Why does God exist?

[animal]

Much to chew on with regards to your latest, Byblos. I'll respond as soon as I can (with the manner and time needed to adequately address the points made).

[animal]

So let's not get bogged down by semantics; these topics are far too complicated to do that. It is not my style to use specific language to convey a hidden meaning nor is it my style to score cheap points by word use or implication. If I want to say something it will be explicitly said. If you do the same and you agree then let's move on.

First, you have to understand that regardless of what your 'style' is in these types of discussions, what you say and put down in writing has implications wether you like it or not, wether you intend it or not. That's language - it has baggage (varieties of meaning). We are not talking to each other face to face here, so clearly there is a precedent on trying to be as clear as we can on what we are trying to convey to one another, but we can't also be so obtuse as to disregard the implications of what we say.

You obviously somewhat identify with this idea if you can come up with a response like; "Animal, please settle down." (by the way, where do you acquire the ego to tell me this? I have been far from scathing or aggressive in anything I've said thus far in this particular discussion - this high-horse is unnecessary)

But that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. Of course one can plead ignorance to not just unproven theories as of yet, but theories that have virtually no hope of being proven whatsoever. The fact is that we can only prove that which we can discern, that which we can observe, that which can impact our senses in one way or another. Now of course you will turn around and say the same thing about God but then it is not the same thing, is it? It's not the same thing precisely because we contend God has in fact interacted with our physical world (from the creation account on), has left his mark in numerous, historically verifiable places. The contention is even more than that. The core of it is that God has in fact incarnated in bodily form and walked among us, has indeed impacted us in a direct manner. So it is not out of ignorance or blind faith that we choose to believe in God, quite the opposite. It is that we see convincing evidence of his existence. That is why this whole argument, in my opinion, will eventually come down to the authenticity of the Bible and the historicity of Christ.

Fair enough - but your contention is completely relied upon the mere say-so of others by the mere hear-say of those who lived before them - be they authors and editors of an old book or anyone who simply says that something like a human being was brought back to life (or even physically possible at all). I doubt you have observed or can comprehend how such a thing could transpire, yet, because it was mentioned in a book, you 'discern' it to be true...

As a side-bar, it is interesting that you use the idea of historically verifiable places (I'm assuming from the bible in particular) as being a part of this authenticity you are driving at. I am reminded of another thread in which a poster, yadinka, who was talking about another book which was based upon an actual historical event (a bombing which did actually happen in history during WW2) and later goes on to fantastic scenarios and events like time travel, other races, non-existent technology, alternate planets - yadinka's point was that this sort of thing is historical fiction - we do not discern any of those fantastic events to be true even if there are specific places and locations talked about in such a book that remain to be true, yet, because we have specific locations or people talked about in the bible (or at least use this as a viable justification), you would discern something as fantastic and incredible as a bodily resurrection to be true... why can't the bible be seen as historical fiction? Mind you, in this example - one book is intended to be historical fiction, the other is not... does that mean we take the author(s) at their word? I suspect it has a lot to do with an emotional appeal and an appeal to authority - both of the deity concept you believe in and the authors who are claimed to be inspired by it.

In any case, I would be willing to shift the discussion to the bible's authenticity or christ's historicity, although, I must admit I don't see how either of these things would support any first cause argument... probably because I do not consider the bible to hold any 'cosmic' significance (nor am I convinced either way of Jesus' existence).

First as to infinity and mathematics, who (and I really do mean 'who' here ) put this rule that infinite can only apply to mathematics? How about language, is it finite? Show me the finite set of permutations for thought, emotion, even chemistry (as in compound elements).

I didn't expect this to need an explanation, but the term infinity is definitive through mathematics - specifically calculus - no matter within what context its used. Even if you use the term in a philosophical manner, the term is being extrapolated from mathematics in meaning - even if in abstraction. I said I understood your meaning of its use, I simply wanted to point the meaning of the term out as I don't see using it's meaning is really appropriate to use for a deity concept - especially if your god is supposed to be eternal - infinity, although endless in number, usually has a starting point, or beginning (ie, zero to infinity)... so to say that something is both infinite and eternal, to me, is a contradiction (definitively). I know you asked to set semantics aside (or not get bogged down by them) - but if we are to understand what we are really talking about, we can't (or at least I can't).

Second, the painting and the painter is a bad analogy animal, it just doesn't fit but let's look at it anyway. If you're equating the painting with the universe then where within the confines of that painting do you see the painter? Unless of course you look at the signature at the bottom, in which case you can posit that someone painted it. Incidentally that is the very same fine tuning, irreducible complexity arguments we put forward and atheists are always hitting us with as being non-scientific. You're not using the same analogy in your defense now are you?

I acknowledge the bad analogy - I pointed it out as it seemed to be one that could be related to in this discussion since it was already mentioned earlier by someone else.

I think you misunderstood my meaning of the analogy. I'll try to be clearer. If the two do not occupy the same space, existence, what have you, then either one or the other (or both) cannot exist. We exist, so it seems to me that whatever deity your willing to posit does not (based on the contingencies I've set forth)... If they can, explain to me how. (I ask you please refrain from using terms like miracle or supernatural). Perhaps even possibly provide some kind of mathematical formula, use of established science in quantum physics or a peer-reviewed explanation that would provide for a working model of such logic or even ontology . (I hope you'll see the pun thats intended with that last sentence - relating to a request of yours within another thread)

You argue that god exists somewhere 'outside' of existence (you still have not explained what this means), I argue what does it even mean to say something exists 'outside' of existence... I see it as a broken concept which themes toward a 'god of the gaps' theorem. In fact, from what has been described of god in this thread thus far - god seems to be an incoherent term...

Animal, remember, I'm not the one advancing the idea of parallel universes, you are. All I'm saying is that if I am to accept this idea which you are proposing as an axiom, then you must accept the idea that 'something' can exist outside our universe because to deny such is to deny that even one additional universe (parallel or otherwise) can exist to begin with. In other words, you would be contradicting your own theory. So we go back to the same question, since by definition we both know (or should know) that 'something' can exist outside of our universe, and since your version of this 'something' (i.e. other parallel universes) cannot be proven, and since our 'something' (i.e. God) has in fact been proven to exist as per our claim, then the only thing left is to explore that claim. Please let me know if I've explained myself adequately enough or I should try again.

'next to' is not 'within'. We cannot see what is 'next to' our universe. We can only see what's within (and very limited at that).

Please go back to the painter/painting analogy.

I was entertaining the concept of parallel universes just as you were entertaining multiverses... I didn't present as an axiom, I only indicated that the implications of such a theory work against the concept of Christianity.

If you read that article I linked closely, there is no indication of an 'outside existence'. If you choose to respond to this, first explain what does it mean to exist outside of existence. To me, it comes across as non-existence...

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.

Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.

According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.

Now, suffice it to say I am no expert on quantum mechanics, but I don't see any explanation of 'outside existence' here... If anything, I see events depending upon one another (contingency) within the same existence. As I was referring to with the painting/painter analogy. If god exists (the painter), then he/she/it must exist within the same existence as we do (the painting)... yet you argue otherwise. I hope that clears this up, or at least helps to point out what I am trying to convey or what I have problems with understanding your contention here with this 'god is outside existence' argument.

I am familiar with them and none of them come even close. Not only were the Bible prophecies fulfilled but they were fulfilled in the manner in which they were prophesied. Not one of those can make such a claim and to such degree of accuracy. Like I said before, this discussion will invariably lead to a discussion on the authenticity of the Bible. I think we need to shift in that direction.

But thats precisely the point; they were written as fulfilled - that's the story that they are giving you and what you are taking at their word. If I have the OT scrolls with me which talk about a messiah that will one day come, how difficult is it to fulfill the prophecy by simply writing it in as event that took place (conveniently when I actually wasn't around)? Without me even being a witness? Not only are these tying up of loose ends a reasonable explanation, but they are (as per that example of a comparison of NT to OT I gave earlier) apparent within the texts themselves. You also have to consider how accurate these prophecies were if you have an entire group of people (the Jews - God's chosen people, according to the OT) saying nothing of the sort and completely disagreeing with you (that Jesus was the/a messiah)?

Taking the mere say-so of an event does not constitute that the event took place as was said or does not necessarily hold any bearing on the reality of the event... I think theres an appeal here to the gospel writers when engaging on this sort of topic which is preventing them from any sort of criticism.

no, the Bible prophecies were a little more precise than that. I tend to doubt you can equate the above with 'destroy this temple and I will rebuild in 3 days', then he is destroyed and is resurrected in 3 days. If you want to dispute the fact that he was resurrected then let's specifically talk about that.

That example wasn't meant to be compared to a bible prophecy. It was meant to address what does it even mean to say that a prophecy (fulfilled or unfulfilled) holds some sort cosmic authority? Why does prophecy hold this kind of meaning - if anyone can do it, and many can be right a good percentage of the time, others could be wrong a good percentage of the time... what is the purpose of imposing such meaning and credibility to it? More so, than say, science?

You can read anything you like into any text but the simple fact is that parallels between the OT and the NT are there not due to any lifting but precisely because prophecies were being fulfilled as such. Many of these so-called Bible contradictions have been soundly refuted many times over; I'm sure you've come across some in your research. A good source I recommend reading is Hugh Ross' Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible.

The link you gave ignores my contention (pardon me, it is not my contention - I simply agree with the contention of lifted texts of what scholars have discovered of this kind of lifting) it only states off some specific prophecies with a probability to along with it which, frankly, I don't understand where or why he uses the 'formula' that he does... he simply pulls numbers out of thin air to compensate for events which are said to have transpired after the fact. His probability for chance fulfillment consists of numbers he's chosen to work with - but there is no way to see if any of those numbers hold any relevance to the formula they're being applied to. Conveniently, his secular sources of this research for these 'estimates' are unnamed.

