical jesus (from which the biblical jesus arose) did exist and also admit that someone - well many people actually but not necessarily the historical jesus were crucified.
There is more than one viable explanation for the events in the bible (which you must admit is a very biased version of events and is therefore unlikely to contain the full truth ) and also the fact that the jesus story has a basis in pagan godmen with over 200 varifiable similarities to the Horus story alone.
So there is really no pride nor wanting to win an argument in it, all the evidence presented (in my eyes) makes me see the bible as fable with historical background. The OT as well steals from other religious cultures and also bends the historical truth.
The bible story is based on tradition not true history.


G

Sorry mate, i didnt mean to be harsh in my last post, i was getting a bit frustrated. If this is your choice, then let it be. It's just i so want you to be able to go to heaven. I know that there are unanswered questions, that you have pointed out very well, and i have wondered about them myself. But when i look at the big picture, in my eyes i see truth, and the things im uncertain about become insignificant. As a Christian grows in his faith, he sees and experiences things that he wouldn't see or experience otherwise. To me miracles are from God. Ive just seen and heard too much to say it's just coincidence.

So how do you think the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection came about? You say it's possible that it wasnt the historical Jesus that was crucified. Isn't it just as likely that it was him?

What source are you comparing the bible with to say that it is bias?

Originally posted by LancerJ1
Sorry mate, i didnt mean to be harsh in my last post, i was getting a bit frustrated. If this is your choice, then let it be. It's just i so want you to be able to go to heaven. I know that there are unanswered questions, that you have pointed out very well, and i have wondered about them myself. But when i look at the big picture, in my eyes i see truth, and the things im uncertain about become insignificant. As a Christian grows in his faith, he sees and experiences things that he wouldn't see or experience otherwise. To me miracles are from God. Ive just seen and heard too much to say it's just coincidence.

No need to be sorry, everyones entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.

So how do you think the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection came about? You say it's possible that it wasnt the historical Jesus that was crucified. Isn't it just as likely that it was him?

Possible yes, but one of the problems I have is that when he appeared after the ressurection to the disciples, the disciples didnt recognise him only until he spoke etc. To me, that could be that jesus is in disguise, as he's supposed to be dead, and he's trying to not get caught out - or maybe someone who looked like jesus died on the cross so jesus could get away.
Also jesus ressurection (on being crucified this time) could be explained by the disciples not actually seeing jesus for real but in their dreams at night. It has been noticed also that when a person dies, the close friends etc see this person everywhere but it is only in their mind.

What source are you comparing the bible with to say that it is bias? The fact that it was written/edited and collated by early christian writers with a vested interest in promoting the religion. Most people are not impartial and will give their version when explaining things.


G

I believe in science and evolution, as well as God and creationism. I just don't see how science can explain certain emotions or human behavior, the natural beauty of the world, or the perfection of how this whole system of "life" works here on earth, and yet no where else that we've found. Sure it's possible that we're all the product of billions of years of cosmic dust interacting and finally creating existence out of almost nothing...but that's a lot harder to believe than a simpler idea that some form of consciousness existed first and created everything...something that's clearly a lot more difficult or impossible to understand than physics or any other field of science which still can't conclusively explain anything. I don't know if anyone can provide "proof for God" that anyone else will ever believe, except maybe the whole "intelligent design" thing...you have to wonder how all of the life around us came to be the way it is without some kind of higher power/order or purpose bringing it all together.

The proof of God is the perfection of existence that you speak of, look no further my friend

♥~Infinite Love and Eternal Peace~♥

[edit on 19-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]

Originally posted by UbiquitousInfiniteReality
The proof of God is the perfection of existence that you speak of, look no further my friend

♥~Infinite Love and Eternal Peace~♥

[edit on 19-10-2006 by UbiquitousInfiniteReality]

No it isnt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your powers of deduction are ridiculous - 'If its not one then it must be the other' . It always got to be black and white with religion, its always 'if its not that then god did it'.
What if its not your god?


Get a lobotomy




G

Existence is perfect my friend. Without perfection the infinite perpetual motion machine that IS the universe would cease to exist. I ask you how it became this way in this infinite and eternal perfection that we exist in? It's not a religious subject, it's a matter of existence. I am not a member of any religious organization nor do I claim a label. I am simply a being that is existing and understanding my God of perfection.

♥~Infinite Love and Eternal Peace~♥

Its quite weird to have the same type of conversation on two threads at the same time, think I said my piece on the other one!



