Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:Call me Annette

I hope you feel better soon (((((Audie))))))

When you feel up to it I`d like to discuss this some more with you, I`m interested in what you think and why.

So you accept the possibility of God but think if He exists it isn`t as the God in the Bible, why not?

In shortest form because I dont find the story believable.

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Call me Annette

I hope you feel better soon (((((Audie))))))

When you feel up to it I`d like to discuss this some more with you, I`m interested in what you think and why.

So you accept the possibility of God but think if He exists it isn`t as the God in the Bible, why not?

In shortest form because I dont find the story believable.

I know many people that don't find evolution believable....
Some people don't believe that man walked on the moon...
Heck, some people don't believe that a virgin can give birth !

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Call me Annette

I hope you feel better soon (((((Audie))))))

When you feel up to it I`d like to discuss this some more with you, I`m interested in what you think and why.

So you accept the possibility of God but think if He exists it isn`t as the God in the Bible, why not?

In shortest form because I dont find the story believable.

I know many people that don't find evolution believable....
Some people don't believe that man walked on the moon...
Heck, some people don't believe that a virgin can give birth !

The first two are idiot fringe, the last plainly can happen, tho why Christians felt that needed
to be tacked onto the Jesus story isnt clear to me.

I dont see it as idiot fringe to think the stuff about, say,
Sodom and Gomorrah and the pillar of salt is not believable.

Parts of the bible are reasonable enough.

Audie wrote:tho why Christians felt that needed
to be tacked onto the Jesus story isnt clear to me.

Tacked on? Story? The gospels can be reliably understood as accounts, not just a story. Please explain. I guess you think early Christians had unsavory motives and felt they needed to "tack" it on?

Audie wrote: I dont see it as idiot fringe to think the stuff about, say,
Sodom and Gomorrah and the pillar of salt is not believable.

Why not? God being God is surely capable of miracles.

Audie wrote: Parts of the bible are reasonable enough.

Except all that God stuff?

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote:tho why Christians felt that needed
to be tacked onto the Jesus story isnt clear to me.

Tacked on? Story? The gospels can be reliably understood as accounts, not just a story. Please explain. I guess you think early Christians had unsavory motives and felt they needed to "tack" it on?

Audie wrote: I dont see it as idiot fringe to think the stuff about, say,
Sodom and Gomorrah and the pillar of salt is not believable.

Why not? God being God is surely capable of miracles.

Audie wrote: Parts of the bible are reasonable enough.

Except all that God stuff?

Lets not be like that with eachother, please.

Audie wrote: Lets not be like that with eachother, please.

Fair enough. At first my heart sank. Then I felt stung. Then I lashed out.

Sorry.

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote: Lets not be like that with eachother, please.

Fair enough. At first my heart sank. Then I felt stung. Then I lashed out.

Sorry.

Aww..

Irs good to share ides. Sorry I was a bit blunt. I've been sick andmissing classes
all week, thick head coughing, fever, not really up to
being Ms Congeniality, but I do mean no harm.

Audie wrote:Irs good to share ides. Sorry I was a bit blunt. I've been sick andmissing classes
all week, thick head coughing, fever, not really up to
being Ms Congeniality, but I do mean no harm.

You? Audie? Not up to being Ms Congeniality? Oh the humanity!



Feel better.

Audie wrote:

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote: Lets not be like that with eachother, please.

Fair enough. At first my heart sank. Then I felt stung. Then I lashed out.

Sorry.

Aww..

Irs good to share ides. Sorry I was a bit blunt. I've been sick andmissing classes
all week, thick head coughing, fever, not really up to
being Ms Congeniality, but I do mean no harm.

Yeah Audie, I hadn't noticed you were any different than you usually are.

All kidding aside, I hope you feel better soon!

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Call me Annette

I hope you feel better soon (((((Audie))))))

When you feel up to it I`d like to discuss this some more with you, I`m interested in what you think and why.

So you accept the possibility of God but think if He exists it isn`t as the God in the Bible, why not?

In shortest form because I dont find the story believable.

I know many people that don't find evolution believable....
Some people don't believe that man walked on the moon...
Heck, some people don't believe that a virgin can give birth !

The first two are idiot fringe, the last plainly can happen, tho why Christians felt that needed
to be tacked onto the Jesus story isnt clear to me.

I dont see it as idiot fringe to think the stuff about, say,
Sodom and Gomorrah and the pillar of salt is not believable.

Parts of the bible are reasonable enough.

Which bits?

If you can believe some of it, would it really be that difficult to have faith in God?

Do you believe in Jesus? With or without the resurrection, is there not enough of a grain of truth for it to be worth considering God?

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Call me Annette

I hope you feel better soon (((((Audie))))))

When you feel up to it I`d like to discuss this some more with you, I`m interested in what you think and why.

So you accept the possibility of God but think if He exists it isn`t as the God in the Bible, why not?

