Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote:

Such as.../

Hinduism (5000+ years old)
Buddhism (2500 years old)
Shamanism (no idea how old is that but anyways 5000 years at least)


Enough examples for you?

Is age your determining factor?
None of these are tied to a speicific people group, or a specific geography and heritage like Israel.

Is age your determining factor?
None of these are tied to a speicific people group, or a specific geography and heritage like Israel.

Of course that age is not a determining factor.

None of these are tied to a speicific people group, or a specific geography and heritage like Israel.

If all religions would be the same, well, then we wouldn't have what to debate... but hinduism is related to a certain geographical area and connected to a certain kind of people: Indians.

Don't know where you going with this, but just don't tell me that the Jews are God's people. I was just reading the other topic about certain passages in the bible that have been altered. I said this many times: how do you know that the old texts weren't manipulated in the same manner? I honestly don't know who wrote the ancient texts of the bible, but from what I read over here, the original authors to whom have been assigned weren't the people who actually wrote the bible.

If you would start a religion or anyways, if you could alter some texts of an existing trend and heritage, who would be the chosen people of God: jlay's people or someone else?

I am just pointing out that many, many, many people don't even bother understanding the fact that when they read for example Ezekiel or Isaiah, it doesn't mean that what they read was written by Isaiah or Ezekiel. That is just a transcription written over time.

So you see that is why bible prophecies are in question, even the Israel reuniting as nation. And as I said to B.W.: you might want to take into consideration the fact that the prophecy you are talking about is full metaphors that can be interpreted in more than one ways.

Also please read something about the Rosenthal experiment from 1968 and after you do that apply that to the Israel nation if you consider them so united and protective of their "divine" heritage.

BryanH wrote:

Such as.../

Hinduism (5000+ years old)
Buddhism (2500 years old)
Shamanism (no idea how old is that but anyways 5000 years at least)

Enough examples for you?

Regarding other religions age here is something to consider:

It stands to reason alone that Adam and Eve and their immediate progeny would have known who God is and was. Cain and Able both conversed with God. Enoch walked with God. There is one ancient religious system that has been categorized as a Yahvist way which predates all others.

For example: Moses stayed with Jethro whom is identified as a priest of Midian (Ex 3:1), a Yahvist. Balaam was a corrupted Yahvist. A Yahvist was one who held fast to what was passed on to them from their forefathers about God. They maintained the Deuteronomy 6:4, 5 aspects of God they learnt from Seth, Cain, Adam, Eve, etc and etc.

By Genesis 6 time frame, the majority of the world population strayed away from the Yahvist thought about God and decided to make their own ways walking away from God relying on others and other things instead of God. It is from that period onward that human beings strayed and formed other religious systems evolving into the ones BryanH cited..

Thus it is fitting for Paul to write in Romans – sin spread into the entire world:

Rom 5:12, Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned NASB

Sin means to miss the Mark, to twist away from, deviate and that is what human beings did, twist away from God in various ways and means.

So instead of making a case that other old religious systems are just as valid as the Judaic/Christian system is not necessarily true. Cain, Able, Seth and others sons and daughters conversed with God and knew him. Enoch walked with God for example. It is more logical that due to sin entering and corrupting the world that people strayed from the ancient of ancient path (Yahvist) and constructed new older paths that justify sin’s twisting warping away from God.

What evidence do I have for this? The evidence of how people still today try to twist and warp the things of God, how they make a mess of everything, and tempt/test God with their lifestyles, and misconstrue his love and manipulate his grace for their own ends, or justify ignoring it. Next, we do all die, This mortal flesh dies and from then we are held to account for our moral twisting ways.

Who lies, steals, lust after things, etc – we do. Who justifies such behavior – we do. Why are so many families messed up? Who messed them up and how and for what reason? All this is proof of sin. Next, creating other religious or philosophic systems that justifies these behaviors is another proof that sin exist. Since sin exists, then humanity twisted and fell away from the one true God, and made their own gods, systems, ideologies, to legitimize amoral behavior through deal making works and self loathing acts or works of the mind.

