We Don't Get It, So God Did It

kobra500 · July 8, 2009

I am going to put together a large video post of interesting videos for those interested in this topic, they will obviously be athiestic in nature, but thats because the people who make them , often are explaining things without God, theres quite a few.

KansukeKojima · July 9, 2009

THE QUOTE TAGS ARE ALL SCREWED UP SOME HOW, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY. SOME OF MY RESPONSES ARE IN THE QUOTES I MADE OF BANIBOY'S POST AND I CAN'T FIX IT. MY RESPONSES ARE IN BOLD AND UNDERLINED IF THEY ARE INSIDE THE QUOTE TAG.

@KansukeKojima:

Evolution doesn't disprove god neither god does disprove evolution. Evolution DOES disprove the creationism in most religions. You can't believe in contradicting theories(creationism is not a theory, but I didn't find any other good words for describing what it is).

I allow for evolution to have occurred, but not on such a large scale to say it is the source of all life. Species change and adapt over time. I still believe God was the creator. These two ideas do not contradict each other unless I go to the extreme and say that the source of all life is evolution.

Further, if evolution be named truth then the creation account in the book of Genesis be named false. If that scripture is in doubt, then much (if not all) of the bible goes with it. Ultimately, this is not only about evolution vs. creation but it is about: unbelief vs. belief, inaccuracy of scripture vs. accuracy of scripture, non-existence of God vs. existence of God. Truly, this is ultimately about whether there is a God or not, which is why I argue the points which I have been.

To me it seems that you believe that by logic you prove the existance of god, but you don't. You make a compromise in your logical thinking to make the existance of god(s) possible. Your logic is apparently like this:

Everything needs a cause, but now you make up your own stuff, you say that although evrything does need a cause, but not god, because he's eternal and what not. Logic doesn't work like that. You say that god is not bound to the laws of physics and logic. So... you get it? The only thing I can think of that isn't bound to the laws of physics and logic is human imagination.

I worry that you do not properly understand the my arguments.

1) My claim was that everything in the universe needs a cause. God transcends the physical thing that we call the universe.

2) You claim that God can't be eternal because: "logic doesn't work like that". What is illogical about God being eternal? Simply stating it does not make it false.

3) I said God is not bound by the laws of physics. The laws of logic are a part of God's nature and He acts consistently within that nature. God is logical because it is part of His nature to be so. I did not claim God transcends logic.

Yes, logical absolutes apply everywhere, so to god. You could wipe out the whole god thing and just say that universe is eternal, you wouldn't have to make compromise in your logic to understand the stuff around you.

You could not do this. Time is part of the universe. If the universe has existed eternally, that means you have an infinite amount of time. You cannot cross an infinite amount of time to get to now because the amount of time before this very moment is infinitely large. It looks like this:

|Infinitely large Gap that is incapable of being crossed|-->|this very moment|

You could never make it all the way through that infinitely large gap of time to get to right now. Even if you were to... uh... start at the beginning of that gap (which is impossible because there is no beginning) and sit there and wait for this very moment to occur, it would never happen because of an infinitely large amount of time. Do you understand the problem with saying that the universe has existed eternally?

Other problem is of course, human mind can not understand what eternal means. You can understand normally time like this: let's say I say I'm 15 years old(which I am btw ), you make sence of it by trying to remember how much 1 year is(not by days, but how long it feels to you) and multiplying it by 15 and somehow imagining... Now let's apply that to eternal. 1 or more (amount of time of your choice) multiplied by eter... *Wait.. I can't do that!* See? The result wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't give you a measurable answer.

That is because eternity has no numeric value. We can comprehend that it means forever in both past and future directions.

Eternality itself(I don't know if that's even a word..) however, is possible. So remember this, you can't simply get out of it by saying "god by definition is eternal", because the only way this would make sense is that god(s) is/are not being(s), but the force behind the laws of physics. Then, the statements "god is everywhere" and "god is eternal" do make sense, but I'll also add, "god is everything". So in some sense I would use the word "god" as a synonym to the word "universe"

You cannot apply the word eternal to the notion of time, other wise the problem that I demonstrated above with the "infinitely large time gap" will occur. You can apply the word eternal to the notion of a supernatural being. It is capable that a God has always existed and at one point, decided to create the universe and time itself. If time was created at a certain point, this allows for time to have a beginning, and the "infinitely large time gap" problem does not occur. The problem with saying the universe has eternally existed is that the universe includes time. If the universe was created by an external force (God), then time would have a beginning and we would not have the infinite large time gap problem.

Notice from truefusion:

Fixed quote problem.

Baniboy · July 9, 2009

There is no problem for time gaps. You totally ignored my eternal cycle thing. You're still with that everything needs a cause theory. There is no logical proof that everything needs a cause, but not god, because so it says in a almost 2000 years old textbook. The is no problem with time gap, because we do not have to cross it, we exist in the present and it's a mathematical impossibility to go forward or backwards in time. Time is also relative to the speed we move. I also was not stating that eternal is impossible, but stating that eternal anything is impossible to understand.

Let me make a more clear argument, like a summary or something:

1. First law of thermodynamics: Matter and/or energy can't be created nor destroyed, but can change into one another. If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, yet it exist, it must've always existed. Pure logic.

2. The universe will most likely(by the knowledge of our time) shrink back to where it "came from". Causing another big bang (it's not really an explosion, it's just the expansion of time-space). Eternal cycle. To my understanding, time-space expands after every big bang. So no, time-space is eternal, but it shrinks and expands.

Because if everything needs a cause, so does god(this would cause an eternal cycle of causes), and if god is not matter or energy, god doesn't exist. As I already said, you can't simply get out of this by saying "by definition god is eter...".

EDIT: As for god is outside of the universe, we can't go outside the universe and verify that. To me, it seems that everything outside this reality doesn't exist, I might be wrong of course. I mean like, it's impossible for the product of our imagination to create the universe isn't it?

Now I know you'll ignore my argument and just repeat yourself(or possibly take one portion of it and turn it against me, ignoring the rest of the argument). I have realized that nobody can force their beliefs on somebody even by using logic, the truth is something one has to realize himself/herself.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

KansukeKojima · July 10, 2009

There is no problem for time gaps. You totally ignored my eternal cycle thing. You're still with that everything needs a cause theory. There is no logical proof that everything needs a cause, but not god, because so it says in a almost 2000 years old textbook. The is no problem with time gap, because we do not have to cross it, we exist in the present and it's a mathematical impossibility to go forward or backwards in time. Time is also relative to the speed we move. I also was not stating that eternal is impossible, but stating that eternal anything is impossible to understand.

Your still not understanding the impossibility of time always existing. If time has infinitely existed into the past you would never arrive at this point in time no matter how long you sat there and waited. The past would be an infinite and unending amount of time which is incapable of passing. This presents a huge problem when you say that the universe has always existed because time is a factor in the universe.

You totally ignored my eternal cycle thing.

If it was this, I did not realize it was directed at me:

/* My own "belief" */

I personally believe(not know, but I believe in what I believe by using my own logic) that universe is eternal. The big bang could've been caused by a shrinking universe(or something else, but this is the best we got right now). So, if universe is eternal(cycle), everything somehow starts to make sense. Except the "why" question of course, but that isn't even explained in creationism. We can never understand the deeper meaning of why something happened/happens, because it would cause an eternal cycle of why questions which we can not answer to. The reason this makes sense to me is that because no matter or energy could've came out of nowhere, they always existed. This applies because is that something which is not energy or matter, doesn't exist and *POOF* - coming to existance doesn't make sense nor is possible by the laws of physics, they must've always existed and cycled continously creating the universe, life and everything we know.

/* End of my personal thoughts that have so little evidence behind them, but my logic makes sense to me (hehe). If it doesn't to you, please tell why */

I will address it now.