Also, if Ross is to substantiate these sorts of probabilities, he has to make them reconcile with other stupendous improbabilities that some of the prophecies pertain to and consist of - like the chances of a virgin woman conceiving birth. I mean, if we're going to dissect prophecy to this resort, why not just make sure we are as accurate as possible. Not to mention, is there anyone else (particularly a mathematician) that supports some of these statistics in use, or any peer-reviewed analysis of any of these kind of prophecy probabilities?

It is always important to look at the book's purpose in order to see the bigger picture in terms of historical accuracy. The books complement, rather than contradict one another in any way.

You can read anything you like into any text...

The statistics of all that was prophesied to be fulfilled in the manner in which they were is nothing short of staggering.

No doubt - I suspect thats why the numbers chosen to come up with such statistics were taken into this kind of account.

There you go again, accusing me of things I never said. Please stop doing that, it is rather annoying at best and very disingenuous at worst. Where did I say these civilizations had no moral code or that they were not great civilizations? Our contention is that we, as humans and as beings created in the image of God, were actually hard-wired with the knowledge of God's existence and whatever moral basis that entails. The fact that some choose to ignore it does not negate the fact that we all have it. That inner knowledge is the very source of absolute morality but it does tend to get distorted depending on one's acceptance or lack thereof of that source. That is why you see differences in the applicability of such (hence, free will).

This is why I stated that you have to take into consideration that things you say have implications, wether you intend them or not. Many of your statements (like the one this quote pertains to) are loaded, I can only suggest to keep this in mind...

In any case, your contention here is based entirely on your say-so (which in some cases is based on someone else's say-so). Not to mention that not only do you claim to know how brains work on your mere say-so, but you now claim how mine specifically works on your say-so...

Again, the fact that we do not agree on it does not negate its existence; on the contrary, it serves as its indicator.

Thats an assumption on your part; the indicator I see is that we simply disagree on it.

When we do disagree on issues of morality, who should, in your opinion, be the judge of who is right and who is wrong? I had a discussion with my nephew the other day who is in his last year of a PHD in acoustical engineering in Manchester (I only mention his background for perspective) and his view was that hey, every society makes their own set of moral laws and what is permissible in one may not be in another and that's perfectly acceptable. That, of course, is all fine and well, as long as societies are closed systems with no possibility of interaction. Alas, we live in an open world (from early on) and societies do interact, inter-mingle, inter-marry, exchange ideas and yes, they do clash on issues moral.

It's actually much more complicated than this; societies change - they develop, they progress, they obtain different and new understandings of things, this is not a black and white issue (morality) when it comes to describing how a society comes to terms with what is right and wrong or what is beneficial and what is not.

Who in those cases decides who is right and who is wrong? Why can't pedophiles form their own closed-circuit society where pedophilia is a perfectly acceptable moral stance? Same goes for bestiality or cannibalism, why should they be left out? Indeed no, there must be a higher standard of judging that is above the localized societal definition of morality; a universal standard by which all of humanity can be deemed accountable. Our contention is that it is the Bible. Why is it not some other philosopher's ideas of morality, you will say? Well, see Bible authenticity and prophecies above.

Here you over-simply things. Society constitutes the whole, not the few. Fringe groups (cannibals, people into bestiality, pedophiles, rapists, psycho-paths, whatever other minority group you want to refer to) do no hold any weight on social issues (at least when it comes to deciding things in favor of them) because it is up to the whole, the entire community, everyone who makes up that society, which effects social issues. If anything, these fringe groups (even though they may be apart of a society) help emphasize how non-beneficial (or beneficial, say people like Buddhists or an organization like Greenpeace) they are or may be.

There is no independent body making these decisions for us - if there was, than why weren't the current standards of morality of today's modern societies in place a thousand years ago? Or even resemble anything like that of even hundreds of years ago? Because things change. More specifically - we (human beings) change. We develop different, better understandings of others and of ourselves and of the world around us, and we incorporate that understanding into the things we do and the people with which we interact with. This in turn effects what social values become in place. But that is still a broad scope of what we're talking about. This, of course, is only one area of many different areas which are factors of morality in society which need to be considered. Another is indoctrination.

Heres a crude example; In todays society in America, it is considered moral to have one wife and to stay loyal to that one wife. Such concepts weren't obviously always in existence - they developed from past societies and cultural norms. Each person is indoctrinated with these social and cultural values. We see differences in different social and cultural values all over the world and throughout human history.

In Tahiti, back in the early 1900s especially, the natives were famous for their methods of sharing - something deeply rooted within their social and cultural value system.

If the chief of the tribe found you worthy enough as a stranger; if he had six wives, he would offer you his best wife in hopes that you would receive as much joy as he does from her.

Such social concepts are considered immoral and ridiculous in other parts of the world, but only because those parts are indoctrinated with other social concepts and structures.

Native Americans were very similar.

As Howard Zinn, in A People's History of the United States tells us (excellent book by the way, I strongly recommend it if you haven't read it already):

When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

They.... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americans, Christopher Columbus.

Fine clash of indoctrinated social values, no?

Again, I don't see anything that would indicate absolute morality, I see the anti-thesis for absolutism in morality - relativism. What you and I understand to be 'moral', for example, is relative how and who brought us up. You could just as well have been born in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or on a remote island in Indonesia and have a completely different understanding as to what is right and wrong, beneficial or non-beneifical in moral terms (especially with relation to Christianity).

I do not mean to digress, but your response was loaded, and doesn't deserve over-simplification.

I have and found nothing contradictory. I invite you to do the same on the authenticity of the Bible and the refutation of all objections (as to prophecies, geography, historicity, etc.).

I do not mean to sound snide, but I doubt you have - I at least have shared some of my understanding of your invitation, you haven't returned the favor to indicate you've done any such thing with respect to my request.

It is programmed into us, I agree. Where we disagree is that we attribute the programming to a higher authority .

This brings me to another thought; earlier, you've talked about who should be the decider, the 'ultimate judge' of things like morality - as to indicate that there just has to be someone out there who's checking the books, staying on top of us, making sure we do ok and cross our t's and dot our i's, looking out for us when we're in need... I find it to be a pleasing imagination, but something I feel that takes away responsibility from ourselves...

Also - to say that this programming is from some higher authority has implications on free will... but this a subject coming up.

You said above: 'We either have free will, or we do not. You can't have it both ways'. If by free will you decide to jump to the moon unassisted, do you think your free will will allow you to do so? Of course not. Why? Because our free will is severely limited. First it is limited by the laws of physics, then by our five senses, then by our moral and ethical values, etc. Our free will certainly serves us in making choices and that is the choice God is putting before you. And again, I'm not pleading anything for Christianity (well, at least not in this post ) as what we're discussing really pertains to the idea of God's existence in general and not just the God of the Bible or Christianity.

Speaking of poor analogies... simply because a physical attribute prevents me from getting to the moon, doesn't take away from my choice to jump in trial. The limitations you speak of have nothing to do with fee-will...

Actually, before I continue on free-will, if you would please, define what it means to you, as we seem to have a different understanding of it.

If God knew beforehand that you will end up in hell (not you per se, of course, but a figure of speech) how does that invalidate the choices you make today? Do you think you can change where you're going to be 10 years from now? How do you know where you're going to be isn't exactly what God knew, irrespective (or respective, depending on how you look at it) of the choices you make with your free will? I see no contradiction whatsoever in God's omniscience and our ability to choose.

Again, I ask you posit your understanding of what free-will means, as I don't think an appropriate response to this and the last response would be addressed on my part as I think we'd just be kind of 'talking past each other'.

Then please do read Hugh Ross' book. If nothing else, it will give you a unique, and yes, Christian, perspective on how the Bible is viewed and more importantly why.

I will take this into consideration but I cannot make any promises. As per that link you gave earlier, just the second paragraph alone was enough to make me reconsider the substance of what Ross might say (and his credibility). I do not intend that to be scathing in anyway, but I'm sure that comment will come across as such - I'm just being honest. I find it difficult to take seriously any idea from someone who is willing to say things like "God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too.". Mythology and superstition are not tenable, and it seems both are prominent in his work. (from what I have googled and found on amazon)

You take it on faith that macro-evolution is a foregone conclusion when the theory in its entirety is an a priori conclusion. You take it on faith that the parallel universe so-called theory is a proven fact when it's nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination, opposed by some of the same peers that are putting the theory forward (like physicist Lawrence Krauss or physicist Peter Woit, author of a book titled Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in Physical Law.

All of that you take on faith but you do not take on faith that a 'god' exists even when faced with insurmountable evidence? It's really a rhetorical question as I already know the answer.

Well now, who's putting words into who's mouth?

Your remark on what my take on macro-evolution might be only highlights your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (not to mention what my understanding of it might be). No faith is required in understanding evolutionary theory - only reasons and evidence. As soon as you have a reason to believe something which is based on solid and multiple grounds of evidence (anything, never mind something like macroevolution) you no longer need faith.

I made it clear that I would not defend things like parallel universes, multi-verses or any 'first cause' arguments for that matter, as established science. I conceded my ignorance on them. You have not. You have a book written by men who had not even the slightest kind of understanding of the world around them as we do today and a demigod as articles of proof you use to fill in these types of gaps of knowledge.

You take the say-so of others as the end-all, be-all of what it means to have purpose and understand how this universe works (a priori especially when it comes to scientific understanding and discovery). Words on paper, and emotional attachment (especially with respect to how you may have been indoctrinated) are the means used to discern what is true and what is not.

I'm sorry, but that is an awful lot to take on faith.

In any case, it is a false equivocation to use faith in the way you assert I hold it to the way you clearly seem to hold it. We can expand on this if you'd like, but to say I have faith in my wife, for example, is different then saying I have faith that god exists... (for starters, I can see my wife...)

My apologies if this last post comes off as 'unsettled' in anyway.