G

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by LancerJ1
So how do you think the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection came about? You say it's possible that it wasnt the historical Jesus that was crucified. Isn't it just as likely that it was him?

Possible yes, but one of the problems I have is that when he appeared after the ressurection to the disciples, the disciples didnt recognise him only until he spoke etc. To me, that could be that jesus is in disguise, as he's supposed to be dead, and he's trying to not get caught out - or maybe someone who looked like jesus died on the cross so jesus could get away.
Also jesus ressurection (on being crucified this time) could be explained by the disciples not actually seeing jesus for real but in their dreams at night. It has been noticed also that when a person dies, the close friends etc see this person everywhere but it is only in their mind.

Jesus after the resurrection was able to get into the room with the disciples when the doors were locked. Do you think someone would be willing enough to go through all that suffering and finally death for Jesus? It was only after the resurrection that the disciples had complete faith, and ultimately for most, would lose their lives for it. Even one of the most faithful disciples, Peter, disowned Jesus 3 times to avoid being arrested. It's not likely to be a dream, because a large number of people claimed to have seen Jesus after the resurrection, and claimed he talked and ate with them. With a large number of people witnessing him in the same room kind of rules out it was in their heads. Perhaps in dying and coming back alive again slightly changed his appearance. Also i think Jesus influenced their minds so they couldn't initially recognise him. But then the bible says "He opened their minds", and they were able to understand.

What source are you comparing the bible with to say that it is bias?The fact that it was written/edited and collated by early christian writers with a vested interest in promoting the religion. Most people are not impartial and will give their version when explaining things.

If you are not comparing it to other texts, you cannot know it is inaccurate for sure. There are no Christian writers in the OT. If the church altered the eyewitness accounts in the NT, the Christian people would of known that it had been changed.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Jesus after the resurrection was able to get into the room with the disciples when the doors were locked.

Quite possibly an embelishment to the story.

Do you think someone would be willing enough to go through all that suffering and finally death for Jesus?

Quite possibly had no choice in the matter or just an embelishment to the story.

It was only after the resurrection that the disciples had complete faith, and ultimately for most, would lose their lives for it. Even one of the most faithful disciples, Peter, disowned Jesus 3 times to avoid being arrested. It's not likely to be a dream, because a large number of people claimed to have seen Jesus after the resurrection, and claimed he talked and ate with them. With a large number of people witnessing him in the same room kind of rules out it was in their heads.

Large numbers of people claim to have seen Elvis, ufo's and all sorts of mad strange stuff, are you saying that they are correct as well????

Perhaps in dying and coming back alive again slightly changed his appearance.

Perhaps not.

Also i think Jesus influenced their minds so they couldn't initially recognise him. But then the bible says "He opened their minds", and they were able to understand.

Why do that?? It makes no sense to do that. None of it makes much sense come to think on it.

What source are you comparing the bible with to say that it is bias?The fact that it was written/edited and collated by early christian writers with a vested interest in promoting the religion. Most people are not impartial and will give their version when explaining things.

If you are not comparing it to other texts, you cannot know it is inaccurate for sure. There are no Christian writers in the OT. If the church altered the eyewitness accounts in the NT, the Christian people would of known that it had been changed.

Yes and when we do compare it to other texts - innaccuracies do appear! I know full well that there are no christian writers in the OT that would be a miracle if there were.
I must have missed the part that said that all the early christians were literate and had their own copies of the biblical canon!!!!! Oh and there is evidence that parts of the bible have been changed and quotes from the 'editors' stating that it was done to protect christianity. Additions to mark's gospel were only ratified less than 200 years ago, how many people bothered???? None, because most people dont even read the bible, dont know enough about the bible and probably dont care about the bible story. Most people believe because its in their tradition/culture to believe not because they ACTUALLY believe, its easier for them!


G

just getting caught up on this thread so bear with me:

i am utterly amazed that someone hasnt as of yet torn down all this christian talk by now. i have seen so many things in this thread that are completely wrong its not funny (well, it is a little funny).

Jesus was a real person. easy enough to prove that. the problem is the extra-biblical proof causes problems for christians in many ways.

So how do you think the accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection came about? You say it's possible that it wasnt the historical Jesus that was crucified. Isn't it just as likely that it was him?

read up on a guy named Constantine and another cat known as Sol Invictus. also a little look into Mithra would be good. jesus wasnt the only "god" that was sent to die for peoples sin, and he isnt the only one who was "resurrected", nor even remembered afterwards by drinking "blood".

as for the bible and its "inerrancy" i would ask for starters a couple of questions:

How many angels were at the tomb when jesus was found to be missing, and who was there to witness this?