If you went strictly according to the laws of physics, you would be forced to assume that there was always a universe, or there has been an eternal cycle, etc. etc. However, if you understand the problem with time always existing you will realize that this cannot be the case. I will be clear here that I am not dismissing the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe how things work WITHIN THE SYSTEM CALLED OUR UNIVERSE. They do not pointedly dismiss the existence of a God because they describe how things work within the universe. They allow for a transcendent God to have created the system where these physical laws are true.

Let me make a more clear argument, like a summary or something:

1. First law of thermodynamics: Matter and/or energy can't be created nor destroyed, but can change into one another. If matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, yet it exist, it must've always existed. Pure logic.

This law only accounts for the observations we can scientifically make about matter and energy. No force within the universe (read: natural force) is able to create matter or energy, but what stops a supernatural force from outside of this universe that is all powerful from creating the system which this law works in? Nothing. This law does not pointedly dismiss the existence of a Creator. Its meaning is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by anything within the system (read: universe) itself. (This is the same thing I addressed above about your "my personal belief" thing)

Further, I have demonstrated how things within the universe cannot have always existed because of the problem with time. There has to be a beginning of everything in the universe (including time), otherwise time would be infinite and the past would be an infinite and unending amount of time which is incapable of passing to get to now. It is crucial that you understand the impossibility of time always existing.

2. The universe will most likely(by the knowledge of our time) shrink back to where it "came from". Causing another big bang (it's not really an explosion, it's just the expansion of time-space). Eternal cycle. To my understanding, time-space expands after every big bang. So no, time-space is eternal, but it shrinks and expands.

Because if everything needs a cause, so does god(this would cause an eternal cycle of causes), and if god is not matter or energy, god doesn't exist. As I already said, you can't simply get out of this by saying "by definition god is eter...".

In response to "2.", I do not have much knowledge on the universe expanding, etc. so I cannot really speak on those things.

Every PHYSICAL thing needs a cause. God is not matter or energy, so He does not physically exist. Just because He does not physically exist does not mean He is non-existent. He exists outside of the physical realm. He is a spiritual being, not a physical one. He is not subject to the physical laws that we are subject to in our universe.

EDIT: As for god is outside of the universe, we can't go outside the universe and verify that. To me, it seems that everything outside this reality doesn't exist, I might be wrong of course. I mean like, it's impossible for the product of our imagination to create the universe isn't it?

No, we can't go outside the universe to verify it. You won't find God with scientific method or in a test tube. Also, God is still a part of "this reality" even if He transcends the universe. If He exists, He is reality. And if the events in the Bible are true, then it is evidence that He is part of reality. Transcending this universe does not mean He is not part of reality.

Also, you assume that God is a product of our imagination, and then use that assumption that He is to say products of our imagination can't create the universe. You would have to prove without a doubt why God is a product of our imaginations to me before you said that and before it could be valid.

Now I know you'll ignore my argument and just repeat yourself(or possibly take one portion of it and turn it against me, ignoring the rest of the argument). I have realized that nobody can force their beliefs on somebody even by using logic, the truth is something one has to realize himself/herself.

I realize that I have had to go over my argument again, but I seriously do not think you understand the problem that occurs with time if the universe has always existed, or if there has been a cycle of universes, etc. If time has always existed, we have a severe problem. Also, I addressed all of your argument and I did not ignore it. And I agree that no one can force their beliefs on someone else.

This can go back and forth forever (pun intended)... So I'm not sure how much longer we should continue this lol If neither one of us is getting anywhere within the next post or two, I'm done posting.

Edited July 10, 2009 by KansukeKojima (see edit history)

Baniboy · July 13, 2009

I tried to answer you 3 days ago but Xisto suddenly stopped working Anyway, you were right about the infinity of time being impossible. :angel:

You said that god is not a part of the physical realm. If it's not, then how can it affect the physical realm? Another problem is time, can you imagine a realm without time which god supposedly exists in? Time is another thing made up by man, time technically doesn't exist. Time is relative, time is something made up by looking at a cycle that repeats itself and comparing other things to them. Let us assume that there must be an ultimate cause for the physical realm, shouldn't there be an ultimate cause for non-physical realm? Can you imagine anything out of this realm? What religion does is claims the impossible and then simply states that you can't disprove/prove it by science, because it simply doesn't exist in this realm. What caused this undetectable being to create this universe? Why would this being want us to worship it? Wouldn't ultimate cause need an ultimate purpose too? I sure can't answer these.

To me, stuff that needs a cause is what is happening, I don't even want to start to somehow philosophically try to find out if existance itself needs a cause.

And if the events in the Bible are true, then it is evidence that He is part of reality.

But the events in the bible are not true, god didn't create the earth in six days, there was no flood, Jesus was not the son of god(I'm sure if he was, he would've happily told us so, but he didn't). Almost none of the biblical events did never happen, so it's not a reliable resource for information. It was written by men (even christians don't deny that). And you can't use a book as empirical evidence to prove yahwe's or any other god's existance. You're "stripping" the bible here, yes, you're stripping all the nonsense and all there is left is the existance of god. You can't pick and choose from your own holy book, it either has to be totally right(which we know it isn't, we are not gonna argue about that, are we?), or it has to be totally wrong. If you believe in the god of the bible which you believe is His word, but not in all the rest of the bible, you will burn in hell. There are/were many books(and many other beliefs that aren't even written) on this planet, every single one of them claiming they are 100% right without any evidence.

Just because the majority of people believes in one book, it doesn't mean it's right, it means that there once was something that spread this belief (roman empire). What makes you think that you're right about the bible? Because your parents beliefs and where you are born mostly determine what you believe in? What makes you think that pastafarianism(Flying Spaghetti Monster) isn't the way to go? Why, because it's seems to be made-up out of nothing? Exactly! That's why I prefer to not make up something against the laws of physics. If I do, I will modify it to fit them or I will dump the whole idea.

Anyway, by simple logic, there must've been something that caused the big bang, but look how far we have come, from the earth being the center of the universe, to our solar system, our galaxy, more galaxies... Who knows what we'll discover next? Have you heard about the multiverse hypothesis?

Anyway, I'm not saying god(s)'s existance is impossible, but saying that our imaginary friend(s) couldn't have created the universe... People could actually do something useful for humanity itself and our planet's health, instead, we waste our time on things that we shouldn't as an (relatively) intelligent specie, one being religion, but there are many others.

KansukeKojima · July 14, 2009

I tried to answer you 3 days ago but Xisto suddenly stopped working Anyway, you were right about the infinity of time being impossible.

Yay, he finally gets it

haha

You said that god is not a part of the physical realm. If it's not, then how can it affect the physical realm?

When I say that He is transcendent of the physical realm I mean that He is not limited by it. In Christian theology, the teaching is that God is independent of our physical realm but still sovereign over it and able to act in it.

Another problem is time, can you imagine a realm without time which god supposedly exists in?

I can imagine the existence of it, but I can't necessarily imagine what it is like. According to Christian theology, God exists independently of our physical realm. (Remember, this does not disable His sovereignty over the physical realm or His ability to act in it). To the best of my knowledge, the bible does not teach what sort of realm God exists in if He even exists in one at all. (Btw, Heaven would not count as this "realm" because God had created heaven, so again, He is still independent of it.)

Time is another thing made up by man, time technically doesn't exist. Time is relative, time is something made up by looking at a cycle that repeats itself and comparing other things to them.

Let us assume that there must be an ultimate cause for the physical realm, shouldn't there be an ultimate cause for non-physical realm? Can you imagine anything out of this realm? What religion does is claims the impossible and then simply states that you can't disprove/prove it by science, because it simply doesn't exist in this realm. What caused this undetectable being to create this universe? Why would this being want us to worship it? Wouldn't ultimate cause need an ultimate purpose too? I sure can't answer these.

First, even if time does not technically "exist", the what "time" is still exists. This means the problem with time that I expressed before (and that you have now agreed upon) still occurs.

