Evidence for God from Science

Lunelle, may I ask you why have you come here?

You already think you are right...are you here to show us how absurd and lunatic our position is to you? Because if that is the case then don't bother, we are very much aware of the fact.

So far you haven't tried listening at all, all you have been doing is rebutting and perhaps if that is the reason you came here, to sharpen your argument skill then you are doing it at a cost which is really not good. There is no point in engaging a discussion unless you want to understand the argument. No need to waste time rebutting things over and over. I get what you are saying. My honest opinion is you have little understanding of our belief and our motivations for having it. You may not be doing it intentionally but all of your posts have basically made me sad. Sad for once that I think you have a seriously twisted view of faith. We disagree on how we see things. And thats fine, you can hang around, ask questions, rebut them if you need but you don't go insulting what we believe, just because you think you differ. I can not help but notice that you have really no trouble painting us with broad brushes and stereotypes.

I have been on atheist boards and I can tell you if you are trying to impress people with your argument then you have chosen the wrong road. The best way to know people is to know them rather than their ideas. That is what helps get the message across.

I think you need to understand that while faith may seem like total crap to you, to us it is something we hold dear. You come here and you start what you don't like about it, thats fine, technically you can, we are very much tolerant of these kind of things, but that does not mean you will make any good friends here. That will only happen when you will be respectful of the people you are engaging with. Have you seen me trashing you about with atheist stereotypes, then why are you doing it?

What really bothers me that in all of this debate you are really missing the chance to know the people who hold this faith. You come across as someone just wanting to vent out. I hope that is not the case.

Most of this is unwanted advice and you can trash this post if you like, but I think its important for you to understand why and what are you doing on a christian board if not to learn? just to argue seems like a thing that is an utter waste of time and I really do not see why you'd do that? You seem sharp enough, we are really not a fighting community for the sake of a debate and it will be good of you to realize that.

Its a poor analysis of the story Lunelle. If you found someone using your house as a den of criminal activity, you'd probably clear the place too. So would I. Christ cleared the house of God...if your charge is correct he should have been like this more, you know trashing places around, he wasn't.

Neo, do you actually believe this, or are you just arguing the standard argument? Take a step back and look at it with an open mind. The claims are so ridiculous, they're pathetic (that is, to say they enact an emotional response).

Do you believe that Jesus owned the property deeds to every Jewish temple in existence?
Do you believe that just because a man claims to be God, it gives him the right to take over the buildings of whatever god he claims to be?
Do you believe someone's "inner circle of friends" should write more than one example of their "best friend and leader's" psychotic episodes? If so, on what basis?

People "of faith" (whatever that really means), are by definition, delusional. If you're right and that's a delusion, it is still far less harmful to society than the delusion of faith, so that's the delusion we should prefer.

Lunalle, concerning your posts:

"Take a step back and look at it with an open mind."

Take it as a warning from a moderator, which I am as well. (And do not be offended - if you are I suspect you did not follow my above advice.)

I see an angry young person, there is little substance here other than emotionally charged vitriol.

Just another Magsolo or Snowrider, sadly wastes of conversation.

Lord help us and forgive us.

I am sad to see that you hold faith in such low esteem.

Neo, do you actually believe this, or are you just arguing the standard argument? Take a step back and look at it with an open mind. The claims are so ridiculous, they're pathetic (that is, to say they enact an emotional response).

I don't find anything ridiculous in this. If Christ was God, he did the right thing. If he was not God, then no story in the N.T matters and I would not be worried.

Do you believe that Jesus owned the property deeds to every Jewish temple in existence?
Do you believe that just because a man claims to be God, it gives him the right to take over the buildings of whatever god he claims to be?

If he was God, then yes he did the right thing. If not then not. And yes I do agree with you that just because a man claims to be God he can rash places. But Christ did that at the lone temple, the only one place where all jews prayed. Its like you going into the vatican today and start trashing the place, and you better have good reason or else you won't do it.

Do you believe someone's "inner circle of friends" should write more than one example of their "best friend and leader's" psychotic episodes? If so, on what basis?

You'd have to first prove he was psychotic? A display of anger is not equal to being psychotic. I don't think that story proves it enough else we might have had changed it, after all men wrote these books didn't they?

People "of faith" (whatever that really means), are by definition, delusional. If you're right and that's a delusion, it is still far less harmful to society than the delusion of faith, so that's the delusion we should prefer.