I look forward to your response.

[Gman]

That is not a dictation - that is a statement of fact. One either has the ability to choose, or one does not (there is no 'half-choice'). I do have an understanding of what I think free-will is, certainly - as I've just within this response have described it; choice. The understanding I am receiving from the perspective of Christianity, to me, is fatalism (rendering choice as an illusion as its really part of some divine plan).

No... That is your fact... It has no bearing whatsoever on the God of the Bible. You can't pigeon hole God to your understanding of time or the universe. Please read the following on the extradimensional nature of God.

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

Or

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

I am not trying to frame one's faith as mere motivation for seeking 'gold at the end of a rainbow'. I am making the point that it seems if I do not make specific choices (like believing in god, JC, certain doctrines of Christianity that go along with them),

I guess I don't understand... We all make critical choices today don't we? If I choose to go rob a bank, are there not consequences for my actions? Can I not make my life a living hell right now?

then as a consequence (regardless of whatever motivation there is), I do not obtain eternal life, instead eternal torture... Is that not correct?

In regards to torture, there are many different views of it according to the Bible. Some teach a burning fire or torment others teach annihilationism. All I know is that I don't want to go there... Ultimately, however, we CHOOSE to go to hell. God will simply magnify what we have sown in our hearts. And if we have chosen darkness, then we will receive darkness. There is not much God can do to stop us.

So basically - the choice is this - obey and belief or go to hell.. (if this is the idea of free-will you are instead invoking, or choice, than it is clearly a warped view of it). It also is certainly not the view I hold of having choice, this is fatalism (decisions having pre-determined consequences).

Again, should we dissolve our government or the police force? Daily they enforce laws that we should obey (hopefully)... If not what should the consequences be? Jail?

First, I find it interesting (and ironic) that you accuse me of dictating things, when here, within that link, I have Rich Deem dictating things to me (as a reader), making assertions and assumptions (without the support of substantiated facts), like the notion of other dimensions - of which he evidently has no ontology of... which I don't blame him for not having - the science he invokes to help support his hypothesis isn't established science (much like parallel universes/multi-verses/string theory.. etc. Especially any theory proposing a state prior to the Big Bang).

No... Rich Deem is not stating that he has the facts. He is stating his beliefs... You are stating that you have the facts and are trying to degrade God and the Bible. The thing is, you have already stated: "The understanding I am receiving from the perspective of Christianity, to me, is fatalism." This is your view, which is not backed up by the Bible. It's already been refuted...

[Byblos]

So let's not get bogged down by semantics; these topics are far too complicated to do that. It is not my style to use specific language to convey a hidden meaning nor is it my style to score cheap points by word use or implication. If I want to say something it will be explicitly said. If you do the same and you agree then let's move on.

First, you have to understand that regardless of what your 'style' is in these types of discussions, what you say and put down in writing has implications wether you like it or not, wether you intend it or not. That's language - it has baggage (varieties of meaning). We are not talking to each other face to face here, so clearly there is a precedent on trying to be as clear as we can on what we are trying to convey to one another, but we can't also be so obtuse as to disregard the implications of what we say.

You obviously somewhat identify with this idea if you can come up with a response like; "Animal, please settle down." (by the way, where do you acquire the ego to tell me this? I have been far from scathing or aggressive in anything I've said thus far in this particular discussion - this high-horse is unnecessary)

I see not only do I have to watch every word I say that it may be misconstrued or misunderstood, but I also have to walk on eggshells with you since, to me at least, you seem to be the sensitive type or the type that has an ax to grind; but that's just an opinion. Fine, no problem. Fom now on I will carefully assess every word I say. I wanted it to be a rather relaxed discussion (hence my comment to settle down) but have it your way. Let's move on.

But that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. Of course one can plead ignorance to not just unproven theories as of yet, but theories that have virtually no hope of being proven whatsoever. The fact is that we can only prove that which we can discern, that which we can observe, that which can impact our senses in one way or another. Now of course you will turn around and say the same thing about God but then it is not the same thing, is it? It's not the same thing precisely because we contend God has in fact interacted with our physical world (from the creation account on), has left his mark in numerous, historically verifiable places. The contention is even more than that. The core of it is that God has in fact incarnated in bodily form and walked among us, has indeed impacted us in a direct manner. So it is not out of ignorance or blind faith that we choose to believe in God, quite the opposite. It is that we see convincing evidence of his existence. That is why this whole argument, in my opinion, will eventually come down to the authenticity of the Bible and the historicity of Christ.

Fair enough - but your contention is completely relied upon the mere say-so of others by the mere hear-say of those who lived before them - be they authors and editors of an old book or anyone who simply says that something like a human being was brought back to life (or even physically possible at all). I doubt you have observed or can comprehend how such a thing could transpire, yet, because it was mentioned in a book, you 'discern' it to be true...

This is pure nonsense. If we were to follow your logic then we might as well toss out every history book ever written because it is mere hearsay of the publisher based on the mere say-so of the author. After all, we weren't there, were we? If nothing else, the Bible is a historical book and has been proven time and again of its historical accuracy: dates, names, places, events, and so on and so on. To deny such as the mere say-so of one and the hearsay of another is to deny history. That's just rather silly. As for the account of the resurrection, it follows the same line of thought (I will expound on this later). There were more than 500 eyewitnesses to it and like I mentioned before, not all of them looked favorably on Jesus and had no motive whatsoever to perpetuate a supposed myth, let alone help the cause along.

As a side-bar, it is interesting that you use the idea of historically verifiable places (I'm assuming from the bible in particular) as being a part of this authenticity you are driving at. I am reminded of another thread in which a poster, yadinka, who was talking about another book which was based upon an actual historical event (a bombing which did actually happen in history during WW2) and later goes on to fantastic scenarios and events like time travel, other races, non-existent technology, alternate planets - yadinka's point was that this sort of thing is historical fiction - we do not discern any of those fantastic events to be true even if there are specific places and locations talked about in such a book that remain to be true, yet, because we have specific locations or people talked about in the bible (or at least use this as a viable justification), you would discern something as fantastic and incredible as a bodily resurrection to be true... why can't the bible be seen as historical fiction? Mind you, in this example - one book is intended to be historical fiction, the other is not... does that mean we take the author(s) at their word? I suspect it has a lot to do with an emotional appeal and an appeal to authority - both of the deity concept you believe in and the authors who are claimed to be inspired by it.

Some more nonsense. First you appeal to a former member (YaDinka) who was banned because of his lack of respect for others (by telling them to shut up) as an example, and second, if I were appealing to the Bible's authenticity SOLELY based on its historical accuracy then you'd have a leg to stand on but I'm not and you don't. Now are we going to engage with the topic at hand or just continue with this silliness? Because I'll be honest with you I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with children like YaDinka nor his/her disrespectful mannerisms. If that's your thing then we can stop the discussion right here.

In any case, I would be willing to shift the discussion to the bible's authenticity or christ's historicity, although, I must admit I don't see how either of these things would support any first cause argument... probably because I do not consider the bible to hold any 'cosmic' significance (nor am I convinced either way of Jesus' existence).

Now we're getting somewhere. I am well aware of the fact that you do not see the Bible in any authoritative way, be it first causal or historical. But that's what this discussion is leading to, an exploration of these topics. We've already disposed of the multi/parallel universe as un-provable and since science tells us our own observable universe did indeed have a beginning, and since the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them so far dictate a cause, and further since our stipulation is that God is in fact that first cause and the evidence of that is in the Bible, what is left for us to explore is the bible. That pretty much was my point from the very first post. Appealing to quantum mechanics does not help you in any way because these simply have not been observed to apply other than at the quantum level. To extend such laws to the universal causation leaping right over the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them is a gigantic, blind leap of faith (ironic, isn't it?).

First as to infinity and mathematics, who (and I really do mean 'who' here ) put this rule that infinite can only apply to mathematics? How about language, is it finite? Show me the finite set of permutations for thought, emotion, even chemistry (as in compound elements).

I didn't expect this to need an explanation, but the term infinity is definitive through mathematics - specifically calculus - no matter within what context its used. Even if you use the term in a philosophical manner, the term is being extrapolated from mathematics in meaning - even if in abstraction. I said I understood your meaning of its use, I simply wanted to point the meaning of the term out as I don't see using it's meaning is really appropriate to use for a deity concept - especially if your god is supposed to be eternal - infinity, although endless in number, usually has a starting point, or beginning (ie, zero to infinity)... so to say that something is both infinite and eternal, to me, is a contradiction (definitively). I know you asked to set semantics aside (or not get bogged down by them) - but if we are to understand what we are really talking about, we can't (or at least I can't).

I see your point with infinity being expressed in mathematical terms but I do disagree that it has a beginning. You simply chose to start it at zero, conveniently bypassing an infinite set of negative numbers. Zero is not the beginning, it is the center. But the reference to God was more towards eternality rather than infinity.

Second, the painting and the painter is a bad analogy animal, it just doesn't fit but let's look at it anyway. If you're equating the painting with the universe then where within the confines of that painting do you see the painter? Unless of course you look at the signature at the bottom, in which case you can posit that someone painted it. Incidentally that is the very same fine tuning, irreducible complexity arguments we put forward and atheists are always hitting us with as being non-scientific. You're not using the same analogy in your defense now are you?

I acknowledge the bad analogy - I pointed it out as it seemed to be one that could be related to in this discussion since it was already mentioned earlier by someone else.