In shortest form because I dont find the story believable.

I know many people that don't find evolution believable....
Some people don't believe that man walked on the moon...
Heck, some people don't believe that a virgin can give birth !

The first two are idiot fringe, the last plainly can happen, tho why Christians felt that needed
to be tacked onto the Jesus story isnt clear to me.

I dont see it as idiot fringe to think the stuff about, say,
Sodom and Gomorrah and the pillar of salt is not believable.

Parts of the bible are reasonable enough.

Which bits?

If you can believe some of it, would it really be that difficult to have faith in God?

Do you believe in Jesus? With or without the resurrection, is there not enough of a grain of truth for it to be worth considering God?

The sacred writings of various peoples will contain much of their accumulated folk wisdom,
the bible being an example. There's some goofy ideas but its generally good.

The whole creation story, pillar of salt, wanting people to burn up sheep,
Jonah, flood, Babel etc, not so much.

Im sure the bible contains bits of accurate info about Jesus. I dont think he was
anything like what the self- appointed "apostle" Paul concocted as having been.

I dont get what the remaining grains of truth might have to do with discovering a mind
more vast and powerful than an infinite universe.

Okay where did all these good ideas come from? Why do we have them? What is it that sets us apart from animals?

Creation story etc, maybe just a way of trying to explain the unexplainable at that time?

Jesus Himself states that He is God somewhere in the Bible I think but even if He was just a man, not God, I think if we all lived as He did the world would be a much better place.

Grains of truth perhaps lead us to discovering more of the truth?

Evolution, for example, has not been proved but it is widely accepted as the best theory that fits most of what we know. Could we not say the same for God? Could the fact that we are sentinent beings be a very strong hint that God exists?

Infinity, existence, in themselves are pretty staggering things to bend your mind around, does the possibilty of God not fall into that too?

Audie wrote:
Im sure the bible contains bits of accurate info about Jesus. I dont think he was
anything like what the self- appointed "apostle" Paul concocted as having been.

Audie,

Not just from reading the bible, but also from looking at historical accounts, I've logically narrowed it down to only two possibilities about Jesus of Nazareth.

1) He is exactly who He claimed to be. The Son of God, God in the flesh.

or

2) Possibly the most deluded, insane person ever to walk the face of the earth.

When one looks at the evidence, there are really no other choices.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Im sure the bible contains bits of accurate info about Jesus. I dont think he was
anything like what the self- appointed "apostle" Paul concocted as having been.

Audie,

Not just from reading the bible, but also from looking at historical accounts, I've logically narrowed it down to only two possibilities about Jesus of Nazareth.

1) He is exactly who He claimed to be. The Son of God, God in the flesh.

or

2) Possibly the most deluded, insane person ever to walk the face of the earth.

When one looks at the evidence, there are really no other choices.

That is binary thinking, for sure.

Your second possibility there, you cant even be serious considering the competition.

Being binary doesn't make it wrong. But if someone would like to insist on a more more sophisticated version of this argument, they may break it down into four possible categories, one which is binary and which is is not:

First, divide humanity in a binary fashion into those who have claimed to be God and those who have not. (A perfectly appropriate binary category.)
Second, divide humanity on a continuum (not binary) of those who are basically credible and those who are absolutely insane.

From that, we see four basic types of people--credible people who said they were God; crazy people who said they were God; credible people who did not claim to be God; and crazy people who did not claim to be God.

The VAST majority of us fit into the third group. Most of us have never claimed to be God and are more or less credible. Among those who claimed to be God, the vast majority fit into the second group. Sure, they say they are God. They are relatively nuts (I've worked with quite a few in my time as a phyche chaplain). Now, how many people have been highly credible and claimed to be God? Not just God in some abstract, eastern sense in which everyone is somehow God. But in the Jewish sense in which he claims to be the One who said "Let there be light!", the One who parted the Red Sea, the One who demands all worship from all people absolutely exclusively?

That's a pretty narrow group. To my knowledge, it's limited to Jesus of Nazareth. So no one gets to dismiss the question Rick presented by writing it off as "binary thinking." They have to do something with the claim of this basically credible man to be God Himself in the Flesh. Most people who study this and reject the claim try to say that Jesus didn't claim to be God after all. That is, they appeal to giant conspiracy theory. A few people see that is patently stupid from a historiographical perspective and just use Jesus' claim to be God as a proof that He isn't basically credible after all (against all evidence, showing their lack of interest in objective truth). But for those of us who take truth seriously (I make no claims about you one way or another), a very credible Jesus claiming to be the OT God is a very serious matter. And when I look at the historical evidence, I have to conclude that He told the truth. What you do with Him is, of course, up to you. But it is precisely the question Jesus wants you to answer: "Who do you say that I am?" (Matt 16:15)

edit:

Here, I drew it out for the benefit of those who like pictures! People in red claimed to be God. People in green did not (that I know of, of course).