Page 7 of 10

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:32 pm
by B. W.
touchingcloth wrote:
jlay wrote:If Christianity is unbelievable to you because of an evidence problem, then how have you arrived at a world view based on believe with no evidence?
Especially bizarre considering his opening gambit in the thread was a Sagan quote.
The Sagan Quote as well as photo reminds me of what Romans 1:19, 20, 21 says:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." ESV
-
-
-

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:44 pm
by touchingcloth
Can't say I see the similarity, BW.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:02 pm
by jlay
We are shocked. :pound:

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:04 pm
by qqMOARpewpew
jlay wrote:
qqMOARpewpew wrote:
jlay wrote:Hey TC, sorry you don't get it.
I do believe there is a truth, I just don't believe you or I know it.
If there is a truth, could it be knowable?
I just think everything is natural, and energy is related to life, and the universe is small.
The universe is small? Aside from your opinion, what evidence do you use to come to this conclusion? If truth is not known, how can you make statements as to what might be true.

Would you believe something if you KNEW it to be false?
Well sure, as I have said before, I my beliefs could all be reality.

Small only exists in contrast to other things. A cell is massive compared to an electron, yet cells are small compared to us, we are small compared to the city block, etc. I believe there is a big vast world outside of this universe.

If truth is not known what am i left to do? Read the statement I made over again. It says clearly; "I just think..."

How do you propose one knows anything?
Do you think it is consistent to say no one knows what is outside the universe, and that small only exist in contrast to other things, and then say the universe is small?
If Christianity is unbelievable to you because of an evidence problem, then how have you arrived at a world view based on believe with no evidence?

You seem to have a defeatism approach. Kind of like asking someone to count to 10 without using numbers
No I think the universe is small in the big scheme of things. As far as I can tell no one knows, or can yet know what is outside of the universe. When I say I think, I am not claiming that the universe is small (and I am quite aware it is the most massive thing at least as far as we can tell now)
I asked god over the past 4 years to come into my heart, three times. Each time I meant it sincerely, at the time I had no cable in my room so I watched the church channel. I got nothing from god if there is one. If there is one he chose to ignore me, or I asked wrong. And yet I'm come here, and I'm looking for answers to my questions, why, maybe there is a god, maybe he is even the god of the bible, I don't know, I don't know if I'll ever know, but I've long been a spiritual person, so i doubt I will stop searching the world or searching my 'soul.'

Everyone here seems to think it is ridiculous for me to claim not to know things with certainty, but when I ask you all to how you know anything? I get nothing, cool beans and rice.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:08 pm
by qqMOARpewpew
touchingcloth wrote:qq - whilst I don't begrudge you your faith one bit, it may be best to not advance positions for which you have exclusively subjective feelings without a jot of evidence. Your personal feelings and revelations may be very powerful but if you don't at least stump up a morsel or two of evidence then we can't really have a reasonable discussion about what you believe based on "how you feel"...
But what I believe is based on how I feel about the world. I have reasonable discussions with my friends often, no evidence involved. I'm not trying to convert anyone, people keep asking me, and I will answer. Their questions seem loaded I fire a loaded question back essentially the exact same question but from outside the church.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:14 pm
by touchingcloth
qqMOARpewpew wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:qq - whilst I don't begrudge you your faith one bit, it may be best to not advance positions for which you have exclusively subjective feelings without a jot of evidence. Your personal feelings and revelations may be very powerful but if you don't at least stump up a morsel or two of evidence then we can't really have a reasonable discussion about what you believe based on "how you feel"...
But what I believe is based on how I feel about the world. I have reasonable discussions with my friends often, no evidence involved. I'm not trying to convert anyone, people keep asking me, and I will answer. Their questions seem loaded I fire a loaded question back essentially the exact same question but from outside the church.
How are we supposed to discuss what you feel though? If you presented some reasons why you feel it then we could have some kind of meaningful discussion, rather than just the circular dialogue that's happening at the moment.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:49 pm
by qqMOARpewpew
touchingcloth wrote:
qqMOARpewpew wrote:
touchingcloth wrote:qq - whilst I don't begrudge you your faith one bit, it may be best to not advance positions for which you have exclusively subjective feelings without a jot of evidence. Your personal feelings and revelations may be very powerful but if you don't at least stump up a morsel or two of evidence then we can't really have a reasonable discussion about what you believe based on "how you feel"...
But what I believe is based on how I feel about the world. I have reasonable discussions with my friends often, no evidence involved. I'm not trying to convert anyone, people keep asking me, and I will answer. Their questions seem loaded I fire a loaded question back essentially the exact same question but from outside the church.
How are we supposed to discuss what you feel though? If you presented some reasons why you feel it then we could have some kind of meaningful discussion, rather than just the circular dialogue that's happening at the moment.
By adding what you feel?
Some reasons, sheesh, whew, I mean I just thought about these things for the past 7 years and the way I look at the world has been changing constantly ever since. I watch an alan watts video and it gives me alittle buddhist insight and I try to mesh all the ideas into one world view. It works pretty well, except for when trying to explain it to other, so far anyway.