Of all religions, which one exposes, condemns, and cures the human sin condition and does not seek to justify it thru self abasement works, deal making, or self loathing pity parties? Only one does that. Narrow is the way – few see it but broad is the way to destruction and many travel it.
-
-
-

Don't know where you going with this, but just don't tell me that the Jews are God's people. I was just reading the other topic about certain passages in the bible that have been altered. I said this many times: how do you know that the old texts weren't manipulated in the same manner? I honestly don't know who wrote the ancient texts of the bible, but from what I read over here, the original authors to whom have been assigned weren't the people who actually wrote the bible.

Bryan, I don't know why I engaged in this being familiar with your extreme skepticism, which you have already been shown to apply as it suits you.
As far as the authors, I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you would start a religion or anyways, if you could alter some texts of an existing trend and heritage, who would be the chosen people of God: jlay's people or someone else?

They could have conveniently change many embarrassing things as well. Yet, they didn't. hmmmm.

BryanH Like you, if I were to create a religion, I would justify the human sin condition and honor it in religious practices. I would not demand sin be done away either but rather tolerate sin as the ultimate expression of love and tolerance.

I would never expose the moral short comings of historic leaders and people but rather say all they need to do is to work this off thru some sort self loathing exercises so they can feel right about self again. I would never call anyone sinners or fallen, but rather justify lying stealing, lust, adultery, premeditated murder, envy, jealousy, selfish ambition, revenge, etc by the system I created. I would make man the measure of all things moral and right in this world and in the beyond too.

Never would I say God so loved me that he could somehow die in my place and cleanse me of wronging toward him and others. The religion I create would have us justifying wrongdoing thru self works of appeasement to self ego and serve only to justify sin and exalt it as the measure of all truth, tolerance, and love.

So what religion would you make BryanH?
-
-
-

By Genesis 6 time frame, the majority of the world population strayed away from the Yahvist thought about God and decided to make their own ways walking away from God relying on others and other things instead of God. It is from that period onward that human beings strayed and formed other religious systems evolving into the ones BryanH cited..

I think you are stretching it too far:

==> first of all you have to actually prove that Adam and Eve were actual persons in history that talked about God. That's kind of hard to do.
==> secondly, you are saying that religions strayed away and have their origins in Jahvism: that is a false statement as there are older religions which we don't have today anymore and which do not have a connection with Jahvism. At that time it was geographically impossible.

Another thing that strikes me as odd is that you say that judaism is not actually judaism but originates in jahvism and jahvism is the best because it was passed on by the people who were banished by God from the garden of eden. Needless to say that you have no historical evidence of such people... It's just the bible saying that they were banished from the garden of eden.

BryanH Like you, if I were to create a religion, I would justify the human sin condition and honor it in religious practices. I would not demand sin be done away either but rather tolerate sin as the ultimate expression of love and tolerance.

I would never expose the moral short comings of historic leaders and people but rather say all they need to do is to work this off thru some sort self loathing exercises so they can feel right about self again. I would never call anyone sinners or fallen, but rather justify lying stealing, lust, adultery, premeditated murder, envy, jealousy, selfish ambition, revenge, etc by the system I created. I would make man the measure of all things moral and right in this world and in the beyond too.

Never would I say God so loved me that he could somehow die in my place and cleanse me of wronging toward him and others. The religion I create would have us justifying wrongdoing thru self works of appeasement to self ego and serve only to justify sin and exalt it as the measure of all truth, tolerance, and love.

So what religion would you make BryanH?

B.W. I understand your point of view, but I did have an interesting discussion here on another topic about how when it comes God, everything is justified no matter what.

Sometimes God loves us, sometimes he sends a major flood to kill everything, sometimes he orders people to be killed, sometimes God kills innocent people and let's not forget, sometimes God sends someone to die for us so we can be forgiven.

When God did something "bad/immoral" there is an explanation for that (the basic explanation is that God's choices are moral all the times and are not to be judged by us mere mortals). Also at some point I was also told that since God created us all, he can also kill us and that is not actually murder. It's like buying an insurance which says that doesn't cover acts of God.

So what religion would you make BryanH?