I think you misunderstood my meaning of the analogy. I'll try to be clearer. If the two do not occupy the same space, existence, what have you, then either one or the other (or both) cannot exist. We exist, so it seems to me that whatever deity your willing to posit does not (based on the contingencies I've set forth)... If they can, explain to me how. (I ask you please refrain from using terms like miracle or supernatural). Perhaps even possibly provide some kind of mathematical formula, use of established science in quantum physics or a peer-reviewed explanation that would provide for a working model of such logic or even ontology . (I hope you'll see the pun thats intended with that last sentence - relating to a request of yours within another thread)

Pun indeed, considering you haven't even addressed those requests but I'm not surprised, you and I both know you can't. As for the painting analogy, I don't think I misunderstood it; I think you keep avoiding the obvious. If the painting is the universe then by definition the painter is OUTSIDE the universe. I really don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend. If I make a box, call it the universe, stuff it with little figurines, then hand it to the post office to mail to you, then I'm not mailing myself am I? I am outside of the box. Again, to appeal to the laws of quantum mechanics that existence is contingent upon observation does not serve you well because the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them are not known to apply at those levels. I do not have to see you to know you exist nor you I (although I suspect wishful thinking is a distinct possibility — on your part that is ).

You argue that god exists somewhere 'outside' of existence (you still have not explained what this means), I argue what does it even mean to say something exists 'outside' of existence... I see it as a broken concept which themes toward a 'god of the gaps' theorem. In fact, from what has been described of god in this thread thus far - god seems to be an incoherent term...

I think I've explained our contention above. Let's run through them again:

1. The universe is the only one out there
2. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
3. As per the painter analogy, the painter must be outside the painting, ergo the cause of the universe is outside of it
4. Theists claim the cause is God
5. Christians claim the Bible is the proof (based on the sheer number of fulfilled prophesies)

Perfectly logical, nothing incoherent about that.

Animal, remember, I'm not the one advancing the idea of parallel universes, you are. All I'm saying is that if I am to accept this idea which you are proposing as an axiom, then you must accept the idea that 'something' can exist outside our universe because to deny such is to deny that even one additional universe (parallel or otherwise) can exist to begin with. In other words, you would be contradicting your own theory. So we go back to the same question, since by definition we both know (or should know) that 'something' can exist outside of our universe, and since your version of this 'something' (i.e. other parallel universes) cannot be proven, and since our 'something' (i.e. God) has in fact been proven to exist as per our claim, then the only thing left is to explore that claim. Please let me know if I've explained myself adequately enough or I should try again.

'next to' is not 'within'. We cannot see what is 'next to' our universe. We can only see what's within (and very limited at that).

Please go back to the painter/painting analogy.

I was entertaining the concept of parallel universes just as you were entertaining multiverses... I didn't present as an axiom, I only indicated that the implications of such a theory work against the concept of Christianity.

If you read that article I linked closely, there is no indication of an 'outside existence'. If you choose to respond to this, first explain what does it mean to exist outside of existence. To me, it comes across as non-existence...

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.

Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.

According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.

Now, suffice it to say I am no expert on quantum mechanics, but I don't see any explanation of 'outside existence' here... If anything, I see events depending upon one another (contingency) within the same existence. As I was referring to with the painting/painter analogy. If god exists (the painter), then he/she/it must exist within the same existence as we do (the painting)... yet you argue otherwise. I hope that clears this up, or at least helps to point out what I am trying to convey or what I have problems with understanding your contention here with this 'god is outside existence' argument.

I've already addressed quantum mechanics. Unless you want to generalize the laws of quantum mechanics onto the atomic and the cosmic levels (which no respectable scientist will do) then let's drop this line of thinking just the same way we did with the parallel universes. It serves no purpose as it seems not to apply to every other law known to science.

I am familiar with them and none of them come even close. Not only were the Bible prophecies fulfilled but they were fulfilled in the manner in which they were prophesied. Not one of those can make such a claim and to such degree of accuracy. Like I said before, this discussion will invariably lead to a discussion on the authenticity of the Bible. I think we need to shift in that direction.

But thats precisely the point; they were written as fulfilled - that's the story that they are giving you and what you are taking at their word. If I have the OT scrolls with me which talk about a messiah that will one day come, how difficult is it to fulfill the prophecy by simply writing it in as event that took place (conveniently when I actually wasn't around)? Without me even being a witness? Not only are these tying up of loose ends a reasonable explanation, but they are (as per that example of a comparison of NT to OT I gave earlier) apparent within the texts themselves. You also have to consider how accurate these prophecies were if you have an entire group of people (the Jews - God's chosen people, according to the OT) saying nothing of the sort and completely disagreeing with you (that Jesus was the/a messiah)?

Taking the mere say-so of an event does not constitute that the event took place as was said or does not necessarily hold any bearing on the reality of the event... I think theres an appeal here to the gospel writers when engaging on this sort of topic which is preventing them from any sort of criticism.

Of course one needs to guard against the self-fulfillment of prophesies and that can be done, among other things, by looking at the number of prophesies made and the number that is claimed as having been fulfilled. If there's a reasonable number of prophesies that came true then one tends to favor the accuracy of such prophesies. Our claim is not just that a reasonable number of prophesies was fulfilled, unlike other religions. It is that ALL of the prophesies were fulfilled. Once again, you simply cannot dismiss such claims based on the appeal of not being an eyewitness to such events. That's a sophomoric dismissal, not worthy of consideration. But then again, even Thomas doubted until he thrust his finger in Jesus' wound, interestingly enough after the resurrection. As for the entire group of people (the Jews) disagreeing that Jesus is the Messiah, I beg to differ with you. Many Jews of the time were converted. The fact that there remain Jews who do not believe is the same reason why the Pharisees did not believe either even though they saw with their very own eyes. Many are called but few are chosen for the door to the kingdom of God is indeed narrow.

no, the Bible prophecies were a little more precise than that. I tend to doubt you can equate the above with 'destroy this temple and I will rebuild in 3 days', then he is destroyed and is resurrected in 3 days. If you want to dispute the fact that he was resurrected then let's specifically talk about that.

That example wasn't meant to be compared to a bible prophecy. It was meant to address what does it even mean to say that a prophecy (fulfilled or unfulfilled) holds some sort cosmic authority? Why does prophecy hold this kind of meaning - if anyone can do it, and many can be right a good percentage of the time, others could be wrong a good percentage of the time... what is the purpose of imposing such meaning and credibility to it? More so, than say, science?

Again, because it's not a hit-or-miss situation. It is a claim of 100% fulfillment, including the resurrection, without which there simply is no Christianity. Even though the main theme of this thread is the existence of God, we're drifting towards a discussion on the resurrection as proof of such existence specifically because it is such strong proof of God's interference in our physical realm. In a way the resurrection proves God's existence and at the same time proves Christianity's claim as the true religion (sort of like 2 birds with one stone). More on the resurrection later.

You can read anything you like into any text but the simple fact is that parallels between the OT and the NT are there not due to any lifting but precisely because prophecies were being fulfilled as such. Many of these so-called Bible contradictions have been soundly refuted many times over; I'm sure you've come across some in your research. A good source I recommend reading is Hugh Ross' Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible.

The link you gave ignores my contention (pardon me, it is not my contention - I simply agree with the contention of lifted texts of what scholars have discovered of this kind of lifting) it only states off some specific prophecies with a probability to along with it which, frankly, I don't understand where or why he uses the 'formula' that he does... he simply pulls numbers out of thin air to compensate for events which are said to have transpired after the fact. His probability for chance fulfillment consists of numbers he's chosen to work with - but there is no way to see if any of those numbers hold any relevance to the formula they're being applied to. Conveniently, his secular sources of this research for these 'estimates' are unnamed.

Also, if Ross is to substantiate these sorts of probabilities, he has to make them reconcile with other stupendous improbabilities that some of the prophecies pertain to and consist of - like the chances of a virgin woman conceiving birth. I mean, if we're going to dissect prophecy to this resort, why not just make sure we are as accurate as possible. Not to mention, is there anyone else (particularly a mathematician) that supports some of these statistics in use, or any peer-reviewed analysis of any of these kind of prophecy probabilities?

If you have a problem with the numbers presented please tell us where and why these numbers are wrong. But to simply say you disagree with them does not give your argument against any credibility whatsoever. Now that's not to say I agree with these numbers either. I, for one, don't hold much weight for probability numbers unless an established frame of reference is available for comparison. But I won't dismiss them either unless I can prove where they are wrong. Please let me know if you're prepared to do so and I'd be happy to look over your numbers.

It is always important to look at the book's purpose in order to see the bigger picture in terms of historical accuracy. The books complement, rather than contradict one another in any way.

You can read anything you like into any text...

It's funny that you use my own words back at me, only if they applied but they don't. It is a well established fact in any research area, particularly in hermeneutics, that the research start with the purpose of the book being studied. Do you disagree with that? If yes, please state why.

The statistics of all that was prophesied to be fulfilled in the manner in which they were is nothing short of staggering.

No doubt - I suspect thats why the numbers chosen to come up with such statistics were taken into this kind of account.

Well, yeah. But let us know where and why you disagree with the numbers.

There you go again, accusing me of things I never said. Please stop doing that, it is rather annoying at best and very disingenuous at worst. Where did I say these civilizations had no moral code or that they were not great civilizations? Our contention is that we, as humans and as beings created in the image of God, were actually hard-wired with the knowledge of God's existence and whatever moral basis that entails. The fact that some choose to ignore it does not negate the fact that we all have it. That inner knowledge is the very source of absolute morality but it does tend to get distorted depending on one's acceptance or lack thereof of that source. That is why you see differences in the applicability of such (hence, free will).

This is why I stated that you have to take into consideration that things you say have implications, wether you intend them or not. Many of your statements (like the one this quote pertains to) are loaded, I can only suggest to keep this in mind...

Will do.

In any case, your contention here is based entirely on your say-so (which in some cases is based on someone else's say-so). Not to mention that not only do you claim to know how brains work on your mere say-so, but you now claim how mine specifically works on your say-so

Again, the fact that we do not agree on it does not negate its existence; on the contrary, it serves as its indicator.