I feel like the dialogue is going somewhere, I mean its very slow progress going over the same things over and over, but just barely inching forward, where to I couldn't tell you.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:00 pm
by ageofknowledge
God is inching it forward to either you're conversion or rejection of Him and His way.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:14 pm
by qqMOARpewpew
ageofknowledge wrote:God is inching it forward to either you're conversion or rejection of Him and His way.
Well We'll see which way it goes c:

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:15 pm
by jlay
I asked god over the past 4 years to come into my heart, three times.
It's interesting qq, I've had this same conversation before. Although this is a popular method for 'making' Christians, it is also an unbiblical method. No where does becoming a Christian have to do with asking Jesus in your heart. Sadly I hear this all the time at church. There can be some truth in it, but I am afraid it is often little more than a shallow attempt to get someone to agree to something without true knowledge of a God to place one's faith in. "repeat the magic words......" It doesn't work that way.

How can you ask God to come into your heart, if you do not believe He exist? Or, if you have shaped a god in your mind to suit yourself? How can that be sincere? Faith is not some game where a bell rings when you ask with the right sincerity or say the magic words. Your sincerity will be demonstrated in what I stated earlier. Seeking in humility.
I don't know, I don't know if I'll ever know, but I've long been a spiritual person, so i doubt I will stop searching the world or searching my 'soul.'


Of course you are a spiritual person. You were made that way. I suspect there has been more evidence presented to you than you have recognized. Or, perhaps the evidence has become distorted for various reasons. It seems you are confused and frustrated with many of your experiences. I understand. Actually there have been some answers. Now whether you receive them or not is up to you. There has also been some pointless arguing. I can see that as well. You have to understand qq, that there is lot of inconsistency in your position. If you don't know, don't know, don't know, then you need to be consistent with that declaration. Asking things such as, if God can do everything, can he make a round square, does not demonstrate a seeking heart. Especially when that has been logically and reasonably exposed.

A few things. You did say there is a truth. If you can say, 'there is a truth,' then the truth is knowable. We have some other threads going on such things now. In fact if you believe there is truth, then you are much further along than you can imagine. The objective is to bring the truth into focus. And my friend, that CAN be done.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:36 pm
by qqMOARpewpew
jlay wrote:
I asked god over the past 4 years to come into my heart, three times.
It's interesting qq, I've had this same conversation before. Although this is a popular method for 'making' Christians, it is also an unbiblical method. No where does becoming a Christian have to do with asking Jesus in your heart. Sadly I hear this all the time at church. There can be some truth in it, but I am afraid it is often little more than a shallow attempt to get someone to agree to something without true knowledge of a God to place one's faith in. "repeat the magic words......" It doesn't work that way.