Ah! the stereotype. Men are always harmful Lunelle, religion does not change this. You are simply self-congratulating yourself. Atheists, like all humans can be equally dumb, cruel and retard, there is really no difference when it comes to us humans.

Whoa, lots of posts popping up here. Things are getting emotional.

Neo, you wrote me a fairly personal post, with significant content. I'm going to reply via PM to that, in hope this thread doesn't totally de-rail. If any one is interested in my reply, ask for it. I'm not trying to hide anything.

To everyone else, I apologize that I've been so direct, and assuming. The first thing I saw when I came here (from my point of view) was a bunch of atheist bashing, so I've been on the defensive. This is the only forum (on this site) that I read, because it is the only one mentioning non-belief (which is the category I fall under), and there were only a few threads in it. I don't say that as an excuse, merely an explanation.

If you want to be friends, let's be friends!

Cheers!

This forum was created recently and therefore has few threads.

Lunalle, concerning your posts: "Take a step back and look at it with an open mind." Take it as a warning from a moderator, which I am as well. (And do not be offended - if you are I suspect you did not follow my above advice.)

Fair enough!

I see an angry young person, there is little substance here other than emotionally charged vitriol. Just another Magsolo or Snowrider, sadly wastes of conversation. Lord help us and forgive us.

Yeah... I'm not supposed to be offended by that? Come on guys. I won't even say that about you!

I am sad to see that you hold faith in such low esteem.

I'm sad that you do hold it in high esteem, and even more sad, that you're sad about it. Let's try not to be sad. Most of my beliefs are uplifting to me, I bet yours are too!

I don't find anything ridiculous in this. If Christ was God, he did the right thing. If he was not God, then no story in the N.T matters and I would not be worried.

If Christ was God, then I, and I expect everyone else, should be far more concerned about keeping him happy with me (us), then what actually happened, and what is true or false, and right or wrong. If I believed this, I'd agree with you, just to avoid looking like a dissenter.

If he was not God, the stories in the N.T. don't matter. I agree there. It's not the stories I'm concerned about though, and I am worried.

Its like you going into the Vatican today and start trashing the place, and you better have good reason or else you won't do it.

Well, um... regardless of my reasons for trashing the Vatican, I'm not going to do it. That would be illegal, and harmful to my cause. It would probably be really harmful to my rights and freedoms too.

You'd have to first prove he was psychotic? A display of anger is not equal to being psychotic. I don't think that story proves it enough else we might have had changed it, after all men wrote these books didn't they?

Yes, I would. I don't really make the claim he's psychotic. I was just upset that Rick proposed the possibility of Jesus being a "raving lunatic", and no one batted an eyelash. I proposed the possibility of him being psychotic, and everyone opened fire on me! I agree with everything you've stated here.

Ah! the stereotype. Men are always harmful Lunelle, religion does not change this. You are simply self-congratulating yourself. Atheists, like all humans can be equally dumb, cruel and retard, there is really no difference when it comes to us humans.

I could pick a lot of points out of this, but all I'm going to say is that men use religion as an excuse to justify atrocities. There's a reason they do this, and for the good of us all, and all of us to come, it needs to be gone.

EDIT:

This forum was created recently and therefore has few threads.

Cool, I didn't realize that. Let's fill er up!

Lunalle, may i ask if it is not a problem to keep poster's names in quotes?

source code for it looks like this [ quote = "name" ] bla bla [ /quote ] Just type ="name" after the word quote.
So

name wrote:bla bla

1over137 wrote:Lunalle, may i ask if it is not a problem to keep poster's names in quotes?

Yeah, no problem.

Lunalle,

firstly I want to say you this: you claim to value the truth and search the truth. I believe that is one of the most honorable things. I am that kind of person as well, hating cheating, hating lies, wanting to know the truth. When I was a teeneger, I said to myself, that yeah, I was not lucky to meet a highly intelligent Christian who also would be my friend and with whom I would echange thoughts, ideas, views, etc. But this was not the reason to stop searching, or stop hoping. I always wanted to one day meet some of the best of Christianity, not only concerning the intelligence but also the heart, the personality. Now, I can only be thankful that I met my deep friend who is very wise and very nice person. It took many years of waiting. And not to stop to be thankful, it will be almost a year I got to know one wellknow professor of theology and philosophy (I will not reveal his name) with such a good heart as well. It is real joy to interact with those sirs and am still personally hoping I will find some more friends who are experts in other areas, like history, archaeology, old languages. But to find such friends, one is to be very respectful and friendly. I made my friends to feel free to be totally honest. We made ourselves comfortable to speak whatever is on our hearts. I am very thankful for them.

