For I have seen evidence agaisnt it. To clarify: evidence for it is not a requirement. It helps on day to day basis and things its fine to be sane about. But as far as what i think about when I look up in the night sky, or at a brilliant blue sky with magnificent clouds that move me, what i think about is my beliefs that are quoted above.(as well as the rest of them, and random thoughts haha) My beliefs constantly change as my perspective of life moves, as i learn and experience. I base my believes on experience. I can't tell you I believe in ghosts because I haven't experience it, I don't claim that ghosts absolutely don't exist.
You are contradicting yourself, sir. If you need no evidence for a positive belief, then you need no evidence of any kind. Evidence against a position is evidence for a positive belief against it. Thus, you have evidence FOR the fact that you do NOT have ten million dollars in your bank account. But you have already said that you don't need evidence FOR what you believe.
So why on some things do you require evidence and on others you do not?
Since you believe you are required to have evidence for all beliefs: What is your evidence that "out side of the universe" is a phrase that has no meaning?
I've already explained this. It is the meaning of the word. What evidence do I have that all bachelors are unmarried or that all circles are round? If you want to be technical, its called an analytical statement (as opposed to a synthetic one).
I consider the 'universe' the thing that happened from the big bang, since we have evidence agaisnt there not being a big bang. The universe I'm guessing you're talking about there being no 'outside' of would be a universe that would include a god, or spiritual realm or alternate dimensions or parallel universes/realities.
While I think the term "spiritual realm" is too nebulous to be of any practical use in our discussion, I could say that God exists "outside the universe" in perhaps some popular, non-nuanced way. God is by any standard a non-physical being. The universe is, by definition, "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated." God is not a "phenomena observed or postulated."
But more technically, when you get into discussions about the nature of God--subsistent being and such--you find out that God is only "outside the universe" in the sense that the piece of paper a circle is drawn on is "outside the paper." God
is existence (and yes, we can provide evidence for that too--I'd recommend Joseph Owen's
An Interpretation of Existence).
Nonsense I clearly said: I do not see the universe as expanding as evidence for it being finite, thats the exact phrase I used. I beleive this 'universe' is expanding. So to clarify that phrase: I don't see the fact that the universe is expanding as evidence for the universe being finite
Ah, I misread you. In any case, I would broadly agree that the expansion of the universe, in and of itself, is not evidence that it is finite. It is evident that it is temporal (that it had a beginning). The fact that it is not infinite is evident in that actual infinities are impossible.
As far as the english bible of today... Because we don't have objective evidence that the authors of the gospels corrispond with the Names they are named for.
Honestly, how much time have you spent studying the background of the New Testament? Do you not realize that we have
hard evidence that all the Gospels were written in the first centuries? Do you not realize that classical Roman historians have examined Luke and Acts and have pointed out that those books had to have been written by eye-witnesses (if ANYTHING in history is to be trusted, anyway)? Do you not realize that we do not need the Gospels to know enough about Christ to know, historically speaking, that He was physically resurrected, and that our best evidence is not from them? And do you not know that even IF the Gospels are taken as very late (which you can't, but just to grant the argument), that the historical veracity of resurrection is not placed in doubt even one bit?
When were the gospels written? Who were they written by? Who decided which gospels were going to be combined into the NT? How did they do so? Who authored the bible? I can show you outside reference for the date, authors, and editors of a American history book.
Matthew wrote Matthew between 50 and 60 AD. John-Mark, an associate of Peter, wrote Mark around 50 AD, and about half of his material goes back into the 40s if not earlier. Luke, an associate of Paul, wrote his Gospel in the early sixties--probably 60 or 61. John wrote no later than 90 AD, although there is fair reason to believe he wrote prior to 70 AD.