How can you ask God to come into your heart, if you do not believe He exist? Or, if you have shaped a god in your mind to suit yourself? How can that be sincere? Faith is not some game where a bell rings when you ask with the right sincerity or say the magic words. Your sincerity will be demonstrated in what I stated earlier. Seeking in humility.
I don't know, I don't know if I'll ever know, but I've long been a spiritual person, so i doubt I will stop searching the world or searching my 'soul.'


Of course you are a spiritual person. You were made that way. I suspect there has been more evidence presented to you than you have recognized. Or, perhaps the evidence has become distorted for various reasons. It seems you are confused and frustrated with many of your experiences. I understand. Actually there have been some answers. Now whether you receive them or not is up to you. There has also been some pointless arguing. I can see that as well. You have to understand qq, that there is lot of inconsistency in your position. If you don't know, don't know, don't know, then you need to be consistent with that declaration. Asking things such as, if God can do everything, can he make a round square, does not demonstrate a seeking heart. Especially when that has been logically and reasonably exposed.

A few things. You did say there is a truth. If you can say, 'there is a truth,' then the truth is knowable. We have some other threads going on such things now. In fact if you believe there is truth, then you are much further along than you can imagine. The objective is to bring the truth into focus. And my friend, that CAN be done.
thank you.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:27 pm
by Jac3510
qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well I believe that energy at its simplest is an organism, some sort of life, and the universe is very extra small in the big scheme of things and I have no evidence for this, so I actually disagree that we need evidence for it.
So why don't you believe you have ten million dollars in your bank account?
I do not see the universe as expanding as evidence for it being finite, even if we found the edge of the universe (which as far as I know we have not) Even if the universe is finite that doesn't mean there isn't more outside of our universe.
The words "outside the universe" have no meaning. The universe is defined as all the matter/space/energy there is. Or, if you want a more technical definition, "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm." You can't get outside of "totality." If you can suppose there is something outside of this universe, it effectively becomes a part of the universe by definition.

As far as you saying the universe is not expanding, you are just blatantly contradicting known science. So if we can do that, what keeps you from running through red lights, jumping off buildings, or going a year without food or water? And don't tell me that those things would harm you, because you only know they will harm you because you are assuming things like gravity actually work. But that would require being in line with science. If we can reject one part of science, why not all of it?
What is this evidence that the universe is finite?
Actual infinities are impossible. The universe is actual. Ergo, the universe cannot be an actual infinity. Ergo, the universe is finite.
What is this evidence of self-determination?
All determination is either internal (self) or external. If there is no internal determination, then all determination is external. If all determination is external, then the universe is absolutely deterministic. Since your thoughts are within the universe, your thoughts would be determined. Thus, in an all-externally determined universe (pure physicalism), all thoughts are determined by arational laws, meaning all thoughts are arational, meaning that there is no such thing as thought.

Since thought exists, it cannot be true that the universe is all-externally caused. Try to disprove that you think. You will find that you must think to do so.
What is this evidence of objective morality?
Let one of the mods ban you because they don't like your SN. When you complain that isn't fair, you have your evidence of objective morality.
What is your evidence of design/fine tuning of the universe?
See the main site . . . the cosmological constant, the ratio of protons to neutrons, the strength of gravity relative to the other forces, and literally hundreds of other factors all come to mind.
If there have been an infinite universe before this of course our universe/planet will appear to be fine tuned. But if there have been an vast number of universe or planets life would only support itself on planets/in universes that appear to intelligent life to be fine tuned.
What evidence do you have for an infinite number of universes? Further, you would have to suppose that an actual infinite is possible, which is absurd.
What is your physical evidence (outside of the bible) that shows that jesus lived, let alone rose from the dead?
I'll give you that as soon as you give me the physical evidence, outside any reference to American history, that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