Lunalle wrote: those involved must share the same (or at least, very similar) methods for determining fact.

May I ask what are your methods?

Lunalle wrote: I don't doubt that for a second. It looks a lot like some creator is behind all this, and maybe there is. As a theoretical physicist, I expect you know that the argument "seems like" isn't considered as sufficient evidence for proving a hypothesis.

Sure. I did not claim it to be. So, what is your answer to the fact that there are physical laws, there is order in the universe. Why is it this way? Is your answer "I do not know"? Or is it something like "If it was not that way there would not be us wondering about it"?

Lunalle wrote: I agree that atheists should be more sensitive to other people's emotions.

Not only atheists. Basically everybody.

Lunalle wrote: (One of) the point(s) he was making though, is that feelings are not evidence of truth. They are evidence of some specific claims, but not a valid framework for finding truth.

Sure, I cannot say to someone "believe me cause I feel it". But whether one's feelings can point to a truth? Our opinions probably may differ on this. I wish I had somewhere a link saved on one doctor (was it psychiatrist?) who became a Christian. She analyzed herself and did not see herself as suffering from some illness or delusions or whatever. And it is not only her. (And I will not reveal you my experience as I do not see it is right time/place now. Maybe one day. Who knows.)

Lunalle wrote:
I'll flip it around for example. Science makes some claims that upset me (Such as the claim that we are doomed to extinction.), that is to say that I have a negative emotional response (and bias) towards the claim. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it is not true, and I don't throw out science, because sometimes it makes me feel bad. You could argue we should, but if we're to do that, let's start another thread on it.

I do not think it is ever good to evaluate truthfulness while we are upset.

Lunalle wrote:
Okay, I see what you are saying here. I don't know what you think a "real Christian" is, but I expect you could argue that a "real antitheist" and a "real Christian", would have similar "fruit". I think they're people who care very much for others. I'd say there are humanists both inside, and outside of Christianity. I think what you are arguing here, is from the stance of societal health. The Christian doctrines do not support a healthy society, and throughout history, there are numerous examples of them supporting an unhealthy society. I'd need you to explain what a "real Christian" is before I can say anymore, so I can see which Christian doctrines you agree with, and which you do not. In my experiences and observation a "real Christian" (a literalist - literally believes everything in the Bible is true, as written), is not a very nice, or good, or honest person. I used to be one of those people. I have grown and improved myself as I moved away from those beliefs.

It seems to me that our views on "real Christianity" differs. What is for you healthy society? Yes, indeed there numerous kinds of Christians. There are also those who claim they are Christians but in my view are not and those may indeed produce unhealthy society.

I do not wonder you have problems with believing all what is written in the Bible. I can imagine what kind of things you cannot swallow. If there is nothing else, indeed, one cannot push himself to believing all those stuff.

When I wrote the term "real Christian" I had mostly on my mind the behavior. It is one thing to claim one is Christian, it is another to behave accordingly.

I would like to meet humanists you know. You know people you know, I know people I know. You have your data and I have my data. Do not take me wrong. Just saying. Am generally curious person.

Lunalle wrote:
First of all, I've never seen a historical source outside of the Bible about Jesus' resurrection. I would very much like to, but no one has ever presented any to me. I view them as personally interesting, and an important topic, because it is an extraordinary claim that many people believe and act upon. However, I personally don't believe them (no matter how many there are), because 2000+ years ago, medical science was not very well developed. I don't think they had the knowledge, or the tools, to determine the validity of the claim. I'm not even sure we have the knowledge or tools to determine the validity of such a claim, if it were made today. I have no problem believing Jesus was thought to be dead, sealed in a tomb for a few days, then he managed to get out. I don't think it is possible to prove that he actually was dead. Fast forward from Jesus time, and people were attaching bells to their coffins, because they were worried about being buried alive. There are numerous situations in which it can look like one is dead, but not actually be dead.

Even nowadays I think many people would not believe it.

Lunalle wrote:
I would strongly encourage you not to write a book about why people should believe in God (because there are lots of those books already, and they're ignorant), but to write a book about how to live a better life.

Look at what you wrote. Do you see it?

