Evidence for God from Science

cslewislover wrote:

tsellisjr wrote:While it's presently being disputed as to whether or not there was a single Jesus or the New Covenant teachings is a collection of events, colmanation of the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth along with the 11 messiac predessors or Jesus of Nazareth existed at all due to the absence of confirmed historical documentation.. that argument will likely come to an end sometime over the next two years due to two recently discovered works which are presently in the process of being authenticated by the Talbot Institute.

Well, I need to look into the Talbot Institute, but as far as historical evidence goes, Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most confirmed persons of ancient history (and I'm not totally uneducated; I have a Masters in History).

My conclusions were rooted in the tragedy of my 4 year old sons abduction and murder almost 9 years ago. This was perpetuated my service as a Marine in Liberia, the Baltic, Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria as a Marine.

I used to avoid disclosing these facts personal events which have influenced my stance; especially in a religious form since it compromised their authenticity to Christians as being a view that was formed from spite, grief, and anger, but to say it wasn't would be a lie.

With High Regards...

I don't know that your tragedy - which I'm very very sorry for - would seem to influence your stance. I mean, yes, it could. But it could also lead to the opposite stance. I think it is so incredibly easy to see all the negative and evil things in the world and conclude there is no God. It seems like 75% of what gets posted on this board is about that. There are reasons, however, why God would let things be the way they are. The biggest one is that He gave us free will, and He's sticking with His decision. I'm not going any farther here with that because there are other threads for it.

The biggest reason I believe in Christ is because I've encountered Him personally. I will pray that for you.

The reason the moderator said your stay here might be shortlived is because people who are seen as going against the board rules are banned from the site.

Vicki

1) Actually, no he isn't. There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The closest thing to historical documentation is a vague mention by Josephus who makes mention of him briefly in the historical telling of Jesus's half brother Judas (Now commonly referred to as "St. Jude" which was started by Catholics in fear of accidently praying to Judas Iscariot.) All others have been proven to be fraudulent or counterfiet. (But don't take that as a personal attack against Christianity, since there has been many Atheist based fabrications such as the so called "Roman Execution List")

The only form of documentations which exist are those which are of a religious and pantheonic nature. Neither of which qualify as historical documentation.

2) Like I said before, it was the root events which have led to my personal determinations which have given rise many philosophical flaws to the Mono-THeist Dogma.

3) I can't control the actions of another and if they owners of this site feel that my presence, points and posts that I author are inappropriate, then so be it.

1) Actually, no he isn't. There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The closest thing to historical documentation is a vague mention by Josephus who makes mention of him briefly in the historical telling of Jesus's half brother Judas (Now commonly referred to as "St. Jude" which was started by Catholics in fear of accidently praying to Judas Iscariot.) All others have been proven to be fraudulent or counterfiet. (But don't take that as a personal attack against Christianity, since there has been many Atheist based fabrications such as the so called "Roman Execution List")

The only form of documentations which exist are those which are of a religious and pantheonic nature. Neither of which qualify as historical documentation.

You're incorrect here and must be reading biased sources. I heard this in my history classes in public universities and have read about it since. I don't look at the data or evidence from a purely Christian perspective. There are reasons why you can give credit to religious documents. Our time and culture are vastly different from those of the past, and any researcher needs to take that into account in verifying documents and what's in them.

2) Like I said before, it was the root events which have led to my personal determinations which have given rise many philosophical flaws to the Mono-THeist Dogma.

3) I can't control the actions of another and if they owners of this site feel that my presence, points and posts that I author are inappropriate, then so be it.

Then why are you here? Anyway, we like good questions and debating, as long as your mind isn't totally "made up." As long as your not proslytizing us, but seeking information. I just mentioned the moderator thing so you'd know.

P.S. To be fair, it should be stated that countless relics, parchments, and other forms of evidence were destroyed during Emperor Titus and Domitians campaign to rid the world of Judaism and Christianity. While others were hid by refugees with the belief that they would return in their lifetime, but were lost after being slain by Roman Soldiers as they were fleeing the boundaries of the Roman Empire. (Ironically (i.e. Ironically to me and a powerful testament to Christians)it was the the Romans extermination campaign which was the catalyst for Christianity becoming what it is today, by forcing Christians to flee and seek refuge in Northern Asia, Africa, and Nothern Europe. If this did not happen, then CHristianity would have likely remained a localized practice which would have died out within the Middle East centuries ago.