As it stands, I can give you Pliny, Jospehus, Tacitus, fifth century BC Greek playrights, etc. But before I do any of that, I'd far prefer you to explain why "the Bible" is an invalid historical reference.
Can I ask what personal evidence you have experienced?
I can give you one. My birth. My mother was incapable of having children. She has severe endometriosis, which caused excessive scar tissue to build up in her fallopian tubes. When the docs ran tests, it was so severe they could not even get any dye through them. She prayed about it, and immediately conceived. After her third child, she had her tubes tied. The same doctor that ran the initial tests was the one who tied her tubes. During the procedure, he told her he was very surprised, because her tubes were the healthiest he had ever seen. There was not a single trace of any of the scar tissue that had been there before.

Again, that is only one. I could tell you many, many such stories. Yet those are for me. You can't base your beliefs on the experiences of others. If, however, you are going to tell me that my experiences are invalid, you are required to present a worldview that gives them a possible explanation. As for me, in addition to the evidence I have suggested, the experience serves to confirm what I already know to be true.
I have no more evidence that christianity is false than you have that taoism is false, only a feeling.
I have plenty of evidence that Taoism is false. That's not what this thread is about. You asked me my evidence. As it stands, you are rejecting Christianity on a mere feeling. Do you treat anything else in your life like that? When you took tests in school, did you put down random answers that you "felt" were right? I would venture to say that you require evidence for the most basic things in life. You are just being intellectually dishonest in thinking you can treat religious ideas any differently.
I consider myself an atheist only because I have not seen any evidence that there is a god, whether it be your god or no religions god. If there is a 'god' I don't think it is omnipotent, simply an alien with super advanced technology. (yes this is a serious statement)
I don't have any evidence for my world view beyond my own opinion (personal truth) that is exactly why I called it a personal truth (opinion).
You are contradicting yourself. You don't NEED evidence, in your view, to believe in God. All you need is opinion. So even if I gave you irrefutable proof, it wouldn't matter, because your OPINION isn't based on evidence.

Forgive me, but I simply don't take your objections very seriously. Not trying to be harsh, again. Just pointing out that, if you are going to be an atheist, at least be intellectually honest like TC tries to be. Anything less than that ranks up there with people who choose to believe the earth is flat.

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:03 am
by qqMOARpewpew
Jac3510 wrote:
qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well I believe that energy at its simplest is an organism, some sort of life, and the universe is very extra small in the big scheme of things and I have no evidence for this, so I actually disagree that we need evidence for it.
So why don't you believe you have ten million dollars in your bank account?

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.
I do not see the universe as expanding as evidence for it being finite, even if we found the edge of the universe (which as far as I know we have not) Even if the universe is finite that doesn't mean there isn't more outside of our universe.
The words "outside the universe" have no meaning. The universe is defined as all the matter/space/energy there is. Or, if you want a more technical definition, "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm." You can't get outside of "totality." If you can suppose there is something outside of this universe, it effectively becomes a part of the universe by definition.

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?

Webster:
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: as a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b : the world of human experience c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : milky way galaxy (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy

2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization

3 : population

4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem

5 : a great number or quantity

What is it that you mean when your talking about there is "no meaning in the words outside the universe" ?


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.



As far as you saying the universe is not expanding, you are just blatantly contradicting known science. So if we can do that, what keeps you from running through red lights, jumping off buildings, or going a year without food or water? And don't tell me that those things would harm you, because you only know they will harm you because you are assuming things like gravity actually work. But that would require being in line with science. If we can reject one part of science, why not all of it?


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.
What is this evidence that the universe is finite?
Actual infinities are impossible. The universe is actual. Ergo, the universe cannot be an actual infinity. Ergo, the universe is finite.
What is this evidence of self-determination?
All determination is either internal (self) or external. If there is no internal determination, then all determination is external. If all determination is external, then the universe is absolutely deterministic. Since your thoughts are within the universe, your thoughts would be determined. Thus, in an all-externally determined universe (pure physicalism), all thoughts are determined by arational laws, meaning all thoughts are arational, meaning that there is no such thing as thought.