Thats an assumption on your part; the indicator I see is that we simply disagree on it

An assumption only when the Bible is overlooked as the mere say-so of others.

When we do disagree on issues of morality, who should, in your opinion, be the judge of who is right and who is wrong? I had a discussion with my nephew the other day who is in his last year of a PHD in acoustical engineering in Manchester (I only mention his background for perspective) and his view was that hey, every society makes their own set of moral laws and what is permissible in one may not be in another and that's perfectly acceptable. That, of course, is all fine and well, as long as societies are closed systems with no possibility of interaction. Alas, we live in an open world (from early on) and societies do interact, inter-mingle, inter-marry, exchange ideas and yes, they do clash on issues moral.

It's actually much more complicated than this; societies change - they develop, they progress, they obtain different and new understandings of things, this is not a black and white issue (morality) when it comes to describing how a society comes to terms with what is right and wrong or what is beneficial and what is not.

And what is your point? Did I claim anywhere that societies are static, they do not change? I argued the exact opposite: that societies do inter-mingle, inter-change, interact. In fact that is the very reason why an absolute morality is needed.

Who in those cases decides who is right and who is wrong? Why can't pedophiles form their own closed-circuit society where pedophilia is a perfectly acceptable moral stance? Same goes for bestiality or cannibalism, why should they be left out? Indeed no, there must be a higher standard of judging that is above the localized societal definition of morality; a universal standard by which all of humanity can be deemed accountable. Our contention is that it is the Bible. Why is it not some other philosopher's ideas of morality, you will say? Well, see Bible authenticity and prophecies above.

Here you over-simply things. Society constitutes the whole, not the few. Fringe groups (cannibals, people into bestiality, pedophiles, rapists, psycho-paths, whatever other minority group you want to refer to) do no hold any weight on social issues (at least when it comes to deciding things in favor of them) because it is up to the whole, the entire community, everyone who makes up that society, which effects social issues. If anything, these fringe groups (even though they may be apart of a society) help emphasize how non-beneficial (or beneficial, say people like Buddhists or an organization like Greenpeace) they are or may be.

You have got to be kidding me! So now morality is an appeal to the majority, is that it? By that very logic atheists should no longer exist a few hundred years from now because they'll be weeded out by the God-believing majority? Or the reverse logic, that those minorities did become the majority at some point, what should society do in that case, redefine its moral code? Do you see how absurd these scenarios will run if there's not an absolute judge?

There is no independent body making these decisions for us - if there was, than why weren't the current standards of morality of today's modern societies in place a thousand years ago? Or even resemble anything like that of even hundreds of years ago? Because things change. More specifically - we (human beings) change. We develop different, better understandings of others and of ourselves and of the world around us, and we incorporate that understanding into the things we do and the people with which we interact with. This in turn effects what social values become in place. But that is still a broad scope of what we're talking about. This, of course, is only one area of many different areas which are factors of morality in society which need to be considered. Another is indoctrination.

If there's no independent body that governs certain aspects of our lives then perhaps we should eliminate all independent bodies. Why do we need government or the supreme court (both of which most certainly deal with moral aspects as well as legal). The reason we need these independent bodies is the same reason we need an objective moral code, because otherwise the end result is lawlessness and anarchy.

Heres a crude example; In todays society in America, it is considered moral to have one wife and to stay loyal to that one wife. Such concepts weren't obviously always in existence - they developed from past societies and cultural norms. Each person is indoctrinated with these social and cultural values. We see differences in different social and cultural values all over the world and throughout human history.

You're right, it is a crude example. The concept of monogamy is not just a societal or cultural development, it emanates from objective morality. The fact that we see differences and variations is the fact that different cultures do disagree on it and the very fact why such objective morality is needed.

In Tahiti, back in the early 1900s especially, the natives were famous for their methods of sharing - something deeply rooted within their social and cultural value system.

If the chief of the tribe found you worthy enough as a stranger; if he had six wives, he would offer you his best wife in hopes that you would receive as much joy as he does from her.

Such social concepts are considered immoral and ridiculous in other parts of the world, but only because those parts are indoctrinated with other social concepts and structures.

Indoctrinated or not, I ask you again, when these cultures clash, who decides who is right and who is wrong? If you were indoctrinated with a different set of beliefs and had gone to live in Tahiti in the early 1900s and it was imposed on you to follow the local norms, would you have followed suit or would you have objected? If you follow your line of thinking then, at a minimum, you must acknowledge their right to their beliefs, thereby relinquishing yours in the process. Otherwise, who decides?

Native Americans were very similar.

As Howard Zinn, in A People's History of the United States tells us (excellent book by the way, I strongly recommend it if you haven't read it already):

When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

They.... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane.... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americans, Christopher Columbus.

Fine clash of indoctrinated social values, no?

What exactly is this supposed to show? That the stronger sometimes impose their wills and their belief systems onto the weak? Of course they do, that's human nature. The question is who is supposed to be the judge of that? Why was it wrong for Columbus to treat the Indians as such? By what measure of (and whose) morality are you judging him?

Again, I don't see anything that would indicate absolute morality, I see the anti-thesis for absolutism in morality - relativism. What you and I understand to be 'moral', for example, is relative how and who brought us up. You could just as well have been born in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or on a remote island in Indonesia and have a completely different understanding as to what is right and wrong, beneficial or non-beneifical in moral terms (especially with relation to Christianity).

Actually you're not that far off, only by a few hundred miles due West. I was born and raised among a few hundred million Moslems. So much for local indoctrination, huh. But again, the question is not do different societies form different sets of belief systems including moral beliefs. The question is when these societies interact and they invariably do, who has the right of way.

I do not mean to digress, but your response was loaded, and doesn't deserve over-simplification.

Not a problem. I appreciate the thought you're putting in your responses.

I have and found nothing contradictory. I invite you to do the same on the authenticity of the Bible and the refutation of all objections (as to prophecies, geography, historicity, etc.).

I do not mean to sound snide, but I doubt you have - I at least have shared some of my understanding of your invitation, you haven't returned the favor to indicate you've done any such thing with respect to my request.

Since you asked, let's see: in college I took courses in world history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, biology and chemistry (I actually minored in chemistry and mathematics, aside from my 2 degrees in Information Technology). I am by no means an expert in any way, shape or form, but I have read a number of books and articles, as well as done my own research on evolution and evolutionary processes (including common ancestry issues such as retroviruses and their common insertion points between chimps and modern humans), and other moral standards such as ethical relativism, absolutism, and universalism. We can explore any of these subjects in depth in different threads as time permits in the future.

It is programmed into us, I agree. Where we disagree is that we attribute the programming to a higher authority .

This brings me to another thought; earlier, you've talked about who should be the decider, the 'ultimate judge' of things like morality - as to indicate that there just has to be someone out there who's checking the books, staying on top of us, making sure we do ok and cross our t's and dot our i's, looking out for us when we're in need... I find it to be a pleasing imagination, but something I feel that takes away responsibility from ourselves...

Also - to say that this programming is from some higher authority has implications on free will... but this a subject coming up.

Being accountable for one's actions somehow goes against free will? It's the exact opposite. When one believes he isn't or will not be accountable for their own actions is when their actions (and by extension — free will) become meaningless.

You said above: 'We either have free will, or we do not. You can't have it both ways'. If by free will you decide to jump to the moon unassisted, do you think your free will will allow you to do so? Of course not. Why? Because our free will is severely limited. First it is limited by the laws of physics, then by our five senses, then by our moral and ethical values, etc. Our free will certainly serves us in making choices and that is the choice God is putting before you. And again, I'm not pleading anything for Christianity (well, at least not in this post ) as what we're discussing really pertains to the idea of God's existence in general and not just the God of the Bible or Christianity.

Speaking of poor analogies... simply because a physical attribute prevents me from getting to the moon, doesn't take away from my choice to jump in trial. The limitations you speak of have nothing to do with fee-will...

Actually, before I continue on free-will, if you would please, define what it means to you, as we seem to have a different understanding of it.

I already defined it. Free will and the ability to choose freely, limited by the physical laws and our 5 senses. Exercising free will does not preclude me from any consequences of such choices nor does it invalidate a deity's omniscience.

If God knew beforehand that you will end up in hell (not you per se, of course, but a figure of speech) how does that invalidate the choices you make today? Do you think you can change where you're going to be 10 years from now? How do you know where you're going to be isn't exactly what God knew, irrespective (or respective, depending on how you look at it) of the choices you make with your free will? I see no contradiction whatsoever in God's omniscience and our ability to choose.

Again, I ask you posit your understanding of what free-will means, as I don't think an appropriate response to this and the last response would be addressed on my part as I think we'd just be kind of 'talking past each other'.

I don't know what else I can say other than what I said above re free will.

Then please do read Hugh Ross' book. If nothing else, it will give you a unique, and yes, Christian, perspective on how the Bible is viewed and more importantly why.

I will take this into consideration but I cannot make any promises. As per that link you gave earlier, just the second paragraph alone was enough to make me reconsider the substance of what Ross might say (and his credibility). I do not intend that to be scathing in anyway, but I'm sure that comment will come across as such - I'm just being honest. I find it difficult to take seriously any idea from someone who is willing to say things like "God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too.". Mythology and superstition are not tenable, and it seems both are prominent in his work. (from what I have googled and found on amazon)

Then may I suggest another 2 books equally as compelling: Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Faith' and 'The Case for Christ'. The Bible and these 2 books alone, are more responsible for non-believer conversions than all other sources put together. Strobel is a former atheist and an investigative journalist who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up being a Christian apologist.

You take it on faith that macro-evolution is a foregone conclusion when the theory in its entirety is an a priori conclusion. You take it on faith that the parallel universe so-called theory is a proven fact when it's nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination, opposed by some of the same peers that are putting the theory forward (like physicist Lawrence Krauss or physicist Peter Woit, author of a book titled Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in Physical Law.