Now to address some of the questions you asked:

1. What caused this undetectable being to create this universe?

Nothing "caused" Him to create it. He created it of His own will to do so.

2. Why would this being want us to worship it?

He wants us to worship Him because everything He created, He created for HIS own glory. According to the account of the fall of man in Genesis, we rebelled against God when we disobeyed the command He gave. We choose not to have the relationship with God that we were created for. Further, because God is worthy of worship and because He is perfect, His desire for us to worship Him is right and just.

3. Wouldn't ultimate cause need an ultimate purpose too?

The ultimate cause does have an ultimate purpose: God's glory. Everything He created was purposed to bring Him glory.

To me, stuff that needs a cause is what is happening, I don't even want to start to somehow philosophically try to find out if existance itself needs a cause.

But the events in the bible are not true, god didn't create the earth in six days, there was no flood, Jesus was not the son of god(I'm sure if he was, he would've happily told us so, but he didn't).

You make so many assumptions here it is ridiculous. These things are not just magically false because you say they are. Demonstrate to me how they are false. As well, Jesus did say He was the Son of God. Lets take a look at some verses from John 10:

14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me? 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father?and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life?only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

The misconception that Jesus never said He was the Son of God is ridiculous. This shows me that what you believe about Christianity is based only on the works of atheists and people who wish to disprove Christianity because they have used this argument before. I wonder if you have truly ever studied the bible yourself because arguments like that do NOT hold weight and can be refuted when one looks at scripture.

Furthermore, the things that happened in Jesus' life act as a witness to claims that He is the Son of God.

Almost none of the biblical events did never happen, so it's not a reliable resource for information. It was written by men (even christians don't deny that). And you can't use a book as empirical evidence to prove yahwe's or any other god's existance.

You're "stripping" the bible here, yes, you're stripping all the nonsense and all there is left is the existance of god. You can't pick and choose from your own holy book, it either has to be totally right(which we know it isn't, we are not gonna argue about that, are we?), or it has to be totally wrong. If you believe in the god of the bible which you believe is His word, but not in all the rest of the bible, you will burn in hell. There are/were many books(and many other beliefs that aren't even written) on this planet, every single one of them claiming they are 100% right without any evidence.

Really? You clearly have not studied this much if you think biblical events never happened. I truly think you are only relying on the ideas which atheists proclaim in order to disprove Christianity. These sorts of ideas have been countered time and time again by historians, theologians, and scholars. Please don't rely on off the cuff arguments created by atheists for debate.

All that you are doing is claiming the events in the bible never took place and then expecting me to go, "Oh okay, You win". Look, claims about the events in the bible never taking place have been dispelled countless times. Do some research on this stuff, don't rely on basement-atheist's arguments from YouTube. Read information from credible sources about biblical history. If you like, I will post you some examples of evidence which show that the events in the bible did occur, but I would GREATLY appreciate it if you did the research yourself.

Just because the majority of people believes in one book, it doesn't mean it's right, it means that there once was something that spread this belief (roman empire). What makes you think that you're right about the bible? Because your parents beliefs and where you are born mostly determine what you believe in? What makes you think that pastafarianism(Flying Spaghetti Monster) isn't the way to go? Why, because it's seems to be made-up out of nothing? Exactly! That's why I prefer to not make up something against the laws of physics. If I do, I will modify it to fit them or I will dump the whole idea.

I realize that truth is not decided by popular vote, thank you.

I already stated why I believe what I do in my first post in this thread:

That being said, I would declare the reason that I am a Christian is not solely because I have seen a certain amount of evidence for God, etc. Nor is the reason that I am a Christian the philosophical problems problems that exist within atheism. The reason I am a Christian is due to a supernatural work in my heart (regeneration) which has lead me to repentance and faith in Christ for salvation. This is not an argument I use against atheists to prove the existence of God, I only wish to clarify that the sole reason I believe is NOT based purely on scientific evidence or philosophical arguments. However, the evidence and arguments I have been presented with do act as support for my belief in God's existence.

I do not believe what I do because of popular vote, or because of what my parents believed.

Anyway, by simple logic, there must've been something that caused the big bang, but look how far we have come, from the earth being the center of the universe, to our solar system, our galaxy, more galaxies... Who knows what we'll discover next? Have you heard about the multiverse hypothesis?

The problem with the big bang theory is that it requires the existence of time. If something caused the big bang, then what caused that cause? And what caused that cause's cause? We still run into the infinite regression of causes problem that occurs when we have an infinite amount of time. This theory does not work.

I need to know one thing: Have I demonstrated to you yet that it is necessary for a creating force which is transcendent of our physical universe needs to exist in order for our universe to exist? If you accept the impossibility of an infinite amount of time then you should also agree that there needs to be a creating force like I have described (whether or not it is God). Have I demonstrated that necessity to you?

Baniboy · July 14, 2009

When I said biblical events I meant the important and crazy ones, like splitting sea in half, great global flood, living inside a giant fish for 3 days etc. Your defense here could obviously be "that's the old testament", but the new testament contains some crazy stuff too, read your bible.At least if these did happen, there is no evidence. And evidence, scientific method and logic, is what I rely on. Religion is about jumping from a question to conclusion.I'm not an atheist, I view the existence of god(s) possible, but I don't view any religious viewpoint as possible, as those are obviously made up, and you can't change my mind about this(actually, yes you can, if you find me a religion that supports logic. HINT: none of the major known religions). I would also like to state I often watch videos and read articles supporting religious point of view and sometimes I get an "ahaaa"-moment. When I find a good argument from the opposite side of view I search to find if it has been debunked. So I'm pretty open-minded even tho it's I'm saying this myself.As a person I have to consider what happens to me if I'm wrong. Well, in case of most religions, I'll go to hell/somewhere else and my punishment will be eternal torture.(?) I do not view that as fair, an all-loving being wouldn't send people to hell just because they didn't follow its teachings. I would rather go to hell, because the party is definately downstairs I'm sure the first few days will be horrible but I'll adapt :DIt's fun how you responded to "Jesus never said he was the son of god". But isn't the christian god the "father" of us all? Let's play the smartass game here; I said he never said that he was the son of god, he said that god was his father, checkmate! (I'm not mocking anybody, but I have like not take everything seriously)And no, big bang doesn't require eternality of time, as time didn't exist as we know it before the big bang. Time doesn't exist without space, and space doesn't exist without matter and/or energy, matter and energy wouldn't exist if any of these missed(?). OMG! It's like father, son and the holy spirit! Maybe they just have a symbolical meaning and they mean time, matter and space? Naah... :DAs I already said, saying that god just isn't detectable by anything in this universe is just way too easy. And I do not accept that as an explanation, at first god had to be in the sky(NOTE: people couldn't reach it, that's what made it undisprovable) after that it's another realm/dimension/whatever... You make it easy for yourselves. I prefer to seek the truth through science, without making rationalizations to make my own beliefs fit the universe.I think we're done posting in this thread if you haven't got any new stuff to bring up. As it seems that we are looking from very different point of views and it wouldn't be wise to just repeat our arguments. And this has been kinda boring since nobody else has replied to the topic for some time :)But if you have any other arguments that you have not yet mentioned, feel free to do so.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

KansukeKojima · July 15, 2009

But if you have any other arguments that you have not yet mentioned, feel free to do so.

I have plenty of more arguments now that the debate has shifted to topics regarding the accuracy of scripture and whether or not biblical events occurred. I'm glad I don't have to spit that time argument all over the screen again

haha.

When I said biblical events I meant the important and crazy ones, like splitting sea in half, great global flood, living inside a giant fish for 3 days etc. Your defense here could obviously be "that's the old testament", but the new testament contains some crazy stuff too, read your bible.

At least if these did happen, there is no evidence. And evidence, scientific method and logic, is what I rely on. Religion is about jumping from a question to conclusion.