Still I have never met a legitimate Theologian or Historian who would try to argue that the biblical accounts weren't based on a real man. Those that due are idiots who more often than not argue such claims because they're incapable of authoring a legitimate argument to advocate their point of view.

tsellisjr wrote:

Byblos wrote:Hi tsellisjr and welcome to the board, although personally I don't think you'll be here much longer. Nothing personal, really. It's just that this board has a specific purpose, one for Christians and sincere seekers. Somehow I do not think either is a description that fits you (again, no disrespect intended).

Contrary to the title of the thread, this board is not against evolution in the least. Most of us are old earth (progressive) creationists and some are theistic evolutionists so if you have the misconception that we're against evolution, we're not. What we ARE against is chance creation, pure and simple. Please forgive the expression but if you're not prepared to prove chance creation (using the very same scientific methods you hold to other, more definable experiments) then all your examples and PHDs do mean diddly squat here.

And, of course, I submit to you that unless and until you are able to come up with such proof, that you are the champion of nothing because athiesm does not exist as the most you can say is that you are the confused champion of agnosticism, but that's only if you want to be intellectually honest. Do you?

And finally, if your purpose for being on this site does not fit the confines of the board's purpose as defined by its owner, then I must ask you why are you here? I'm sure a person of your education, stature, and resources can find a better suited site for debating and for self-declaring whatever title you deem appropriate.

Byblos,

Moderator.

Thank you for your welcome and allow me to respond to your predications of my future attendence by saying that my participation in discussions will certainly be limited; not because of any philosophical prejudice or xenophobic stigmas towards the religious, but rather from sparable time.

I've read through much of the information, theorums, vitae, and diatribes provided in the main page, so I am aware of the sites position on evolution and reiterate that my conflict was with the misguided informations expounded by the author of this thread. Further more the fundamentals of Molecular Evolution does not advocate chance creation or creation in general, but rather reaction.

Now as far as your assertion that no one person can be an "Atheist" but rather, an "Agnostic" Merriam Webster defines "Atheism" as being "One who believes that there is no deity.." and due to the great amount of dedication and emotions invested by both Theist & Atheist like, the crux term "believes" is overlooked and it's key function in stating that no certainty at this time exists.

While "Agnosticism" is defined as being " person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". So you're wrong... plain and simple.

Good Try..

With High Regards..

Let me repeat the equivocations you stated (and I bolded) above: Atheism: No certainty (of a deity) at this time exists. Agnosticism: God is unknown or probably unknowable. Let me say it more time: Atheism: uncertainty, agnosticism: unknowability.

I will plainly and simply let the reader judge who is plainly and simply wrong.

cslewislover wrote:

1) Actually, no he isn't. There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The closest thing to historical documentation is a vague mention by Josephus who makes mention of him briefly in the historical telling of Jesus's half brother Judas (Now commonly referred to as "St. Jude" which was started by Catholics in fear of accidently praying to Judas Iscariot.) All others have been proven to be fraudulent or counterfiet. (But don't take that as a personal attack against Christianity, since there has been many Atheist based fabrications such as the so called "Roman Execution List")

The only form of documentations which exist are those which are of a religious and pantheonic nature. Neither of which qualify as historical documentation.

You're incorrect here and must be reading biased sources. I heard this in my history classes in public universities and have read about it since. I don't look at the data or evidence from a purely Christian perspective. There are reasons why you can give credit to religious documents. Our time and culture are vastly different from those of the past, and any researcher needs to take that into account in verifying documents and what's in them.

2) Like I said before, it was the root events which have led to my personal determinations which have given rise many philosophical flaws to the Mono-THeist Dogma.

3) I can't control the actions of another and if they owners of this site feel that my presence, points and posts that I author are inappropriate, then so be it.

Then why are you here? Anyway, we like good questions and debating, as long as your mind isn't totally "made up." As long as your not proslytizing us, but seeking information. I just mentioned the moderator thing so you'd know.

1) I've done a great deal of research on this matter and while I don't disagree with you in saying that there is a great deal of value in the examination of religious works and documentation in fact that is the central focus of my research. Languages which were once thought dead have been rediscovered through the discovery of once lost gospels & libers, we're able to understand the origins and rational behind the Graphemic Alphabets such as English because the Hebrew Alphabet is one of the first letter based languages, we've discovered the multiple meanings behind each graphemic letters, which in turn has allowed us to discover and solve hidden ciphers in these works (When I say "ciphers" I'm not talking about that netbot Bible Code garbage, because it holds the same value academically as those 99 cent word search puzzles found at the register of every grocery store on Earth, but actual true and intentional ciphers) to make archeaological disoveries... But you must understand that the scholarly criterion for "Historical Documentation" doesn't allow pantheonic and religious works, because we would then have to consider the Greek Gods from classical Antiquated poems mythological vitaes a legitimate to fit the form of "historical documentation.)