All of that you take on faith but you do not take on faith that a 'god' exists even when faced with insurmountable evidence? It's really a rhetorical question as I already know the answer.

Well now, who's putting words into who's mouth?

Your remark on what my take on macro-evolution might be only highlights your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (not to mention what my understanding of it might be). No faith is required in understanding evolutionary theory - only reasons and evidence. As soon as you have a reason to believe something which is based on solid and multiple grounds of evidence (anything, never mind something like macroevolution) you no longer need faith.

Forgive me for the assumption but then by your admission you must not have any reason to believe macro-evolution and inter-speciation as there simply is no evidence of it, none. As for my misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, you've repeatedly warned me not make such assumptions so I ask you for the return courtesy. You don't know me nor are you familiar with what I know (although you probably have a better clue now).

I made it clear that I would not defend things like parallel universes, multi-verses or any 'first cause' arguments for that matter, as established science. I conceded my ignorance on them. You have not. You have a book written by men who had not even the slightest kind of understanding of the world around them as we do today and a demigod as articles of proof you use to fill in these types of gaps of knowledge.

You take the say-so of others as the end-all, be-all of what it means to have purpose and understand how this universe works (a priori especially when it comes to scientific understanding and discovery). Words on paper, and emotional attachment (especially with respect to how you may have been indoctrinated) are the means used to discern what is true and what is not.

I'm sorry, but that is an awful lot to take on faith.

If having a book that has historical, geographical, cultural, spiritual, and archeological significance is a leap of faith then I shudder to think how you define faith. But then again, your claim is that if you didn't see then it didn't happen (or at a minimum you doubt that it happened) as evidenced by your use of quantum mechanics as an argument for observational reality, so I'm not surprised.

In any case, it is a false equivocation to use faith in the way you assert I hold it to the way you clearly seem to hold it. We can expand on this if you'd like, but to say I have faith in my wife, for example, is different then saying I have faith that god exists... (for starters, I can see my wife...)

It is not a false equivocation because you did not make the distinction. Your claim was that the Bible is mere hearsay and say-so and how could one believe since they did not witness the events first hand. It is not far-fetched to surmise from that that you need to observe events first-hand so you can believe them. The proof of that is you kept appealing to the laws of quantum mechanics where reality is linked to observation.

With that, I think it is best to shift the discussion in the direction of The Evidence for Jesus (link). Let's do it in this already established thread. We can keep discussing God's existence in this one if you wish so as not to divert off-topic (in both threads). Please let me if this is ok with you.

My apologies if this last post comes off as 'unsettled' in anyway.

I look forward to your response.

Likewise.

[animal]

I apologize for the tardiness of this reply. I spend most of my time contributing when I am at work, and it's been pretty busy since holidays are approaching.

I see not only do I have to watch every word I say that it may be misconstrued or misunderstood, but I also have to walk on eggshells with you since, to me at least, you seem to be the sensitive type or the type that has an ax to grind; but that's just an opinion. Fine, no problem. Fom now on I will carefully assess every word I say. I wanted it to be a rather relaxed discussion (hence my comment to settle down) but have it your way. Let's move on.

However you wish to address my concerns is up to you. I'm only trying to encourage that we be as clear as we can, not to misunderstand eachother.

This is pure nonsense. If we were to follow your logic then we might as well toss out every history book ever written because it is mere hearsay of the publisher based on the mere say-so of the author. After all, we weren't there, were we? If nothing else, the Bible is a historical book and has been proven time and again of its historical accuracy: dates, names, places, events, and so on and so on. To deny such as the mere say-so of one and the hearsay of another is to deny history. That's just rather silly. As for the account of the resurrection, it follows the same line of thought (I will expound on this later). There were more than 500 eyewitnesses to it and like I mentioned before, not all of them looked favorably on Jesus and had no motive whatsoever to perpetuate a supposed myth, let alone help the cause along.

You're not addressing the contention directly, or more accurately, you're avoiding the specific subject matter I am questioning. I don't deny that there were indeed some locations, people, kingdoms, et cetera, talked about that are verifiable - I am not saying every word is made up. Name me one fiction book that doesn't have or contain at least a few items, places, or the like talked about that can be related to the real world verifiably. There are, however, events and details talked about in the Bible which cannot be verified in any independent way and which can only be relied upon by the mere say-so of individuals spoken of in the past to substantiate such fantastic events.

Your analogy, poor as it is as it misses the point of its intent, fails as historians talk about people and places and the like that can be verified independently. Not to mention, in the case of the gospel authors, who have written about events that were supposed to take place decades before hand, are simply relaying the kind of 'say-so' I am taking about. The majority of modern historians do not use the same criteria for examining ordinary historical claims that they use for examining claims of the supernatural (what I am questioning), be they for Christianity, the Age of Antiquity, or what have you.

How do you know there were more than 500 eye-witnesses? How do you know there weren't really more than 600? 1,000? 450? 20? I imagine this claim is the same one derived from the gospel writers and/or Paul. Which, again, you take their word for (none of them were there, so they take others' say-so). How do you know whoever passes on the supposed testimony was even a real witness - that what they said they saw was authentic in any way? How do you know wether or not Paul, or any of the authors of the gospels had substantiated, credible information? Since we're talking about over 2000 years ago, when does the intelligence of any of these people come into question, in a time where only 10% of the population of the known world were literate, in correlation to the information these people are being given?

Take a criminal investigation, for example. When finding credible eye-witnesses, investigators need to weed out which testimonies are more credible then others, or even see if the testimony itself is reliable to be as accurate as possible to recount the events - was such a process of scrutiny applied back then? We'll never know, but I think its reasonable to suggest it wasn't.

Paul is considered to be a primary proponent, the first evangelizer, if you will, of Christianity - how do you think people would respond to Paul's claims if he said that there were 50,000 witnesses? Or only 10 people who were fed as opposed to thousands (I think it was 5 or 4 thousand claimed)? Could his claims of a risen Jesus be checked out by everyone? Of course not. It's reasonable to suggest that Paul knew better if he wanted to make his claims more believable (and appealing). Too many eyewitnesses would derail the significance (and believability) of the fantastic claims being made - after all, Jesus made sure that the vast majority of the world did not see him after he rose from the dead (why would this be, by the way?) and too less would not have impressed anyone considering the number of other erroneous claims being made by other religions.

There is no external evidence thats verifies that people saw incredible events like a resurrection, only evidence which says what some people believed.

Some more nonsense. First you appeal to a former member (YaDinka) who was banned because of his lack of respect for others (by telling them to shut up) as an example, and second, if I were appealing to the Bible's authenticity SOLELY based on its historical accuracy then you'd have a leg to stand on but I'm not and you don't. Now are we going to engage with the topic at hand or just continue with this silliness? Because I'll be honest with you I have neither the time nor the energy to deal with children like YaDinka nor his/her disrespectful mannerisms. If that's your thing then we can stop the discussion right here.

No need for the ad-hominem, just address the argument - which is what I am appealing to, not the person. This is only a red hearing on your part and doesn't discount the argument being made.

And why mention, repeatedly, the Bible's 'historical accuracy' (archaeological evidence, all the other types of evidence you claimed) when giving reasons for its authenticity? And the leg still stands, because if it isn't as historically accurate as you claim it is, and it can be reasonable to be accepted as historical fiction, then I think that reality is pretty significant, don't you agree?

Appealing to quantum mechanics does not help you in any way because these simply have not been observed to apply other than at the quantum level. To extend such laws to the universal causation leaping right over the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them is a gigantic, blind leap of faith (ironic, isn't it?).

If you have mathematical proofs as your reasons, then, by definition, you no longer need faith.

You simply chose to start it at zero, conveniently bypassing an infinite set of negative numbers. Zero is not the beginning, it is the center. But the reference to God was more towards eternality rather than infinity.

Just as you've simply chose to invoke negative numbers - an abstraction which has no bearing on the physical world. If something exists, you have 1 of that something, negative numbers is an abstraction we keep in mind, or put on a tab, if you will, to reapply later (usually in a calculation). This is, again, another concept that is only understood within mathematics. This is why I do not see infinity as a viable word used to help explain a deity... but I do understand your use of it, I only brought it up for (what I think is) it's irrelevance to the position of theism.

..moving on.

Pun indeed, considering you haven't even addressed those requests but I'm not surprised, you and I both know you can't.

Thanks for reminding me that you know exactly what it is I am and am not capable of, how brilliant of you. I would be more than obliged to explain the evolution of the bacterium flagellum, in the case of the thread in question, but pardon me if I am not exactly encouraged to follow up with godslanguage considering his/her response - which to me clearly represents the position of "no matter what you'll say, I won't believe it, so save your time". Nonetheless, I will respond to that thread with the best account I can give for the evolution of the bacteria flagellum, just for you.

As for the painting analogy, I don't think I misunderstood it; I think you keep avoiding the obvious. If the painting is the universe then by definition the painter is OUTSIDE the universe. I really don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend. If I make a box, call it the universe, stuff it with little figurines, then hand it to the post office to mail to you, then I'm not mailing myself am I? I am outside of the box. Again, to appeal to the laws of quantum mechanics that existence is contingent upon observation does not serve you well because the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them are not known to apply at those levels. I do not have to see you to know you exist nor you I (although I suspect wishful thinking is a distinct possibility — on your part that is)

I think you do misunderstand it and its demonstrable by the poor analogy you use in reference. If we can acknowledge that a painter and its painting or you and the box you've assembled MUST OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE, which, in order for the painter to paint anything or create anything or for you to mail that box - they must. Ergo, I do not see how that applies outside existence. You've only decided to place walls, or limits to the universe of which you have no conceivable knowledge of which to do so for any reason to support such an argument - as in you have no way of knowing if that is how the universe really 'looks' or works. We've covered this, your first cause arguments are merely arguments from ignorance. I've conceded my ignorance on these matters - yet you continue, why purport such nonsense?