[1] Why would my defense be "that's the old testament"? That would be a pointless argument, I may as well say "bananas are yellow so you are wrong" if I was going to say that.

[2] I read my bible. I am aware that it is filled with astounding, "crazy", and amazing things.

[3] It is ridiculous to say that there is no evidence for events in the bible. First of all, since you only have the mind of a human it is impossible for you to know ever single evidence ever presented in this world. Second, there are indeed evidences which you have clearly never read before.

[4] Regarding evidence for New Testament events and the accuracy of New Testament Scripture (I ask that you read all of these articles in their entirety):

"Can we trust the New Testament as a Historical Document":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

"Does the Bible provide extraordinary evidence for Jesus' Resurrection?":

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

(Btw, if the Resurrection of Christ occurred (and come on, anyone being raised back to life is an amazing thing, far more amazing than an ocean being parted), than how much more possible is it for the other amazing events in the bible to have occurred such as the flood? We are talking about someone being raised back to life after all, something that far surpasses healings, plauges, etc. in perceived "impossibility".)

I think that is enough regarding the topic of New Testament events. If you wish to read more about the reliability and some evidence for the occurrence of new testament events, then check out the main directory for these kinds of questions on this website: http://carm.org/evidence-and-answers (I encourage you to do this).

I think you will agree that you are mistaken when you say there is no evidence for New testament events.

[5] Regarding evidence for Old Testament events and the accuracy of Old Testament scripture:

The Accuracy of Old Testament Documents:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

The Old Testament

For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"

The Scribe

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

The Massoretic Text

During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}

The Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

Conclusion

In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."{4}

The thing is, the majority of the Old Testament (and the vast majority of the entire bible) is written as an account of events. The Old Testament in particular is a collection of historical documents regarding events which happened in Jewish history. These events were written as an account of things which happened, and then they were transmitted down through the ages via the careful copying of scribes who did their best to made sure their every letter was correct.

Now, the accuracy of transmission of scripture does not necessarily mean the events in the bible occurred. However, there have been many things in the Old Testament which have been backed up by archaeological finds. Read the articles on this page:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/archeology.html

As far as I know, no archeological find has ever contradicted what the bible says in concerns to locations of cities, kingdoms, etc. etc.

There may be limited to no evidence for certain events which occurred in the Old Testament, however: There is overwhelming evidence for the accuracy of Old Testament scripture - both in transmission of documents and accuracy of accounts of Jewish history. That being said, while the evidence may not be precisely what you are looking for, I believe the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of the Bible being both accurately transmitted and an accurate account of events.

I'm not an atheist, I view the existence of god(s) possible, but I don't view any religious viewpoint as possible, as those are obviously made up, and you can't change my mind about this(actually, yes you can, if you find me a religion that supports logic. HINT: none of the major known religions). I would also like to state I often watch videos and read articles supporting religious point of view and sometimes I get an "ahaaa"-moment. When I find a good argument from the opposite side of view I search to find if it has been debunked. So I'm pretty open-minded even tho it's I'm saying this myself.

I hope I have changed your mind about religious viewpoints being "obviously made up" with the information I have given you above.

As a person I have to consider what happens to me if I'm wrong. Well, in case of most religions, I'll go to hell/somewhere else and my punishment will be eternal torture.(?) I do not view that as fair, an all-loving being wouldn't send people to hell just because they didn't follow its teachings. I would rather go to hell, because the party is definately downstairs I'm sure the first few days will be horrible but I'll adapt

God is loving but He is also a just God. Consider this verse:

"Pro 17:15 Condemning the innocent or letting the wicked go---both are hateful to the LORD."

Christianity teaches that all of us are wicked. In the verse above (Proverbs 17:15), another translation of the bible says those things are an "abomination" to the God. An abomination is something utterly detestable. Now think about this for a moment, if God just "lets us go" in spite of all the wicked we have done that means He is doing something that is against His own nature. He would be doing something He detests. God is a loving God, but He is also a just God.

Further, I would submit to you that He is an extremely loving God in that He even saves any of us. All of us deserve the same fate: the full wrath of God poured out upon us for all the wicked we have done against Him. He poured out the fullness of His wrath upon His own Son when Jesus was crucified so that we may have salvation.

It's fun how you responded to "Jesus never said he was the son of god". But isn't the christian god the "father" of us all? Let's play the smartass game here; I said he never said that he was the son of god, he said that god was his father, checkmate! (I'm not mocking anybody, but I have like not take everything seriously)

Show me anywhere in the bible BEFORE Jesus where anyone had ever said that God was their Father. That practice only started when Christians began doing so because it is part of Christian theology that "we have been adopted as God's sons through Jesus Christ" (I can't remember the exact verse for that). No one would have said that before "Christianity" actually started. As well, the Christian God is not the Father of us all. He is only the Father of Christians: those who have been made God's children through Christ's sacrifice. All of us are lost and separated from God and are not his children. Unless we have Christ we cannot be called His children.

And no, big bang doesn't require eternality of time, as time didn't exist as we know it before the big bang. Time doesn't exist without space, and space doesn't exist without matter and/or energy, matter and energy wouldn't exist if any of these missed(?). OMG! It's like father, son and the holy spirit! Maybe they just have a symbolical meaning and they mean time, matter and space? Naah...

My bad for not understanding that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, according to that theory.

As I already said, saying that god just isn't detectable by anything in this universe is just way too easy. And I do not accept that as an explanation, at first god had to be in the sky(NOTE: people couldn't reach it, that's what made it undisprovable) after that it's another realm/dimension/whatever... You make it easy for yourselves. I prefer to seek the truth through science, without making rationalizations to make my own beliefs fit the universe.

I tend not to make rationalizations regarding my beliefs, thank you

Anyways, I have been enjoying this little dialogue we've been having, I hope it will continue for a while yet I enjoy discussions like this, and I've been getting lots of MyCents from it haha

Baniboy · July 20, 2009

What accuracy? you mean accuracy tha claims that the earth has four corners, sun orbits the earth, stars can fall of the sky? oh wel... Well, maybe god twisted it to make it look like a ball after he realized people were falling off? This doesn't differ than the belief that earth lies on the back of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle. Actually I would say the giant turtle is pretty darn cool.

Revelation 7:1

1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Four corners, how accurate scripture!

Even Jesus' date of birth is fake, it was Mithra's day. It was done on purpose by the church destroy the worshipping of Mithra in Babylonian Kingdom/whatever. There were a lot of people at that time claiming they are the savior and what not, they also performed "miracles". You are ready to claim that the miracles in your religion are true but all other ones aren't?

Why didn't anybody else write about coming back to life?! Only some dudes over a century after the so called "resurrection"?! One of your links contained some mathematical nonsense like "the bible is 99,5 % textually pure." Like you can mathematically calculate what is pure "textually". Textually pure? Like no typos? lol

Just because something contains some facts doesn't mean it's all true. I'm getting a little bored right now, I don't care anymore. do whatever you want(like stone your children to death if they're rebellious or kill someone if they can't spell "shibboleth"), but don't come and try to explain how "accurate" your holy book is, because to me, it's as accurate as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

Sorry but I have a hard time trying to understand how this could've happened:

"Look son, I'm gonna send you on a suicide mission to earth but you won't actually die because you are actually me".

And the prophecies, they are often self-fulfilling, not very in detail blah blah blah... Nothing convincing

The truth is, the stories could've been based on a real person, then story got bigger and bigger and then someone wrote it. Then it was used to justify wars and keep people in line, keep them in fear, gather wealth. And you can't deny this one with any scripture. All loving god wouldn't be so murderous and jealous as described in the bible. Religions are just to fill the gap in our knowledge with nonsense, and then when the true facts come out, they desperately try to remain the same

I hope I have changed your mind about religious viewpoints being "obviously made up" with the information I have given you above.