How did Judas die?

if jesus is messiah, why is there no peace on earth and world knowledge of the one true god, as predicted in the OT?

If jesus told his followers that some of them would still be alive when the last days happened, and they are now 2000 years in the dirt, does that make jesus a liar or just a really bad prophet?

why do christians not follow the noahide law concerning dietary restrictions when James clearly states that that is required for a gentile to become a follower of jesus in acts?

when Paul saw jesus on the road to damascus, did the people with paul see jesus also, or only hear him?

and i can go on for years like this. the bible is full of contradictions and rife with doctrines that oppose other doctrines in the same testament. believe it if you want, but you will no longer be allowed to say things like "the bible is the word of god and doesnt contradict" without backing that up against some very obvious contradictions.

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by LancerJ1
Jesus after the resurrection was able to get into the room with the disciples when the doors were locked.

Quite possibly an embelishment to the story.

My point is it could just as possibly be true.

Do you think someone would be willing enough to go through all that suffering and finally death for Jesus?

Quite possibly had no choice in the matter or just an embelishment to the story.

How would he have no choice?

Large numbers of people claim to have seen Elvis, ufo's and all sorts of mad strange stuff, are you saying that they are correct as well????

But they didn't see Elvis all at the same time, talk to him and eat with him together.

Also i think Jesus influenced their minds so they couldn't initially recognise him. But then the bible says "He opened their minds", and they were able to understand.

Why do that?? It makes no sense to do that. None of it makes much sense come to think on it.

Maybe he was testing their faith. Wanting to see if they had faith that he was going to rise from the dead.

Yes and when we do compare it to other texts - innaccuracies do appear! I know full well that there are no christian writers in the OT that would be a miracle if there were.
I must have missed the part that said that all the early christians were literate and had their own copies of the biblical canon!!!!! Oh and there is evidence that parts of the bible have been changed and quotes from the 'editors' stating that it was done to protect christianity. Additions to mark's gospel were only ratified less than 200 years ago, how many people bothered???? None, because most people dont even read the bible, dont know enough about the bible and probably dont care about the bible story. Most people believe because its in their tradition/culture to believe not because they ACTUALLY believe, its easier for them!

How do we know that it isn't the other texts that are inaccurate?

What is this evidence that the bible has been changed?

To discredit the bible (esp NT) without reading it yourself is ignorant.

Originally posted by I am Legend
read up on a guy named Constantine and another cat known as Sol Invictus. also a little look into Mithra would be good. jesus wasnt the only "god" that was sent to die for peoples sin, and he isnt the only one who was "resurrected", nor even remembered afterwards by drinking "blood".

Hi legend, I see where you are coming from and I will stick in Horus with over 200 similarities to the jesus story and maybe a bit of Dionysus/Bacchus and a side salad of Attis of Phrygia.

as for the bible and its "inerrancy" i would ask for starters a couple of questions:

How many angels were at the tomb when jesus was found to be missing, and who was there to witness this?

How did Judas die?

if jesus is messiah, why is there no peace on earth and world knowledge of the one true god, as predicted in the OT?

If jesus told his followers that some of them would still be alive when the last days happened, and they are now 2000 years in the dirt, does that make jesus a liar or just a really bad prophet?

why do christians not follow the noahide law concerning dietary restrictions when James clearly states that that is required for a gentile to become a follower of jesus in acts?

when Paul saw jesus on the road to damascus, did the people with paul see jesus also, or only hear him?

and i can go on for years like this. the bible is full of contradictions and rife with doctrines that oppose other doctrines in the same testament. believe it if you want, but you will no longer be allowed to say things like "the bible is the word of god and doesnt contradict" without backing that up against some very obvious contradictions.

Good questions but not that you will get many an answer, usually these type of question are ignored or bypassed completely. If you persist then usually they pick up on something you said about jesus and rant away on that while totally ignoring the questions again. But then every now and again you get someone you can have a good debate with.


Enjoy


G

What about the "five proofs" of Thomas Aquinas? (I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but haven't looked at the entire thread)

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.


The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Hi Shoktek,

I'll use Dawkins' arguments against Aquinas' proofs, as I'm just reading his recent book.

1, 2, and 3 - all depend on a regress to a god. Is god really immune to the regress?

4 - Dawkins' is quite scathing with this one "That's an argument? You may as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him god" (p.79)

5 - Argument from design. ToE covers that.