Since thought exists, it cannot be true that the universe is all-externally caused. Try to disprove that you think. You will find that you must think to do so.
What is this evidence of objective morality?
Let one of the mods ban you because they don't like your SN. When you complain that isn't fair, you have your evidence of objective morality.
What is your evidence of design/fine tuning of the universe?
See the main site . . . the cosmological constant, the ratio of protons to neutrons, the strength of gravity relative to the other forces, and literally hundreds of other factors all come to mind.
If there have been an infinite universe before this of course our universe/planet will appear to be fine tuned. But if there have been an vast number of universe or planets life would only support itself on planets/in universes that appear to intelligent life to be fine tuned.
What evidence do you have for an infinite number of universes? Further, you would have to suppose that an actual infinite is possible, which is absurd.
What is your physical evidence (outside of the bible) that shows that jesus lived, let alone rose from the dead?
I'll give you that as soon as you give me the physical evidence, outside any reference to American history, that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

As it stands, I can give you Pliny, Jospehus, Tacitus, fifth century BC Greek playrights, etc. But before I do any of that, I'd far prefer you to explain why "the Bible" is an invalid historical reference.

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.

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.

Before christ they had proof of christ's reserection? I'm talking about the christian god when I mention your god.

Can I ask what personal evidence you have experienced?
I can give you one. My birth. My mother was incapable of having children. She has severe endometriosis, which caused excessive scar tissue to build up in her fallopian tubes. When the docs ran tests, it was so severe they could not even get any dye through them. She prayed about it, and immediately conceived. After her third child, she had her tubes tied. The same doctor that ran the initial tests was the one who tied her tubes. During the procedure, he told her he was very surprised, because her tubes were the healthiest he had ever seen. There was not a single trace of any of the scar tissue that had been there before.

Again, that is only one. I could tell you many, many such stories. Yet those are for me. You can't base your beliefs on the experiences of others. If, however, you are going to tell me that my experiences are invalid, you are required to present a worldview that gives them a possible explanation. As for me, in addition to the evidence I have suggested, the experience serves to confirm what I already know to be true.
I have no more evidence that christianity is false than you have that taoism is false, only a feeling.
I have plenty of evidence that Taoism is false. That's not what this thread is about. You asked me my evidence. As it stands, you are rejecting Christianity on a mere feeling. Do you treat anything else in your life like that? When you took tests in school, did you put down random answers that you "felt" were right? I would venture to say that you require evidence for the most basic things in life. You are just being intellectually dishonest in thinking you can treat religious ideas any differently.




Could you give me your objective evidence that taoism is false?


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.


What do you mean by intellectually dishonest?


"That's not what this thread is about." Sorry what desides what this thread is about?

I consider myself an atheist only because I have not seen any evidence that there is a god, whether it be your god or no religions god. If there is a 'god' I don't think it is omnipotent, simply an alien with super advanced technology. (yes this is a serious statement)
I don't have any evidence for my world view beyond my own opinion (personal truth) that is exactly why I called it a personal truth (opinion).
You are contradicting yourself. You don't NEED evidence, in your view, to believe in God. All you need is opinion. So even if I gave you irrefutable proof, it wouldn't matter, because your OPINION isn't based on evidence.


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?


Forgive me, but I simply don't take your objections very seriously. Not trying to be harsh, again. Just pointing out that, if you are going to be an atheist, at least be intellectually honest like TC tries to be. Anything less than that ranks up there with people who choose to believe the earth is flat.
What is intellectually honest? Wouldn't it be better to be objectively honest, not rather than human logically honest?

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:30 am
by Jac3510
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

Re: Speck of dust

Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:40 pm
by qqMOARpewpew
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?
No i don't need evidence for belief. I can't however have evidence that points to something else being correct.