Further, I said this:

"Well, you are curious about what evidence we can offer or what reasons we have. It seems to me I could write whole book on it (I plan this one day)"

I already have an idea what I would write in the book on how to live a better life: not to put words in other's mouths. Not to push our views on others. It happened to me that one friend tried to push me in a box, a box of many boxes he created for people to categorize them. I was sad he was doing that instead of trying to get to know me better.

RickD wrote: Hana, from reading the accounts of Jesus in the bible, including who He claimed to be, He could not have simply been a wise man. He is either the Son of God as He claims, or He was the biggest raving lunatic who ever walked the face of the earth.

Rick, I had on my his sermon on the mount when writing my post. There are many gems there.

Lunalle wrote:
Rick, he was simply a wise man, who suffered from at least one delusion. Wise people can suffer from delusions. After all, most scientists are theists.

Please read this http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 57#p143330 and also quotes from Pascal and Newton on my homepage. You will get to it through my profile. Were the guys delusional?

Lunalle wrote:
On what basis do you disagree that this story shows us Jesus was just a man? According to the story, he was so angry, he trashed the marketplace. This is a clear warning of psychiatric illness.

What are churches for? Do you respect holy places? Do you really wonder why he was angry?

Lunalle wrote:
I know you're trying to change society, which I have a serious problem with, but so am I.

And should not I? Should I just close my eyes on that people harm each other, kill each other, do not respect each other and so on and so on?

Danieltwotenty wrote:
Lord help us and forgive us.

We do not know him. We should not judge him. Time will tell.

Also, we are not to be inactive, I think. If he leaves he leaves, if not then not, but if yes, all posts are for everybody and I think may be useful for Christians as well. We do meet various people all the time in our lives.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I see an angry young person, there is little substance here other than emotionally charged vitriol. Just another Magsolo or Snowrider, sadly wastes of conversation. Lord help us and forgive us.

Lunalle wrote:Yeah... I'm not supposed to be offended by that? Come on guys. I won't even say that about you!

How may I ask is it offensive, you are angry, you are spewing hate and vitriol and it is a waste of conversation and this is the truth.

We get people like you all the time and they rarely change from their tactics but then we also get lovely people like Ivellious and others who are respectful and kind even if we can't agree.

If you find the truth offensive, change your tact so we don't have to keep presenting it to you.

I hope you do change tact, prove me wrong I dare you.

1over137 wrote:We do not know him. We should not judge him. Time will tell.

Not judging him, just judging his behavior in the hope that he may change it, so that the conversation lines may remain open.

I can see if it continues this way it will quickly fall apart.

Also, we are not to be inactive, I think. If he leaves he leaves, if not then not, but if yes, all posts are for everybody and I think may be useful for Christians as well. We do meet various people all the time in our lives.

I agree totally and I am not trying to stop the conversation, just modify it.

Peace out.

Lunalle wrote:

RickD wrote:Hana, from reading the accounts of Jesus in the bible, including who He claimed to be, He could not have simply been a wise man. He is either the Son of God as He claims, or He was the biggest raving lunatic who ever walked the face of the earth.

Rick, he was simply a wise man, who suffered from at least one delusion. Wise people can suffer from delusions. After all, most scientists are theists.

A bit of introductory reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Lunalle,

I think you need to read/reread the gospel accounts of Christ. The Christ described in scripture was/is God, or a complete fruitcake for claiming to be equal to God.

In the end it really makes no difference if you believe Christ is a lunatic, or just a wise man. If you don't believe that Christ is who he claimed to be...

John 8:24:
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that [a]I am He, you will die in your sins.”

Lunella:

The first thing I saw when I came here (from my point of view) was a bunch of atheist bashing, so I've been on the defensive. This is the only forum (on this site) that I read, because it is the only one mentioning non-belief (which is the category I fall under)

If you really want to know who we are, then take an inside look at us, and see us search for truth with each other. I highly encourage you to read in other threads, if anything, sometimes to get a perspective from a different mind (you engaging with us, jumping in where you're not comfortable). See how we communicate with each other, and the evidences we ask from each other. I've noticed people can tend to be too emotional at times, but don't let that get in your way. We strive to obtain a spiritual path we will never have through these mortal shells. We are flawed and fall. But the continuing strive for goodness, for the sake of goodness, is always emanating.

(p.s. I'm still not sure how to add names to quotes. Edited to add name)