Wishful thinking

The locations of kingdoms being right doesn't translate to believing in a being without evidence to prove the existence of that being itself. If I tell you that triangles have three sides(which is true, BTW

), but then I tell you I'm immortal, do you believe all I say? No, because you know that I have no evidence and I can't back up the other one with any logic, anything you have experienced/heard in the past and you know I'm not gonna let you test if I'm immortal. It's like I put a candy in a "magic box" and then I tell you it's not in the magic box anymore, but I won't open the magic box to show it's not there anymore.

And you are making rationalizations, every religion is, they develop over time, after all, how you think church survived the collision with science?

earth is round: oh.. but that doesn't disprove the bible's true word of our invisible friend!!!

Fossils: lived at the same time as man.

Dating methods: They are ALL inaccurate.

Evolution: You have no evidence! Oh you do? No you don't, because my uneducated friend Kent Hovind says so!

Big Bang: But earth is only 6000 yrs old?

...

...The religions do follow science, but with a 100 year lag.

That is the defense mechanism, and when everything fails, you blame the devil.

I'm not saying you do the things above, but many people do.

truefusion · July 21, 2009

I'm a bit bored, so i'll respond to a few things (and leave the rest to Kansuke if he wants).

you mean accuracy tha claims that the earth has four corners, sun orbits the earth, stars can fall of the sky?

Out of those three examples, you only reference one.

Four corners, how accurate scripture!

Perhaps it wasn't safe of me to assume that you wouldn't forget about North, South, East and West.

Even Jesus' date of birth is fake, it was Mithra's day.

I doubt with much study anyone can provide the date of Jesus's birth. They could provide a range, but never the exact day, month and year.

There were a lot of people at that time claiming they are the savior and what not, they also performed "miracles". You are ready to claim that the miracles in your religion are true but all other ones aren't?

In the one (or more) of the Gospels, Jesus warns about false messiahs. While, technically, no human can perform miracles, in the book of Acts and others, people have been known to perform signs. Signs aren't necessarily miracles, but they still give off an impression of divine power.

Why didn't anybody else write about coming back to life?!

Maybe because they were too busy writing about reincarnation? (Similar concept, but different in its own way.)

And the prophecies, they are often self-fulfilling, not very in detail blah blah blah... Nothing convincing

I have in the past pointed out to you a prophecy whose fulfillment can be observed today, but, though i waited for it, i never got a response back from you (so i stopped waiting for one). I think the topic it was posted in was when we were joking about flying spaghetti monsters and how to make a living off of them

(but i can't remember).

All loving god wouldn't be so murderous and jealous as described in the bible. Religions are just to fill the gap in our knowledge with nonsense, and then when the true facts come out, they desperately try to remain the same

If you're going to use words that are defined in the Bible (i.e. "murder" and "jealousy"), then you could at least assume the definitions from the Bible (as that would be more reasonable). In which case you'll find that an omniscient being cannot be convicted of murder and that godly jealousy is different from human jealousy.

Wishful thinking

That's not wishful thinking on his side, since he didn't assume it to be true from hope.

And you are making rationalizations, every religion is, they develop over time, after all, how you think church survived the collision with science?

By not colliding with it? But i noticed something about this statement (read my response to the next quote).

earth is round: oh.. but that doesn't disprove the bible's true word of our invisible friend!!!

Fossils: lived at the same time as man.

Dating methods: They are ALL inaccurate.

Evolution: You have no evidence! Oh you do? No you don't, because my uneducated friend Kent Hovind says so!

Big Bang: But earth is only 6000 yrs old?

Turns out you're confusing interpretations with Scripture (though the first example is ambiguous) and statements made that are independent of Scripture.

KansukeKojima · July 28, 2009

I'm sorry that I had not responded to this post sooner, I did not realize anyone had responded after my post until today.

What accuracy? you mean accuracy tha claims that the earth has four corners, sun orbits the earth, stars can fall of the sky? oh wel... Well, maybe god twisted it to make it look like a ball after he realized people were falling off? This doesn't differ than the belief that earth lies on the back of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle. Actually I would say the giant turtle is pretty darn cool.

Four corners, how accurate scripture!

As TrueFusion pointed out, you only substantiated one of those claims. (four corners, sun orbits earth, stars can fall from the sky).

Now, onto the subject of "four corners". The idea of the "four corners" of the earth is referencing the four corners of largest area of landmass on the earth: Europe, Asia, Africa, India. If you take a look at a map of those four continents, you will see that the huge mass of land that they reside on has four corners

At the time when the bible was written, that area was essentially thought to be the entire world because no one (as far as we know) had crossed the ocean and landed in north or south america as we know it today. Europe, Asia, Africa, and India would have been considered the entire world at the time, and on a map that gigantic landmass would have corners.

As well, as Truefusion pointed out: North, South, East, West. I am not sure wheather or not "four corners" particularly references those or if it is meaning what I am talking about above.

It is VERY important that when you are talking about the bible that you think about it with a middle-eastern mindset otherwise ideas like you just had will occur, Baniboy.

And, the accuracy which I was speaking about was the accuracy regarding the transmission text. However, the bible is quite accurate when it comes to describing the world in which it was written . At the same time, you must remember that a good chunk of the bible is written with figurative language based upon what the authors of specific texts were educated with and saw in the world. For example, it would very much appear that the world is flat to these authors. The accuracy which I was speaking about was the accuracy regarding the transmission of biblical texts over time and the accuracy of the description of events which were recorded. The bible is reliable. I fear that you did not actually read the majority of the material which I posted in my post. If you have not, please read my last post again and read all the material I listed.

Even Jesus' date of birth is fake, it was Mithra's day. It was done on purpose by the church destroy the worshipping of Mithra in Babylonian Kingdom/whatever. There were a lot of people at that time claiming they are the savior and what not, they also performed "miracles". You are ready to claim that the miracles in your religion are true but all other ones aren't?

December 25th is not Christ's literal birthdate. Any Christian who thinks that needs to read. It is simply the day which it is celebrated upon.

I agree with what truefusion said on this part of your post.

Why didn't anybody else write about coming back to life?! Only some dudes over a century after the so called "resurrection"?! One of your links contained some mathematical nonsense like "the bible is 99,5 % textually pure." Like you can mathematically calculate what is pure "textually". Textually pure? Like no typos? lol

I'm not sure what the first part of this quote regarding ressurection is trying to prove. Explain more please.

Second, you can use math to figure out who "textually pure" something is. The whole idea behind this is judging how much of the text has been changed as it was transmitted through history. The bible we have now is remarkably close to the scriptures from the past. Comparing the bible we have today with the Dead Sea scrolls for example shows how accurately scripture has been transmitted over history. I ask that you go back and read the sources that I posted again for clarification of this and a better understanding. Please do not just simply dismiss this stuff.

Just because something contains some facts doesn't mean it's all true. I'm getting a little bored right now, I don't care anymore. do whatever you want(like stone your children to death if they're rebellious or kill someone if they can't spell "shibboleth"), but don't come and try to explain how "accurate" your holy book is, because to me, it's as accurate as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

I was not trying to make an appeal using that logical fallacy. I am aware that just because something contains some facts doesn't mean it's all true. The bible is very accurate and I hope if you go back and read the sources I posted and try to gain a better understanding of their arguments, and not just simply dismiss them, you will see why I believe the bible is accurate.

Further, you make an attack on the Old Testament Law which is mentioned in the bible when you talked about stoning my children to death if they are rebellious. Laws like that were created in order to preserve Israel and not let it slip into immorality and anarchy like the other nations around them. Israel had to be kept safe from these things so it could be preserved and kept safe so that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) could be born from the nation of Israel.

Sorry but I have a hard time trying to understand how this could've happened:

"Look son, I'm gonna send you on a suicide mission to earth but you won't actually die because you are actually me".