2) I am here because I find change and understanding to be far more romantic point of view than ignorance and certainty.

No two people can live exact lives, so the depths of my personal knowledge is limited by segregating myself from those with different perspectives.

3) I know, I appreciate it, thanks



3)

Byblos wrote:

tsellisjr wrote:

Byblos wrote:Hi tsellisjr and welcome to the board, although personally I don't think you'll be here much longer. Nothing personal, really. It's just that this board has a specific purpose, one for Christians and sincere seekers. Somehow I do not think either is a description that fits you (again, no disrespect intended).

Contrary to the title of the thread, this board is not against evolution in the least. Most of us are old earth (progressive) creationists and some are theistic evolutionists so if you have the misconception that we're against evolution, we're not. What we ARE against is chance creation, pure and simple. Please forgive the expression but if you're not prepared to prove chance creation (using the very same scientific methods you hold to other, more definable experiments) then all your examples and PHDs do mean diddly squat here.

And, of course, I submit to you that unless and until you are able to come up with such proof, that you are the champion of nothing because athiesm does not exist as the most you can say is that you are the confused champion of agnosticism, but that's only if you want to be intellectually honest. Do you?

And finally, if your purpose for being on this site does not fit the confines of the board's purpose as defined by its owner, then I must ask you why are you here? I'm sure a person of your education, stature, and resources can find a better suited site for debating and for self-declaring whatever title you deem appropriate.

Byblos,

Moderator.

Thank you for your welcome and allow me to respond to your predications of my future attendence by saying that my participation in discussions will certainly be limited; not because of any philosophical prejudice or xenophobic stigmas towards the religious, but rather from sparable time.

I've read through much of the information, theorums, vitae, and diatribes provided in the main page, so I am aware of the sites position on evolution and reiterate that my conflict was with the misguided informations expounded by the author of this thread. Further more the fundamentals of Molecular Evolution does not advocate chance creation or creation in general, but rather reaction.

Now as far as your assertion that no one person can be an "Atheist" but rather, an "Agnostic" Merriam Webster defines "Atheism" as being "One who believes that there is no deity.." and due to the great amount of dedication and emotions invested by both Theist & Atheist like, the crux term "believes" is overlooked and it's key function in stating that no certainty at this time exists.

While "Agnosticism" is defined as being " person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". So you're wrong... plain and simple.

Good Try..

With High Regards..

Let me repeat the equivocations you stated (and I bolded) above: Atheism: No certainty (of a deity) at this time exists. Agnosticism: God is unknown or probably unknowable. Let me say it more time: Atheism: uncertainty, agnosticism: unknowability.

I will plainly and simply let the reader judge who is plainly and simply wrong.

Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is "uncertainty", they're separate reactions to the uncertainty.

tsellisjr wrote:Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is "uncertainty", they're separate reactions to the uncertainty.

Perhaps, if the textbook definition is the common understanding of each, but alas, we both know it's not. Atheism as it is commonly understood is the certain (assured) belief of the non-existance of a deity. If you are proclaiming yourself the champion of atheists then you are proclaiming yourself the champion of ALL atheists, the majority of whom holds to the common understanding of atheism. You are therefore a common agnostic, plain and simple.

Byblos wrote:

tsellisjr wrote:Neither Atheism or Agnosticism is "uncertainty", they're separate reactions to the uncertainty.

Perhaps, if the textbook definition is the common understanding of each, but alas, we both know it's not. Atheism as it is commonly understood is the certain (assured) belief of the non-existance of a deity. If you are proclaiming yourself the champion of atheists then you are proclaiming yourself the champion of ALL atheists, the majority of whom holds to the common understanding of atheism. You are therefore a common agnostic, plain and simple.

The same definition in Merriam Webster is in every dictionary and textbook of the planet Earth. An Agnostic asserts that metaphysical matters are unprovable in the first place, making any act to validate the metaphysical is futile.

An Atheism asserts that all things which exist can be proven and until proof is provided which supports the existence of the hypothetical deity,

P.S. Assure and Certain are two separate terms.

Assurance is to convince of a future outcome.