No one "decided" that the Gospels would be combined into the NT. They church as a whole had been using them for three hundred years when they canon was formalized. That formalization had three tests:
1. Each book in the NT had to have been written by an apostle or a close associate;
2. Each book in the NT had to be consistent with earlier Scripture;
3. Each book in the NT had to already have broad acceptance in the universal church as authoritative.
There is a difference in deciding somethings is Scripture and recognizing that it has been regarded as such for three centuries. As for your quip about American books, there is even good evidence that the titles "The Gospel According to Matthew" (etc) were part of the original documents.
Bottom line: we have VERY, VERY, VERY strong evidence as to the authenticity of the Gospels. So, I ask again, how much time have you actually spent studying the question? Would I be wrong in venturing that the answer is, "Not much"?
Before christ they had proof of christ's reserection? I'm talking about the christian god when I mention your god.
Do you want proof or evidence? You asked for evidence. Yes, I can give you evidence of Christ's resurrection that predates Jesus. Here is one very small example:
"But when of murder'd man the dust hath once the blood suck'd up, he riseth never more." ~ (A. Swanwick, tr. The Agamemnon, Choephori, and Eumenides of Aeschylus (London: Bell and Daldy, 1865), 166. Accessed November 14, 2008 online at
http://books.google.com/books?id=L94_Ox ... #PPA166,M1)
That is just one of a vast number of statements from Greek literature I can pull for you that shows that the Greek world rejected the notion of resurrection. They thought it was ridiculous, because, for them, the body was evil and limiting. The idea was to get AWAY from the body--not be confined to it forever.
On the flip side, I can show you evidence from 600 BC that the Jews thought that no resurrection would occur until the end of time--the eschaton, as it is called.
Thus, NO ONE would have expected or believed in a resurrection in time; neither Jew nor Gentile. Now, historically, when we have an effect, we have to provide a cause. We have clearly the idea that Jesus was resurrected being preached in the fourth decade of the first century A.D. Where did that idea come from? It couldn't have come from the Jewish world. It couldn't have come from the non-Jewish world . . .
Now, there is LOT more to be had in that discussion. It is just one tiny sample piece of how evidence can (and absolutely must) predate the event, for you must ALWAYS have evidence concerning background information if you are to properly understand history. There is more, of course, I could provide. The evidence from fulfilled prophecy is fantastic, but this is enough for our very surface discussion.
Could you give me your objective evidence that taoism is false?
1. If Christianity is true, taoism is false;
2. Christianity is true;
3. Ergo, Taoism is false.
Easy.
Well actually yes when I take a test I go with what I feel the anwser is. I was smart enough to be qualified as a nuclear engineer for the navy, I am not dumb, but I have never claimed to be an intellectual. I don't see why you think everyone should be an intellecual in order to decide what they believe, that seems silly.
So why don't you go write a paper right now on the evolutionary origin of life, or the mechanisms that put the Big Bang in place? Clearly, since you don't need evidence and only your feeling, you could do that. I'm sure
Nature is eagerly awaiting your submission.
What do you mean by intellectually dishonest?
I mean someone who says one thing in one place based on one methodology and then denies that methodology by saying something else in another place. If you are going to hold to a position, do it consistently. If you are going to affirm an idea, affirm it consistently. Don't contradict yourself in thought or method down the road.
"That's not what this thread is about." Sorry what desides what this thread is about?
Uhm . . . what decides what any conversation is about? If you and I are talking about how much we love/hate the Saw movies, then it's pretty clear that our opinion on the Republican/Democrat wars are not what that conversation is about. If you want to branch off into something more specific, feel free to do so.
Where is the contradiction? If found irrefutable evidence of a different god besides one that involved jesus would you change you beleifs?
What makes evidence irrefutable?
Yes, I would. That evidence would be irrefutable if it in principle could not be answered in any other way. As it stands, the MASSIVE evidence for the existence of the Christian God is irrefutable.
What is intellectually honest? Wouldn't it be better to be objectively honest, not rather than human logically honest?
If you are going to invent terms, you are going to have to tell me what you mean by them.
God bless