And the prophecies, they are often self-fulfilling, not very in detail blah blah blah... Nothing convincing

The truth is, the stories could've been based on a real person, then story got bigger and bigger and then someone wrote it. Then it was used to justify wars and keep people in line, keep them in fear, gather wealth. And you can't deny this one with any scripture. All loving god wouldn't be so murderous and jealous as described in the bible. Religions are just to fill the gap in our knowledge with nonsense, and then when the true facts come out, they desperately try to remain the same

I know you are having a hard time understanding it. If you did understand it, I assure you that you would be so shaken by the truth of it that you would repent and believe.

I would submit that you study about biblical prophecy and how it was fulfilled before you make claims about how they are not very detailed, etc. etc. Again, please don't just dismiss this stuff because you do not like it or agree with it.

I again agree with truefusion when it comes to what he said about your "murderous god" claim.

Wishful thinking The locations of kingdoms being right doesn't translate to believing in a being without evidence to prove the existence of that being itself. If I tell you that triangles have three sides(which is true, BTW ), but then I tell you I'm immortal, do you believe all I say? No, because you know that I have no evidence and I can't back up the other one with any logic, anything you have experienced/heard in the past and you know I'm not gonna let you test if I'm immortal. It's like I put a candy in a "magic box" and then I tell you it's not in the magic box anymore, but I won't open the magic box to show it's not there anymore.

You do realize I was using those things, (the location of kingdoms, etc.), to prove the accuracy of the Bible not prove that God exists? The accuracy of locations of things would not prove God exists, I was using it to help you understand how reliable biblical scripture is.

And you are making rationalizations every religion is, they develop over time, after all, how you think church survived the collision with science?

every religion is, they develop over time, after all, how you think church survived the collision with science?

earth is round: oh.. but that doesn't disprove the bible's true word of our invisible friend!!!

Fossils: lived at the same time as man.

Dating methods: They are ALL inaccurate.

Evolution: You have no evidence! Oh you do? No you don't, because my uneducated friend Kent Hovind says so!

Big Bang: But earth is only 6000 yrs old?

...

...

...

...

I'm not saying you do the things above, but many people do.

So you are saying I do those things?

Oh.... wait

You aren't saying that.... but you just said it....

Baniboy · August 21, 2009

I was on vacation, so I couldn't reply on this topic, sorry for  the delay. This post is in two parts because I exceeded the limit of  quote blocks in one post , I hope this is not against the rules. I  thought of putting all quotes in one quote box and numbering them like  Truefusion does, but I don't like how one has to scroll up two see  what was the quote... sorry. If any moderator wants to me to correct my  posts into one, please pm me and I'll do that.

Part one:

QUOTE (Baniboy @ Jul 20 2009, 12:48 PM) you mean accuracy tha claims that the earth has four corners, sun orbits the earth, stars can fall of the sky?

Out of those three examples, you only reference one.

I was busy. BTW, guess what else fun I found in the bible verses? Pillars!!! You have to admit, the bible is self-contradicting, first earth stands on nothing, then... PILLARS!!! But don't blame god, blame the men who wrote the bible. Btw, why you don't stay in the point and explain why the seems to be somekind of gap in the knowledge that was written as "the word of god". Instead you pick on references. And no, I didn't find any backup for stars falling of the sky, but I did find this...

Perhaps it wasn't safe of me to assume that you wouldn't forget about North, South, East and West.

Excuse me, but since when did compass points started to count as corners?

*Perhaps it wasn't safe for me to assume that you wouldn't forget that the earth is round*

I have in the past pointed out to you a prophecy whose fulfillment can be observed today, but, though i waited for it, i never got a response back from you (so i stopped waiting for one). I think the topic it was posted in was when we were joking about flying spaghetti monsters and how to make a living off of them (but i can't remember).

Oh, I stopped following that topic a long time ago... I read it now and I have to admit that it caught my interest, but there's still a problem with it. Even tho it seems that there is no evidence that people wrote down "mighty God" and "everlasting father", there is a possibility that people may have used them in oral communication. I have to admit that it might be unlikely tho.

If you're going to use words that are defined in the Bible (i.e. "murder" and "jealousy"), then you could at least assume the definitions from the Bible (as that would be more reasonable). In which case you'll find that an omniscient being cannot be convicted of murder and that godly jealousy is different from human jealousy.

Oh, you mean murderous in a nice way? You know, bible reminds me of that song of Metallica that's called "Kill 'em all" more than that there's an all caring being "taking care" of his followers on earth.

In the one (or more) of the Gospels, Jesus warns about false messiahs. While, technically, no human can perform miracles, in the book of Acts and others, people have been known to perform signs. Signs aren't necessarily miracles, but they still give off an impression of divine power.

Alrighty then. Not miracles, but signs. How you know Jesus wasn't a fake messiah? Because he performed mir...- signs? And the only evidence of it is the bible

btw, I've been thinking about his name, in persian language, they call him Isa or something like that... It can be because of the islamic influence, but the language is so old.

Turns out you're confusing interpretations with Scripture (though the first example is ambiguous) and statements made that are independent of Scripture.

I said how the religion and church collided with science, I didn't mentioned the bible scripture.

Now, onto the subject of "four corners". The idea of the "four corners" of the earth is referencing the four corners of largest area of landmass on the earth: Europe, Asia, Africa, India. If you take a look at a map of those four continents, you will see that the huge mass of land that they reside on has four corners

Sorry to dissapoint, but India is located in Asia. Your "four continents" are actually three. An also, god supposed to know everything, he forgot about the americas, poles and Australia?

Have you had a look at world maps lately? Look again. Those don't like four corners even if India somehow magically turned into it's own continent. And even if you didn't just mean continents but the corners of the known world back then, Asia doesn't have any obvious corners if you count India out...

Even if it all somehow magically turned true, you can't see those corners when you stand on a top of a mountain. Even if earth was flat back then, you wouldn't see it, because normally, the visibility is limited to 10 km.

See, you did make a rationalization. But it's okay, even I do that without knowing it sometimes...

Baniboy · August 21, 2009

Part two:

Again, please don't just dismiss this stuff because you do not like it or agree with it.

Pay attention, I haven't dismissed anything because I don't like it or agree with it, I dismissed your links, simply because they were stupid. It's very weird and kinda insulting to me that you think I didn't even read those stupid articles before replying. (okay I didn't read them all through but I had a quick peek at them all ). I don't "dismiss stuff" because I don't simply like it. I dismiss content that seems to be written for a 10 year old that can't read something with a critical mind, I dismiss brainwash and I dismiss dishonesty.

I am aware that just because something contains some facts doesn't mean it's all true

If you are aware of that, why your links seem to contradict your awareness?

Extraordinary claim: Jesus physically rose from the dead

Extraordinary evidence:

1. Textual reliability of the ancient document:

The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This is indeed an extraordinary fact since all other ancient documents do not even approach this level of accuracy.

Since when we have had "all other ancient documents" in our posession?

Another thing(I don't know if you agree with this claim or not):

It is indeed extraordinary to have someone who has died in public at an execution to appear to many people afterwards.

John 20:26, "And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you."

You know Elvis? I don't like his music, but I think he's a lot like Jesus :(he was seen by many people too... after his death.

That is why I dismissed all your links from that website.

It is VERY important that when you are talking about the bible that you think about it with a middle-eastern mindset otherwise ideas like you just had will occur, Baniboy.

I don't have to have a middle-eastern mindset, but it seems that I have to have the knowledge of people living in the bronze age to believe that you can see earth's corners from a top of a mountain.

I'm not sure what the first part of this quote regarding ressurection is trying to prove.

It's not trying to prove anything, I just asked that if resurrection was so amazing, why didn't anybody else bother to write about it. Truefusion answered my question, but it didn't convince me. Because why would everybody just pay attention to reincarnation when there's a zombie around to write about.

So you are saying I do those things?

Oh.... wait

You aren't saying that.... but you just said it....