I think I've explained our contention above. Let's run through them again:

1. The universe is the only one out there
2. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
3. As per the painter analogy, the painter must be outside the painting, ergo the cause of the universe is outside of it
4. Theists claim the cause is God
5. Christians claim the Bible is the proof (based on the sheer number of fulfilled prophesies)

Perfectly logical, nothing incoherent about that.

...I think I've already covered that points 1-3 are your arguments (from ignorance). We don't know if the universe is the only one out there which also entails that we don't know if the universe had a beginning or a cause (as in we don't know what exact significance the big bang played in the role of 'the beginning' - assuming there is a beginning). You assume each of these 5 points simply because it presumably meets the requirement that a god of the bible make sense to what we currently understand of the world around us. I think this motive is quite clear. I am willing to bet that if a discovery were made that would change the way we understood the universe - these points would change, even if only in understanding of your deity concept would work with it.

What I find interesting though, is that you are willing to accept the Big Bang theory, but not evolution (at least macro-evolution, evidently). Both are considered well supported sciences, yet you don't accept one because its implications do not favor your ideology (while the other, presumably, does). This, I think, is very telling in the thought process which is going on somewhere within these types of discussions when dealing with this sort of material - because your issue in this case (with that comparison in mind) is obviously not science, it is political.

Of course one needs to guard against the self-fulfillment of prophesies and that can be done, among other things, by looking at the number of prophesies made and the number that is claimed as having been fulfilled. If there's a reasonable number of prophesies that came true then one tends to favor the accuracy of such prophesies. Our claim is not just that a reasonable number of prophesies was fulfilled, unlike other religions. It is that ALL of the prophesies were fulfilled. Once again, you simply cannot dismiss such claims based on the appeal of not being an eyewitness to such events. That's a sophomoric dismissal, not worthy of consideration. But then again, even Thomas doubted until he thrust his finger in Jesus' wound, interestingly enough after the resurrection. As for the entire group of people (the Jews) disagreeing that Jesus is the Messiah, I beg to differ with you. Many Jews of the time were converted. The fact that there remain Jews who do not believe is the same reason why the Pharisees did not believe either even though they saw with their very own eyes. Many are called but few are chosen for the door to the kingdom of God is indeed narrow.

So an appeal to an argument ad numerum is seen as credible (in this case the number of prophesies supposedly fulfilled) to dismiss the contention of the reverse-engineering of the texts which simply claim prophecy fulfillment? That is not a sophomoric dismissal. What is (not to mention a circular argument), is you simply dismissing an entire people (Jews) with the same reason you use to support your premise - the Bible.

Please list specific prophecies you wish to appeal to and discuss. Say, I don't know, five to ten. Let's actually examine some of these and see just how reasonable it is to suggest that every single prophesy (that which is considered to be a prophecy) contained in the bible was fulfilled.

Again, because it's not a hit-or-miss situation. It is a claim of 100% fulfillment, including the resurrection, without which there simply is no Christianity. Even though the main theme of this thread is the existence of God, we're drifting towards a discussion on the resurrection as proof of such existence specifically because it is such strong proof of God's interference in our physical realm. In a way the resurrection proves God's existence and at the same time proves Christianity's claim as the true religion (sort of like 2 birds with one stone). More on the resurrection later.

..ok, but you still haven't answered my questions of what does it even mean to say something is a prophecy, the significance of what a prophecy is or means especially in a universal (or cosmic) sense. In other words, if someone tells me that a prophecy has been fulfilled, before I even go into examining the claim, why shouldn't I say to myself, "So what? What's so special about that?".

If you have a problem with the numbers presented please tell us where and why these numbers are wrong. But to simply say you disagree with them does not give your argument against any credibility whatsoever. Now that's not to say I agree with these numbers either. I, for one, don't hold much weight for probability numbers unless an established frame of reference is available for comparison. But I won't dismiss them either unless I can prove where they are wrong. Please let me know if you're prepared to do so and I'd be happy to look over your numbers.

Wow... so you acknowledge that there is no established frame of reference for comparison (which is necessary as it at least helps credibility and accuracy when calculating probability), yet, you purport the probabilities used by Hugh Ross because you can't prove them wrong? You can't prove them wrong because you have no established frame of reference for comparison!. I understand the idea of championing a fellow on your side, but the attempted 'rebut' here is disingenuous - be it intentional or not. "Well, I don't necessarily agree with them either, but your argument isn't credible by simply saying you disagree with Hugh Ross - so his say-so stands as a default."

Frankly, all that is necessary to dispel Hugh Ross's 'mathematics' is the improbabilities with which some of the prophecies contain - virgin births, resurrections, et cetera - as those improbabilities aren't even included in his chance probability... until that happens, the numbers simply represent the equivalent of being pulled from thin air. That being said, how do we know that there are over 2,000 'legitimate' prophecies? How do we know that they were not reverse-engineered via authorship to purport prophecy fulfillment? How do we know that each prophecy has been interpreted correctly? How do we know that each prophecy is independent of the other? What method is/are there to authenticate such results? Other than just mere say-so of his or her interpretations.

It's funny that you use my own words back at me, only if they applied but they don't. It is a well established fact in any research area, particularly in hermeneutics, that the research start with the purpose of the book being studied. Do you disagree with that? If yes, please state why.

Sources please? I do not disagree, however, hermeneutics also allows for analyzation of possible meanings (plural) - as in, not just the purpose of the book. Especially, as in most cases hermeneutics is applied, when a particular viewpoint is being mapped onto the understanding and interpretation of the texts. Be it from a philosophical, scientific, or theological viewpoint.

I argued the exact opposite: that societies do inter-mingle, inter-change, interact. In fact that is the very reason why an absolute morality is needed.

That's exactly my point! It doesn't exist unless you simply (for example) say today - "I don't really think abortions are right, and I don't think you should be supporting it either... in fact, I'm making that an absolute moral in my book. In fact, I think I'll find somewhere in the Bible where this view can be expressed in some way, seeing is how the Bible is viewed as an authority anyway..."

If there's no independent body that governs certain aspects of our lives then perhaps we should eliminate all independent bodies. Why do we need government or the supreme court (both of which most certainly deal with moral aspects as well as legal). The reason we need these independent bodies is the same reason we need an objective moral code, because otherwise the end result is lawlessness and anarchy.

There is a difference between governing the state of rules made and by deciding what are to become the rules. Just like how governments have recently abolished slavery and the Bible condones it (which, by the way, how do you think we knew what was right or wrong there?)

Also, the independent body I was referring to was some sort of supernatural entity making these decisions for us - we make them.

The concept of monogamy is not just a societal or cultural development, it emanates from objective morality.

Please explain. Also, how is 'objective morality' not an oxymoron? Morality, by definition, is subjective.

Indoctrinated or not, I ask you again, when these cultures clash, who decides who is right and who is wrong? If you were indoctrinated with a different set of beliefs and had gone to live in Tahiti in the early 1900s and it was imposed on you to follow the local norms, would you have followed suit or would you have objected? If you follow your line of thinking then, at a minimum, you must acknowledge their right to their beliefs, thereby relinquishing yours in the process. Otherwise, who decides?

There is no decision of right or wrong when these cultures clash! Each person from their respective culture is adept to that culture - it is the understanding of one culture to another (especially over time) that we are able to examine what is beneficial and what is not, there is no obligation (unless its against my will) to conform to the traditions and social norms of a different culture.

The rights of women, for example, just like they are undermined in the Bible, are undermined in other cultures, for those women living in a society who are treated more as equals - they will more likely be willing to conform to a society which suits their needs and wants, rather than to one which is more suppressive (assuming there is a choice for the sake of the hypothetical) whereas women who live in a society where their individual rights are nil, chances are more likely that they'd be willing to conform to the former. Eventually, over time, rules are certainly put into play - but they are brought upon by the community for the community.

The farther back you go into our history, you see these types of changes occurring (not everywhere as societies which are not as advanced in technology and culture tend to be more grounded in tradition rather than progression). I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend among all this.

On the flip side, do you really need to believe in a deity to understand a social concept such as the golden rule?

What exactly is this supposed to show? That the stronger sometimes impose their wills and their belief systems onto the weak? Of course they do, that's human nature. The question is who is supposed to be the judge of that? Why was it wrong for Columbus to treat the Indians as such? By what measure of (and whose) morality are you judging him?

Alright, this will really be just a continuation of the same thought in my earlier reply above, but thats fine. There was no 'judge' of what was right or wrong. Pardon, obviously, Columbus and the rest of his fine Christians had every intention to deem what was right and what was wrong, making decisions for the Arawaks - by either making them slaves, or ending their lives - nearly a million or more of all the locals in what is today the Caribbean had no say in what was right or wrong, but I guess if you have 'divine' support, like many of the colonialists believed they had during the time period, you can do just about anything satisfactory for your cause...

But sure, you and I have the luxury to look back at those events today and give our insights - our intuition being a product of what such events entailed in history in the years ahead to help form the current state of our society today - an ever-changing process.

Actually you're not that far off, only by a few hundred miles due West. I was born and raised among a few hundred million Moslems. So much for local indoctrination, huh. But again, the question is not do different societies form different sets of belief systems including moral beliefs. The question is when these societies interact and they invariably do, who has the right of way.

Indoctrination occurs in a variety of ways. You've obviously only been exception to one, and an accomplice to another.

Thats not the question, that's missing the point and misunderstands human history. I can only suggest you do some research. There is no 'right of way', we learn from one another, we understand what works and what does not. To deny that social norms change over time would be foolish - which you do not do outright, but implement by working backwards to your conclusion - to paraphrase, "We know murder is immoral, how did we know it was? Because it always has been immoral."