Certainty doesn't require convincing, because it has been proven and needs no assurance.

tsellisjr wrote: 1) Actually, no he isn't. There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The closest thing to historical documentation is a vague mention by Josephus who makes mention of him briefly in the historical telling of Jesus's half brother Judas (Now commonly referred to as "St. Jude" which was started by Catholics in fear of accidently praying to Judas Iscariot.) All others have been proven to be fraudulent or counterfiet. (But don't take that as a personal attack against Christianity, since there has been many Atheist based fabrications such as the so called "Roman Execution List")

The only form of documentations which exist are those which are of a religious and pantheonic nature. Neither of which qualify as historical documentation.

From reading your posts, you appear knowledgeable in religious history stuff. So why do you not consider the Bible a historical document? Have you researched into the origins of the different books of the New Testament?

tsellisjr wrote:There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Here, from my own secular library, in my home, from a book open in front of me:

...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the Populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origen, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,* and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.... -The Annals, Tacitus, Book XV, chap. 44

...so there is at least one secular account about Jesus.

Why don't you admit you have an axe to grind, Dr Ellis? We could help you more easily if you relax and open your intelligence to the Truth.

FL

*emphasis mine.

tsellisjr wrote: 1) I've done a great deal of research on this matter and while I don't disagree with you in saying that there is a great deal of value in the examination of religious works and documentation in fact that is the central focus of my research. Languages which were once thought dead have been rediscovered through the discovery of once lost gospels & libers, we're able to understand the origins and rational behind the Graphemic Alphabets such as English because the Hebrew Alphabet is one of the first letter based languages, we've discovered the multiple meanings behind each graphemic letters, which in turn has allowed us to discover and solve hidden ciphers in these works (When I say "ciphers" I'm not talking about that netbot Bible Code garbage, because it holds the same value academically as those 99 cent word search puzzles found at the register of every grocery store on Earth, but actual true and intentional ciphers) to make archeaological disoveries... But you must understand that the scholarly criterion for "Historical Documentation" doesn't allow pantheonic and religious works, because we would then have to consider the Greek Gods from classical Antiquated poems mythological vitaes a legitimate to fit the form of "historical documentation.)

Can you give what documents/more details - what lost gospels? Many or all of these are forgeries or written later. I'd need to look up the ones you're talking about.

2) . . . No two people can live exact lives, so the depths of my personal knowledge is limited by segregating myself from those with different perspectives.

Sorry? Lol

3) I know, I appreciate it, thanks

You're welcome.

No apology needed, the misconception of condescending intent is often perpetuated by my lack of consideration given towards the structure, content, and the absence of certain indicators such as tone of voice, eye contact, and gesturing which broadcast intent in face to face conversations.

I agree, when reading cold type it is too easy to assume.

2) It's quite possible that Evolution bears the markings of intentional design, because there is nothing random about it's function and for anyone to suggest otherwise is both ignorant and absurd. The meaningful conflict between Theist/Atheist & Religion/Science is introduced when we consider origins and creations. While the trite conflict which seems to prevent many Theists from investing into the Science of Evolution is the misconception that the theory states that humans come from apes, when the truth is it only states that we humans share a common ancestor with lesser hominids.

Actually, there is alot of things humans have in common with throughout the universe, but I'm sure you already know that.
We attribute this to a common Creator.

When looking for scientific validation for religion, you must look towards natural laws which establish order, precendence, and sequential function; all of which is found within the Evolutionary Sciences and it's also found to a certain extent within the nucleosynthesis of another theory deemed contraversal by Theists (ie The Big Bang Theory.) Order can be found throughout our the Earth, under it's atmosphere and in our own solar system, but past that point we know our universe seems to lack order and it's this which makes the belief in God hard for so many.

Many Christians seek science' natural laws ( there are several here and some of those are theistic evolutionists) and other areas of science as well
The Big Bang theory is just fine with many Christains, i.e. "God spoke it into existence and the result was The Big Bang"

3) A physician is a scientist. Also to step away from the parable itself and wander into other gospels for Biblical advocation, the Hebrew and Galilean Aramaic term for "Healer" is the same term used for Physician. As a matter of fact Jesus was considered a Physician, Scientist, and Scholar by many who did not invest in the belief that he was the Messiah prophecied in the Tanakh.

This is true, many still reject Christ, but the neighbor (who?) in the parable is what was being established.