I said that you make rationalizations, I didn't say that you made the rationalizations I stated above. Please, read carefully and don't jump in to conclusions without looking at the whole sentence.

I'm done for now, waiting for replies. But I won't post on this thread before I'm done with my science thread. Thanks for the Mycents.

KansukeKojima · August 22, 2009

Sorry to dissapoint, but India is located in Asia. Your "four continents" are actually three. An also, god supposed to know everything, he forgot about the americas, poles and Australia?

Have you had a look at world maps lately? Look again. Those don't like four corners even if India somehow magically turned into it's own continent. And even if you didn't just mean continents but the corners of the known world back then, Asia doesn't have any obvious corners if you count India out...

Even if it all somehow magically turned true, you can't see those corners when you stand on a top of a mountain. Even if earth was flat back then, you wouldn't see it, because normally, the visibility is limited to 10 km.

Hehe, I can't believe I said India was a continent

Alright, my idea on the "four corners" thing was flawed (but I was close), so I did some research on it. Read this:

Europeans in the 16th century divided the world into four continents: Africa, America, Asia and Europe.[1] Each of the four continents was seen to represent its quadrant of the world?Europe in the north, Asia in the east, Africa in the south, and America in the west. This division fit the Renaissance sensibilities of the time, which also divided the world into four seasons, four classical elements, four cardinal directions, four classical virtues, etc.

The four corners of the world refers to the Americas (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia/Oceania (the "east"), and Africa (the "south").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_continents

Now, the reason why the bible would say "four corners" is because of how it was translated into the languages of the time. When Europeans translated it into their languages, because they have this idea of "four corners", they would have used that wording to mean the entire earth. If I were to say "I will travel the four corners of the earth" it means I would travel to the Americas, Europe, Asia/Oceania, and Africa (essentially the entire earth). This phrase is used to mean the entire earth. This has prevailed today in modern translations of the bible.

In the original languages that the bible was written in would not use the wording "four corners" of the earth. It would have used words which expressed the idea of the entire earth, which was later translated to "four corners" in English.

Pay attention, I haven't dismissed anything because I don't like it or agree with it, I dismissed your links, simply because they were stupid. It's very weird and kinda insulting to me that you think I didn't even read those stupid articles before replying. (okay I didn't read them all through but I had a quick peek at them all ). I don't "dismiss stuff" because I don't simply like it. I dismiss content that seems to be written for a 10 year old that can't read something with a critical mind, I dismiss brainwash and I dismiss dishonesty.

Okay, instead of examining how it was written, how about you acknowledge the information that is there? It is not written like brainwashing material, and it is not dishonest. You can verify the information that is there from other sources if you so wish.

If you are aware of that, why your links seem to contradict your awareness?

I'm attempting to establish the general reliability of the bible through examples. If you wish, we could go through every book of the bible to verify it's accuracy, etc. verse by verse. I'm sure you would love to spend your time doing that

Since when we have had "all other ancient documents" in our posession?

Well, obviously we only know about the ones we have in our possession. He definitely could have written that line better.

Another thing(I don't know if you agree with this claim or not):

QUOTE

It is indeed extraordinary to have someone who has died in public at an execution to appear to many people afterwards.

1. John 20:26, "And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, "Peace be with you."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know Elvis? I don't like his music, but I think he's a lot like Jesus :(he was seen by many people too... after his death. laugh.gif

That is why I dismissed all your links from that website.

That's why your dismissing the links from CARM.org written by a man who has spent many years of his life studying these things?

If you are going to make such accusations that the accounts of those who saw Jesus after His death and resurrection are false, back up those claims. Don't provide a silly argument involving Elvis.

I don't have to have a middle-eastern mindset, but it seems that I have to have the knowledge of people living in the bronze age to believe that you can see earth's corners from a top of a mountain.

Well, I've already explained the four corners thing above, so anyways... The reason you should have a middle eastern mindset when reading things from the bible is so that you can understand it from the point of view of those who wrote it. If I wrote something to you and it said: "Could you buy me a chair just like the one I am sitting on now?", you would obviously have to understand what that chair I was talking about looked like, etc. You need to understand the things I wrote properly or you will be prone to misinterpretation, etc. That is what I mean when I say you have to understand things with the mindset of those who it was written by: so that you can properly understand their writings.

It's not trying to prove anything, I just asked that if resurrection was so amazing, why didn't anybody else bother to write about it. Truefusion answered my question, but it didn't convince me. Because why would everybody just pay attention to reincarnation when there's a zombie around to write about.

- Christianity did not penetrate very far into Asia, which is one reason why there aren't writings about it from those areas (as far as I know, Asia would have been the largest population concentration to believe in reincarnation).

- People didn't bother to write about it because many of them didn't see it. Think about it, if you heard about a dead guy rising back to life I'm pretty sure you wouldn't believe it or write about it either, correct? Oh wait, you've already heard it and don't believe it . That's one reason why writings about it have only been found from a certain number of areas from that time period. Only those who actually saw Jesus walking around and only those who believed it would have written about it, otherwise it would have been brushed off.

I said that you make rationalizations, I didn't say that you made the rationalizations I stated above. Please, read carefully and don't jump in to conclusions without looking at the whole sentence.

I looked at the whole sentence, but I misinterpreted it. My bad.

truefusion · August 22, 2009

This post is in two parts because I exceeded the limit of quote blocks in one post , I hope this is not against the rules.

Eh, I'll allow that.

I was busy. BTW, guess what else fun I found in the bible verses? Pillars!!! You have to admit, the bible is self-contradicting, first earth stands on nothing, then... PILLARS!!! But don't blame god, blame the men who wrote the bible. Btw, why you don't stay in the point and explain why the seems to be somekind of gap in the knowledge that was written as "the word of god". Instead you pick on references. And no, I didn't find any backup for stars falling of the sky, but I did find this...

"I was busy" makes it sound like you wrote all of that.

But that article you reference, when looking at certain verses and the illustrations at the top, i found that grouping to be slightly comical. But before i address that page (and the other reference you provide), pillars and columns are both synonymous; older translations tend to use the word "pillar." I'm not sure what you mean when you say i pick on references, but i'll stay as long as i need to in order to address these articles.

Now for the first article. The article says to think objectively by assuming that i had no foreknowledge of the shape of the earth and that the only information about its shape is found in the Old Testament (though they say Bible). His request sounds fair enough—even though the author of the article didn't do this very thing he asked from his readers. However, after reading everything, i came to a better understanding of what was meant by the "foundations of the earth" and by its "pillars." Psalms 18:15 basically gave away this form of understanding. But since one verse wasn't enough for me to conclude it with complete certainty, i kept reading. The other verses that did the job were: Job 9:6, Psalms 99:1, Psalms 104:6 (i.e., for Psalms 104:6, after you read Psalms 104:5), et al (i'm not going to list them all). The foundations of the earth, as mentioned in the Bible, are what raises the earth above the waters. "The earth" has many meanings in the Bible: it could be the people of the earth; however, "the earth" that the article was trying to emphasize was the land. The definition implied within the verses the author of the article used state that the earth is merely the land that is visible above the waters. It does not mean the entire earth (above, below, et cetera), just any land that is not covered by water and that humans are able to travel on. By providing verses that say that the earth cannot be moved, "cannot be moved" is ambiguous. However, the author also provided verses that imply that the earth can be moved. This gives us reason to believe that the earth cannot be moved by humans. As perceived previously, "the earth" is generally taken to be as any land that is above the waters and any land that is capable of being traveled on. No human can move this, nor any angel. If God is the only one that can move it, then it is safe to say that it cannot be moved, as it is common to assume a humans perspective when reading Scripture. Hence, the author of the first article, due to the fact that he wasn't as objective as he may have implied to be (or asked of from his audience), was unable to properly illustrate or prove his position.