Since you asked, let's see: in college I took courses in world history, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, psychology, biology and chemistry (I actually minored in chemistry and mathematics, aside from my 2 degrees in Information Technology). I am by no means an expert in any way, shape or form, but I have read a number of books and articles, as well as done my own research on evolution and evolutionary processes (including common ancestry issues such as retroviruses and their common insertion points between chimps and modern humans), and other moral standards such as ethical relativism, absolutism, and universalism.

I'll definitely take your word for it. I wouldn't for a second consider you un-educated so I hope you don't suspect that I feel that way barring any superfluous attachment to our discussion, but I would ask for a demonstration of such a supposed variety of understanding when appropriate (in some respects you certainly have, in others, you certainly haven't).

We can explore any of these subjects in depth in different threads as time permits in the future.

Understood, and am obliged.

Being accountable for one's actions somehow goes against free will? It's the exact opposite. When one believes he isn't or will not be accountable for their own actions is when their actions (and by extension — free will) become meaningless.

How we see accountability is the difference in our understanding. Otherwise, with respect to this comment, we are not in disagreement.

I already defined it. Free will and the ability to choose freely, limited by the physical laws and our 5 senses. Exercising free will does not preclude me from any consequences of such choices nor does it invalidate a deity's omniscience.

This was probably a mistake on your part, but you don't mean to include the word that your defining in its definition, do you?

As soon as you implement an omniscient deity, your concept falls apart in my opinion. Please explain this concept. As in, please expound your understanding of your definition.

Then may I suggest another 2 books equally as compelling: Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Faith' and 'The Case for Christ'. The Bible and these 2 books alone, are more responsible for non-believer conversions than all other sources put together. Strobel is a former atheist and an investigative journalist who set out to disprove the Bible and ended up being a Christian apologist.

Noted.

If having a book that has historical, geographical, cultural, spiritual, and archeological significance is a leap of faith then I shudder to think how you define faith. But then again, your claim is that if you didn't see then it didn't happen (or at a minimum you doubt that it happened) as evidenced by your use of quantum mechanics as an argument for observational reality, so I'm not surprised.

Well then, let me recommend any of the classic Greek text such as the Iliad and The Odyssey, or perhaps more contemporary books such as Mark Twains' Huckleberry Finn or perhaps some works by Charles Dickens. Just some off the top of my head which share each of the qualities you point out.

That isn't exactly my claim - it certainly is one of my questions of some of the events talked about in the Bible, but most history (more specifically that which can be verified independently) does not involve supernatural events (if they do, they usually are referred to as mythology, folklore, superstition or legend). Also, considering events like resurrections or virgin births does not occur today - or at anytime after the supposed 'last' event (considering there were many stories of resurrections and virgin births before Jesus'), I think its reasonable to suggest that we should be able to find cases similar to these which would give us evidence to a likely event of it actually being possible.

Forgive me for the assumption but then by your admission you must not have any reason to believe macro-evolution and inter-speciation as there simply is no evidence of it, none. As for my misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, you've repeatedly warned me not make such assumptions so I ask you for the return courtesy. You don't know me nor are you familiar with what I know (although you probably have a better clue now).

What is your understanding of 'macro-evolution' and 'inter-speciation'.

As for the last part of that response, touché.

It is not a false equivocation because you did not make the distinction. Your claim was that the Bible is mere hearsay and say-so and how could one believe since they did not witness the events first hand. It is not far-fetched to surmise from that that you need to observe events first-hand so you can believe them. The proof of that is you kept appealing to the laws of quantum mechanics where reality is linked to observation.

With that, I think it is best to shift the discussion in the direction of The Evidence for Jesus (link). Let's do it in this already established thread. We can keep discussing God's existence in this one if you wish so as not to divert off-topic (in both threads). Please let me if this is ok with you.

My claim is that the Bible is historical fiction - consisting of certain parts which can be verified as true, and others as complete fabrications. In the process of making that claim, I am asking that for anyone who believes the Bible to be true, to provide verifiability of certain events (like any of the supernatural abilities attributed to Jesus). Up until this point, all we have is someone else's say-so (the Gospel authors), who took the say-so of others who have heard it from those who have continued to pass down the stories of a supposed messiah who rose from the dead. Among other specific issues I take exception to. All that, keep in mind, happening in a world where very few people had the ability to read or write...

But by all means, what do you think would be the best place to start a discussion (evidence for Jesus).

[ageofknowledge]

"My claim is that the Bible is historical fiction - consisting of certain parts which can be verified as true, and others as complete fabrications. In the process of making that claim, I am asking that for anyone who believes the Bible to be true, to provide verifiability of certain events (like any of the supernatural abilities attributed to Jesus). Up until this point, all we have is someone else's say-so (the Gospel authors), who took the say-so of others who have heard it from those who have continued to pass down the stories of a supposed messiah who rose from the dead. "

False. You have supernatural events occurring around you in the name of Jesus exactly in the manner as occurred by the Apostles in Jesus name today. And many are documented. I can introduce you to people who have had medical miracles occur that are documented in their medical records (one example is a friend of mine whose stomach had 5 bleeding ulcers that were so bad he was dying at Loma Linda hospital and was about to undergo an operation to replace his stomach with a goat's stomach to keep him alive.. two ladies from our church felt led by God to pray for his healing and drove to the hospital and laid hands and prayed for his stomach to be healed and it immediately was. The doctors were amazed. They kept him in the hospital feeding him pizza and coca cola trying to get it to bleed but his stomach was completely healed. They wrote down medical miracle in his medical records and released him); people who have been filled with the spirit and begun speaking the gospel in foreign languages with no understanding of what they were saying (their words were translated by people of that ethnicity who spoke the language and happened to be present that night); hopeless addicts supernaturally freed never to return to crack or heroin (I've seen this as well with my own eyes); and on and on and on. Even the owner of this site was supernaturally healed in the name of Jesus and the experienced helped transform him from a hardened atheist focused strictly on science to a believer engaged in the scientific enterprise. If it's happening today exactly as it happened with the apostles in Jesus day then we have clear evidence supporting the Biblical account (whether or not it is empirically repeatable 100% of the time as a test tube experiment is). A fact you simply disregard because you never put yourself in a position to observe and qualify it.

[waynepii]

"My claim is that the Bible is historical fiction - consisting of certain parts which can be verified as true, and others as complete fabrications. In the process of making that claim, I am asking that for anyone who believes the Bible to be true, to provide verifiability of certain events (like any of the supernatural abilities attributed to Jesus). Up until this point, all we have is someone else's say-so (the Gospel authors), who took the say-so of others who have heard it from those who have continued to pass down the stories of a supposed messiah who rose from the dead. "

False. You have supernatural events occurring around you in the name of Jesus exactly in the manner as occurred by the Apostles in Jesus name today. And many are documented. I can introduce you to people who have had medical miracles occur that are documented in their medical records (one example is a friend of mine whose stomach had 5 bleeding ulcers that were so bad he was dying at Loma Linda hospital and was about to undergo an operation to replace his stomach with a goat's stomach to keep him alive.. two ladies from our church felt led by God to pray for his healing and drove to the hospital and laid hands and prayed for his stomach to be healed and it immediately was. The doctors were amazed. They kept him in the hospital feeding him pizza and coca cola trying to get it to bleed but his stomach was completely healed. They wrote down medical miracle in his medical records and released him); people who have been filled with the spirit and begun speaking the gospel in foreign languages with no understanding of what they were saying (their words were translated by people of that ethnicity who spoke the language and happened to be present that night); hopeless addicts supernaturally freed never to return to crack or heroin (I've seen this as well with my own eyes); and on and on and on. Even the owner of this site was supernaturally healed in the name of Jesus and the experienced helped transform him from a hardened atheist focused strictly on science to a believer engaged in the scientific enterprise. If it's happening today exactly as it happened with the apostles in Jesus day then we have clear evidence supporting the Biblical account (whether or not it is empirically repeatable 100% of the time as a test tube experiment is). A fact you simply disregard because you never put yourself in a position to observe and qualify it.

Have any amputees been "supernaturally cured"?

[Byblos]

Have any amputees been "supernaturally cured"?

"An apple tree isn't an apple tree because it produces apples; an apple tree produces apples because it's an apple tree".

I don't remember who said this but I thought it fitting.

All throughout scripture people have seen the miracles of God firsthand and yet did not believe. Judas was an eyewitness and still betrayed Jesus. Peter knew in his heart who Jesus was but under pressure he denied that he even knew him. The Israelites witnessed countless miracles attesting to God's power and promise and still, not even a month out of Egypt, ended up worshiping false gods made with their own hands.

The question is not whether or not amputees have been healed. There may very well be some that are not documented (St. Anthony is said to have healed many). The question is, how many miracles would one need to believe. And more importantly, how long will that belief last when faced with the pressures of doubt.

[zoegirl]

I really wish I could remember where I saw this, but I remember someone plotting the incidences of miracles throughout the Bible through time and realizing that for much of the Biblical history, there are very few miracles.

(it would certianly make those times where miracles were more prevalent more surprising)

[Jac3510]

With rare exception, pretty much all of them happened during the times of Moses, Elijah/Elisha, and Jesus and His apostles.

[zoegirl]

Yes, that's what I remember, I wish I wcould find that graph.

[N4SC]

Ha.

With 100% of our brains we couldn't answer this question, so with 10% to work with, it's almost not even worth mentioning.

God exists because He does. That's all. He doesn't was or will be, He just is.

[zoegirl]

(just as an aside, we only use parts of our brains at any one time...but we do use all of it)

[N4SC]

That's what I meant, that we can only use part of it dealing with any one problem. We could never focus all of it onto one thing at a time.

[Byblos]

That's what I meant, that we can only use part of it dealing with any one problem. We could never focus all of it onto one thing at a time.

It was never meant to be used all at the same time (I think was Zoegirl's point).