While it's presently being disputed as to whether or not there was a single Jesus or the New Covenant teachings is a collection of events, colmanation of the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth along with the 11 messiac predessors or Jesus of Nazareth existed at all due to the absence of confirmed historical documentation.. that argument will likely come to an end sometime over the next two years due to two recently discovered works which are presently in the process of being authenticated by the Talbot Institute.

This depends on where we look for historicity of many events and there are always some who do not agree.
For instance, about three years ago, I read a report confirming Jesus' existing in the proper biblical time, and solidifying that He did in fact preach throughout Judea. The criteria for one historian is not enough for another.

Also there always will be attacks on Christianity from the "Atheist/Scientific" Perspective and vice versa, but I've come to realize that while there are some cases in which the animosity over the treacherous acts of men and women under the banner is justifiable.. more often than not such attacks are the result of a personal grudge held by the leading antagonist of past campaigns.

Often what people have done in the name of Christianity has not been supported by The Holy Bible. The Crusades is a popular example.

4) I determine meritable judgements individually and the belief of something that is greater than ourselves is by no means "ignorant". Any greater knowledge and understanding of one subject, doesn't not negate the overall intelligence of any other person.. It only means that I'm well read and versed in that specific subject.

Thank you for clarifying, but remember, the very same knowledge you have gained has also been gleaned by many Christians.

No, scientific theories, scholarly efforts, discovery of an archeaological relic or academic knowledge has nothing to do with my stance as an Atheist.

It just seems to me that it would be hard to overcome a strong belief (whether atheist or not) sufficent enough to keep out even the least of bias, but that's just me.

My conclusions were rooted in the tragedy of my 4 year old sons abduction and murder almost 9 years ago. This was perpetuated my service as a Marine in Liberia, the Baltic, Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria as a Marine.

Thank you for serving our country-kudos!

My heart goes out to you for the loss of your son, a tragedy I cannot comprehend.

This is one thing we often hear, that the evil humans commit is somehow related to whether there is a God or no God at all.The fact is; God didn't create evil, furthermore, He detests evil in all it's forms.
All humans have what we call free-will. It is this free-will that enables us to choose to do evil or good. If God were to take away our free-will, we would be no more than automatons or yes men, but God gives us free choice so that we may freely choose Him or reject Him, the decision is truly ours to make.

If you can consider, even for a split second, the possibility of God existing, and put away the memories from those countries you visited as a Marine, it is our contention that your son,who at the time was under the age of reason, is with God this very moment and has life everlasting.

This not the best of all possible worlds, but, in the Christian way, it is the best way of getting to the best of all possible worlds.

Sincerely, Cross.eyed.

harth1026 wrote:

tsellisjr wrote: 1) Actually, no he isn't. There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The closest thing to historical documentation is a vague mention by Josephus who makes mention of him briefly in the historical telling of Jesus's half brother Judas (Now commonly referred to as "St. Jude" which was started by Catholics in fear of accidently praying to Judas Iscariot.) All others have been proven to be fraudulent or counterfiet. (But don't take that as a personal attack against Christianity, since there has been many Atheist based fabrications such as the so called "Roman Execution List")

The only form of documentations which exist are those which are of a religious and pantheonic nature. Neither of which qualify as historical documentation.

From reading your posts, you appear knowledgeable in religious history stuff. So why do you not consider the Bible a historical document? Have you researched into the origins of the different books of the New Testament?

I could use the analogy that Tom Clancy's Patriot Games is a historical document because existing counties are authored into the novel.

The majority of the Bible was written during times of war and foriegn occupation, and slavery; all of which did not allow for free and candid speech/expression. This forced those who wrote the Gospels to use heavy symbolism through parables. Also the vast majority of the population at the time were unable to read, so parables were used to make moral doctrine easier to recall.

Now don't get me wrong in saying that there is no historical value, because that is not the case. Now only were the parables of the Bible were spiritual literature, many of the gospels and parables were used to protest oppression, secretly pass on news, organize revolts against their oppression, etc.. all of which provide information and perspective on the personal/emotional level of that time, which is often missing from scribed documentation acting as a chronological record.

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

tsellisjr wrote:There is not one single piece of historical documentation which can verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Here, from my own secular library, in my home, from a book open in front of me:

...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the Populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origen, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,* and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.... -The Annals, Tacitus, Book XV, chap. 44

...so there is at least one secular account about Jesus.

Why don't you admit you have an axe to grind, Dr Ellis? We could help you more easily if you relax and open your intelligence to the Truth.

FL

*emphasis mine.

Knowledge and truth isn't something that can be given; only earned.