I don't really know what you mean by a "regress to God"...maybe that science is the new way to explain existence and God is the old way, and I agree with that but think that both are true and valid in their own right. Numbers 1,3, and 5 are still good reasons for a God, and I don't agree with dawkins that science is a more "simple" approach to explain these three, as science still has yet to prove any of these things (reaction without action), existance/life from nothing, etc...the big bang is an interesting, and probably somewhat correct theory, but it can't explain the initial reaction or trigger that occured...and our current "laws" of science/physics would be violated to explain such things, unless we discover something in the future that is outside of these laws. Until then, you have to remember that the theories of science, like the theories of God, are also imperfect and only "true" because they haven't been disproven. But this is where you run into a problem disproving God, as the idea is "illogical" and does not fit into science by its very nature.

Just from my point of view, I look at the world around me, and see the perfection of the order, and see the science behind that which proves this order. While science tells me "how", it doesn't tell me "why". And this to me is one of the most convincing reasons as to why a complex, perfect, "illogical" concept such as God, is in fact, the only logical reason for the perfection we see around us everyday, as well as the miracle of life's existence. Because that which can't be explained could only be created or caused by something which is entirely unexplainable.

I'm an athiest, and I don't belive in orginized religon. Although, I do belive that Jesus exsisted, I don't belive he was god. I don't belive that he came back from the dead either, I can't fathom how someone could belive that. Its illogical and unrational.

Looking back on mankinds beliefs through the years its hard to belive poeple look to a 2000 year old book for higher enlightenment. 500 years ago mankind thought the earth was flat, and that he could sail off the edge of the planet if he went to far.

Thier is so much for us as a civilization to learn about the universe and our place in it, I can't see how someone could chalk it up in one answer "god". The fact is no one knows why we're here. I have a feeling mankind, or life as we know it, isnt as special we'd like to belive. At one point in our history, mankind thought the universe revolved around the earth, as if the universe revoled around mankind. Kinda special isnt it.

Mankind dreamed up a thearoy of an after life and to this day no one can prove it. But yet people kill and rape all in the name of god. Some think thier doing gods work, others use god as an excuse, I see it everyday in the news.

I don't blame peolpe because most of them don't know any better they've been fed god since the day they were born. Some parts of the world today don't even teach math, they teach religon instead.

The bottom line is mankind is two generations from swinging in the trees, just watch mtv.

Originally posted by Shoktek
I don't really know what you mean by a "regress to God"

It just means we have a series of explanations that lead to god.

So 1 says nothing moves without a prior mover, so something had to be the first mover, we regress to the unmoved mover, god.

2 is very similar really, the 'uncaused cause'. Everyting requires a cause, we regress through causes to an uncaused cause, god.

3 is a cosmological argument. Once no physical things existed, so we need a non-physical being to be the cause of their existence, god.

So, we could readily regress this further - what moved god, what caused god, how did the non-physical entity form? So we make a few logical and theological twists and invoke a concept immune to further regression.

I agree with Dawkins in that these are fairly unsatisfactory arguments.

and I don't agree with dawkins that science is a more "simple" approach to explain these three, as science still has yet to prove any of these things (reaction without action), existance/life from nothing, etc...the big bang is an interesting, and probably somewhat correct theory, but it can't explain the initial reaction or trigger that occured...

Well it is isn't more simple in one way, we can invoke a magical being to give us an answer, but we know from experience that with time and effort, using the scientific method, we may one day reasonably explain these problems. And ultimately it is a 'god of the gaps' argument.

But I would say that we don't think that 'existence/life came from nothing'.

Until then, you have to remember that the theories of science, like the theories of God, are also imperfect and only "true" because they haven't been disproven. But this is where you run into a problem disproving God, as the idea is "illogical" and does not fit into science by its very nature.

Yeah, without doubt, but we make alterations as the evidence collects and, by this method, our explanations of the world become closer to the reality.

Just from my point of view, I look at the world around me, and see the perfection of the order, and see the science behind that which proves this order. While science tells me "how", it doesn't tell me "why". And this to me is one of the most convincing reasons as to why a complex, perfect, "illogical" concept such as God, is in fact, the only logical reason for the perfection we see around us everyday, as well as the miracle of life's existence. Because that which can't be explained could only be created or caused by something which is entirely unexplainable.

I think that's fair enough, some people do see such things and are happy to make such conclusions. As long as you are prepared to question and change beliefs as evidence collects, you can't go wrong. We will never have a 'theory of everything' and always have unanswered questions. It's good for science, we need problems, mysteries and a desire to solve them