None. When I say this I am not promoting atheism, but rather a "religion" of free choice. People shouldn't do good just because God said so and because he wants that. They should do good because that is their choice.

@jlay

Bryan, I don't know why I engaged in this being familiar with your extreme skepticism, which you have already been shown to apply as it suits you.
As far as the authors, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's make a small summary of what I have been saying since I joined this forum (maybe there are other that I have forgotten):

1) part of the bible was clearly not written by the original author of the words;
2) how do you know that the authors were honest?
3) how do you know that the authors weren't actually bending the truth with or without intention?
4) some of the stories in the bible can't be proven to be true
5) the majority of prophecies were written after they actually happened
6) the bible is full of metaphors that can be interpreted many ways


There are so many answered questions and you are calling me an extreme skeptic and that I am using it when it suits me. Really?

BryanH wrote:Let's make a small summary of what I have been saying since I joined this forum (maybe there are other that I have forgotten):

1) part of the bible was clearly not written by the original author of the words;

So what?

BryanH wrote:2) how do you know that the authors were honest?

- Because Christ proved who he claimed he was and he proclaimed scripture to be God-breathed.
- Because the Bible has been corroborated by history, geography, and archaeology
- Because of prophecy fulfillment (note I listed this last)

BryanH wrote:3) how do you know that the authors weren't actually bending the truth with or without intention?

See the answer to 2.

BryanH wrote:4) some of the stories in the bible can't be proven to be true

Can you prove them to be false?

BryanH wrote:5) the majority of prophecies were written after they actually happened

Says you. Forgive us if we take Christ's words over yours (you know since he IS God's Word).

BryanH wrote:6) the bible is full of metaphors that can be interpreted many ways

Okay, I'll give you that one (reluctantly, and just to be polite).

BryanH wrote:There are so many answered questions and you are calling me an extreme skeptic and that I am using it when it suits me. Really?

Hey we agree again, you are most certainly right that they are answered questions. Now you got nothin' to be skeptic about nor can you be accused of being one.

Hey we agree again, you are most certainly right that they are answered questions. Now you got nothin' to be skeptic about nor can you be accused of being one.

Unanswered....

Says you. Forgive us if we take Christ's words over yours

You are not actually taking Christ's words over mine. You are taking something written on a piece of paper over my word. Of course that you believe that something written on a piece of paper to be true.

BryanH wrote:
Let's make a small summary of what I have been saying since I joined this forum (maybe there are other that I have forgotten):

1) part of the bible was clearly not written by the original author of the words;

So what?

Well, ain't my problem if you want to turn a blind eye. I won't do the same.

BryanH wrote:

Hey we agree again, you are most certainly right that they are answered questions. Now you got nothin' to be skeptic about nor can you be accused of being one.

Unanswered....

Freudian slip (but which one? ).

BryanH wrote:

Says you. Forgive us if we take Christ's words over yours

You are not actually taking Christ's words over mine. You are taking something written on a piece of paper over my word. Of course that you believe that something written on a piece of paper to be true.

Your fatalistic skepticism notwithstanding, the Bible is more historically corroborated than most history books or any literary works you are not nearly as skeptical of. But then again, maybe you are, I don't know. There is such a thing as willful ignorance you know.

BryanH wrote:

BryanH wrote:
Let's make a small summary of what I have been saying since I joined this forum (maybe there are other that I have forgotten):

1) part of the bible was clearly not written by the original author of the words;

So what?

Well, ain't my problem if you want to turn a blind eye. I won't do the same.

A blind eye to what? Out of a non-issue (again due to documented corroboration) you create an issue to become skeptical about. Even if I were to grant you that parts may not have been written by the claimed author (which I don't), the truth is it doesn't matter because of the points I listed previously.

Bryan,

I'll extend the offer again.

I'll buy you a copy of "The Evidence That Demands a Verdict," (TNETDAV)and mail it to you. My expense.

Obviously your skpeticism demands an exhaustively researched textbook approach. You read through the book, and then we'll have some questions and answers that deal with things specifically, such as reliability, authenticity, fulfilled prophecy, etc. If agreeable just pmail me your information, and we'll get this started.