Moving on to the second article. I should mention what is provided in this one is not something i haven't seen before. Nevertheless, it still amazes me just how many people don't even bother giving the benefit of the doubt. For if they had at least given the benefit of the doubt, they would increase the chances of not appearing incompetent. However, just looking at some of the verses they give, the benefit of the doubt would not have been beneficial to them anyway. For example, number 1: how can one not miss the fact that Joshua is doing the praying here? In fact, many translations of today even provide quotation marks for the reader. Old translations such as the one used by the article do not use quotation marks, as they didn't really exist or were not used for such things back then. What old translations do instead, they capitalize the first letter of the quote. That is, it starts at "Sun," after the words "in the sight of Israel." Here's the trouble that unbelievers have when reading the Bible: they assume that because it is mentioned that the Bible is "God's Word" that God is doing all the talking and that it is always from God's perspective. Therefore whenever they quote verses like they do here, they make statements that make it sound like "God should have known better." Other problems occur when they attribute a word that is applied to humans to unconscious objects. For example, their use of the word "rest." By saying that the sun would still be active, they imply that "rest" is to be taken the same as when a conscious being sleeps. This is an obvious error on their side, but to them it doesn't seem obvious. Of course, this all falls under misconception or misunderstanding of Scripture. Since they use the same verses from the first article to try and prove that the earth cannot be moved, this shows their inability to understand Scripture—i've already done away with this part.

Number 2: Even if the moon doesn't reflect its own light, it is fallacious to say that the moon doesn't not give off light. All objects are capable of absorbing light—even if the light absorbed isn't generally noticeable by humans. So, in other words, it's not really the Bible that is displaying ignorance but the author of this article. And their (his) comment on Matthew 24:29 makes no sense—that is, it doesn't matter which way Jesus said what.

Number 3: The Bible states that there is more than one heaven, the last Heaven being where God is stationed at. The first heaven is considered to be our "sky." The Bible doesn't mention how many heavens there are, but we know that there are at least three heavens.^[*] The second heaven is considered to be the layer following our sky. However, there's no mention, at least to my knowledge, on where this second layer ends, so it could actually extend to as far as the universe goes. But given the verse i provided, going beyond the second layer may require to be "out of the body." Knowing this, it becomes obvious that the author of this article, again, does not understand Scripture. And although he says that the Bible later on talks about "fixating" the sun to the "sky-dome," if you were to read the remaining verses, you will see something completely different (this difference is explained in my response to number 4). And the story he gives mention to on Genesis 11, in order to state what he stated about it, you would have to be ignorant about the multiple layers of the heavens.

Number 4: I should mention, though, that there are many reasons for today's English-speaking world to avoid the KJV. But since the author chose that translation (for whatever the reason—though i could take a guess), i have used the same translation to counter his arguments. If you look at Genesis 1:8, as mentioned earlier, the first firmament, the first heaven, is called our "sky." However, the verse he uses for his argument, Genesis 1:17, talks about the heaven's firmament (i.e. the firmament of the heaven), not the sky itself. This means the second heaven, the part after our sky. And his ending comment limits what a "star" is or can be perceived as. That is, they seem to have never heard of the phrase "shooting star."

Number 5: I'm starting to get bored addressing these; luckily there are only 7. But do i really need to address this one? He contradicts himself in this by providing an illustration on what the four corners are. Furthermore, he didn't even bother trying to prove that the earth was perceived to be flat in the Bible. That is, merely arguing that the Biblical authors excluded certain countries does not show that the Bible proclaims that the earth is flat. His Isaiah example doesn't even support his assertion of what the four corners of the earth is, especially since (for reasons i can only imagine—though they seem obvious) he removed the beginning part of Isaiah 11:12. If you look at Isaiah 11:12, you'll see something completely different that the author of that article is asserting. Therefore the author is guilty of taking things out of context. His argument for Isaiah 40:22 i have seen even rvalkass use. Just as i mentioned to rvalkass, it's illogical to think that a tent can only cover flat surfaces. I mean, i wouldn't even consider that a human is a flat surface. Likewise, the verse claims that the earth has ownership of this "circle," therefore it is not something that is of the earth itself but something separate of the earth. Concerning Matthew 4:8, it is not uncommon for Jesus to transfigure into a spirit. When one leaves the body in such a way, their bodies are rendered defenseless. Going on to an exceedingly high mountain should have provided some protection for his body (i mean, just reading the Gospels shows that he had a lot of people seeking his life). The verses following and the remainder of their argument i don't have to address, as i've already addressed them.

Number 6: Eh, i was looking for an argument in this one, but nothing he said was an argument, so i don't really have to address this one.

Number 7: From the title itself i can conclude that i don't have to respond to this, as i already did in my response to number 3—reading further also shows that i need not respond. But i should mention that the verses he quotes do not state that God was frightened. Also, on the part labeled "Biblical Contradiction," it is easy to claim "contradiction" when you take things out of context. Notice how Shem's generation follows after the story of Babel and how in chapter 10 it mentions that Shem's descendants had their own languages. It becomes obvious why these people had their own languages.

Excuse me, but since when did compass points started to count as corners?

*Perhaps it wasn't safe for me to assume that you wouldn't forget that the earth is round*

A "corner" does not always have to be a right angle. For example, when talking about a geographical location, it could mean "a remote area."^{define:corner} But a compass doesn't have to exist for North, South, East and West to exist. But i'm a bit amazed at this response of yours, that is, as it follows from the previous quote i responded to. The second article for number 5 illustrates a possibility of what the "four corners" can be (though, obviously, i don't agree with it). As someone who referenced that web site as a way to expose "inaccuracies" of the Bible, i would have at least suspected for you to drop any arguments concerning the four corners of the earth.

Oh, I stopped following that topic a long time ago... I read it now and I have to admit that it caught my interest, but there's still a problem with it. Even tho it seems that there is no evidence that people wrote down "mighty God" and "everlasting father", there is a possibility that people may have used them in oral communication. I have to admit that it might be unlikely tho.

Prophecies need not occur shortly after they were written. In fact, since the prophecy i pointed out was talking about the Messiah which had not come yet, no one, who's religion and culture is surrounded by the belief that creation should not be considered God, would call the Messiah the "Mighty God" or "Everlasting Father" in a way that they believe it to be true. That is, if it is said, it would be said within the context of a mockery or some form of rebuke (as seen in the Gospels). Indeed, the prophecy doesn't state about these words being written down; it is more about people promoting it as if those things were true.

Oh, you mean murderous in a nice way? You know, bible reminds me of that song of Metallica that's called "Kill 'em all" more than that there's an all caring being "taking care" of his followers on earth.

Disregarding the rhetoric part of the question, to put what i said in a more precise manner: murder, as Biblically defined, is killing the innocent. In the eyes of an omniscient being, no ones' deeds are hidden. Therefore it cannot be said that the person was innocent when God brought judgment upon the person. To say that "you should not murder" should be translated as "you should not kill" (like Dan Barker tries to argue) is fallacious to anyone who understands Scripture. All arguments that use Biblical verses to try and make God look evil are always taken out of context—and i'm pretty close to emphasizing "always;" the reason why i don't is because i'm talking about arguments which i've seen.

Alrighty then. Not miracles, but signs. How you know Jesus wasn't a fake messiah? Because he performed mir...- signs? And the only evidence of it is the bible

How did you ever get passed History class?—this is for your ending sentence. Either way, signs, as mentioned before, are different than miracles. Miracles contradict our understanding of physics; signs make use of our understanding of physics, which give the impression of a miracle.

btw, I've been thinking about his name, in persian language, they call him Isa or something like that... It can be because of the islamic influence, but the language is so old.

I think the way it is said in Greek is similar, but i can't remember.

I said how the religion and church collided with science, I didn't mentioned the bible scripture.

How can you exclude scripture from religion?

Sign In

We Don't Get It, So God Did It

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Important Information