Then you can decide if the forum is for you. Here is a clip from the board's purpose.
This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

1) part of the bible was clearly not written by the original author of the words;

I'm not sure who conceeded this, but much of the Bible does not identify an author. For example, 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are believed to have been written by Ezra, but there is nothing in the text to make such a claim.
2) how do you know that the authors were honest? (How do you know they weren't. There is acutally a scholastic method to examine this. TNETDAV covers it in detail.)
3) how do you know that the authors weren't actually bending the truth with or without intention? (Again, how do you know they were? Also covered in the book)
4) some of the stories in the bible can't be proven to be true (However, many can be shown to be consistent with real times, places and people. In fact many historians rely on the Bible because of how reliable it has shown to be. Does that make it true? No, but it is a good place to start.)
5) the majority of prophecies were written after they actually happened (According to who? Why are you not skeptical of this claim? Be consistent.)
6) the bible is full of metaphors that can be interpreted many ways (Which one is the greatest issue for you?)

I've noticed that skeptics use the net to find all the issues they bring up, but don't seem to use it to find the answers to them, which are there if they look * just as they look for the issues).

PaulSacramento wrote:I've noticed that skeptics use the net to find all the issues they bring up, but don't seem to use it to find the answers to them, which are there if they look * just as they look for the issues).

That's what I see too...

Wonder why that is?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I've noticed that skeptics use the net to find all the issues they bring up, but don't seem to use it to find the answers to them, which are there if they look * just as they look for the issues).

That's what I see too...

Wonder why that is?
-
-
-

Because they go looking for what they want -something to excuse them from believing.
Much like some believers simply ignore the questions about the bible, some skeptics simply ignore that answers that are given to their "issues".
The ignore them either because they don't like the answer or they don't agree, as if those are criteria for an answer being "wrong".
The fact that some of the "typical" atheists "myths" about religion are still going strong, just shows that not enough skeptics actually research arguments AGAINST their views.

PaulSacramento wrote:

B. W. wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I've noticed that skeptics use the net to find all the issues they bring up, but don't seem to use it to find the answers to them, which are there if they look * just as they look for the issues).

That's what I see too...

Wonder why that is?

Because they go looking for what they want -something to excuse them from believing.
Much like some believers simply ignore the questions about the bible, some skeptics simply ignore that answers that are given to their "issues".
The ignore them either because they don't like the answer or they don't agree, as if those are criteria for an answer being "wrong".
The fact that some of the "typical" atheists "myths" about religion are still going strong, just shows that not enough skeptics actually research arguments AGAINST their views.

Paul, that sums it up well...

The "typical" atheists "myths" are the common Agnostic and Atheist Objections to the bible...

Is there one that you come across the most - more than others we can look into further?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

B. W. wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I've noticed that skeptics use the net to find all the issues they bring up, but don't seem to use it to find the answers to them, which are there if they look * just as they look for the issues).

That's what I see too...

Wonder why that is?

Because they go looking for what they want -something to excuse them from believing.
Much like some believers simply ignore the questions about the bible, some skeptics simply ignore that answers that are given to their "issues".
The ignore them either because they don't like the answer or they don't agree, as if those are criteria for an answer being "wrong".
The fact that some of the "typical" atheists "myths" about religion are still going strong, just shows that not enough skeptics actually research arguments AGAINST their views.

Paul, that sums it up well...

The "typical" atheists "myths" are the common Agnostic and Atheist Objections to the bible...

Is there one that you come across the most - more than others we can look into further?
-
-
-

The biggest issue has been and quite probably, always will be the issue of suffering and an omnipotent God.
Most have already abandoned the "evil" issue since they realize that without God there is on quantifier for 'evil".
But suffering, especially of innocents, is always the big one.
While some "lower" atheist still try to go with the "Jesus myths" and such, that these have been discredited even by Ehrman, has pretty much put a nail in that coffin and are not used by the "higher" atheists.
The "rational" atheist tries to make it clear that there is NO proof that God exists and while there MAY be evidence of "something", that evidence is NOT proof and most certainly nor evidence FOR God per say.