Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Nevermind. Now I see you meant the diversity we have now. Not the beginning of life.

That's what I get for coming to Kenny's defense.

Now back to offending him, and being ignored.

It's alright, it was me yesterday with that "male" author you linked to in your exchange with Melanie.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Don't be silly Kenny. If not Evolution, what can an Atheist possibly believe regarding where the rich diversity of life on Earth came from? God?

Anything BUT God. That leaves it pretty wide open!

Yes, the door might be "pretty wide open", but have you peeked inside to see what else is there?
Please, I beg you, don't keep me in suspense any longer, if not Evolution what else can an Atheist believe in?

This conversation is about what an atheist is capable of believing, not what I personally believe. If you wish to discuss what I believe we can do that but that is a different conversation

Kurieuo wrote:I think my point has been proven. And, I'm sure also that you believe Evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see here on Earth.

But this conversation is not about just me, it's about what all atheists are capable of believing.

Kurieuo wrote:That's kind of the point I'm making if one doesn't believe God exists. So no need to discuss further.

No further discussions? Fair enough; nice discussing with you my friend

Love you Kenny.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:Nevermind. Now I see you meant the diversity we have now. Not the beginning of life.

That's what I get for coming to Kenny's defense.

Now back to offending him, and being ignored.

It's alright, it was me yesterday with that "male" author you linked to in your exchange with Melanie.

Yours was understandable. Male/Female is so passé. You're a metrosexual of the 21st century.

Here I was thinking I was trying to help a young man(late teens, early twenties) try to understand some things that some youngsters have difficulty with. You know, subjective vs objective, arguments for God, etc.

Then Kenny said he's middle age.

Back to the drawing board...

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Like what? Be a little more specific.

This creator would have to come out of hiding and actually speak for himself! Now that would be extraordinary evidence! Agree?

It would be, and people still didn't believe.

• 7“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
  
  8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

I suppose the guy who said that was loco, out of his mind, or possibly just the best most convincing cult leader who ever existed, managing to convince a great portion of the world that he was God even until this day.

Neither Jesus nor God wrote the Bible, people who claim to speak for Jesus and God wrote it. That's my point.

Ok, so I'm willing to listen to any historical critical arguments as to why these particular words might not be attributable to Jesus? Considering, I expect, you've done research and such, understand the scholarship on the matter.

I doubt you'd be letting your personal distaste of Christianity and disbelief in God cloud your beliefs on this matter in discarding absolutely everything. Surely not?

Jesus never wrote anything down, so how does one know what is attributable to Jesus? It's just a matter of taking someone else's word for it; right?

Ken

Love you Kenny*



* I hope Kenny doesn't ignore my hug.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:
This creator would have to come out of hiding and actually speak for himself! Now that would be extraordinary evidence! Agree?

It would be, and people still didn't believe.

• 7“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
  
  8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

I suppose the guy who said that was loco, out of his mind, or possibly just the best most convincing cult leader who ever existed, managing to convince a great portion of the world that he was God even until this day.

Neither Jesus nor God wrote the Bible, people who claim to speak for Jesus and God wrote it. That's my point.

Ok, so I'm willing to listen to any historical critical arguments as to why these particular words might not be attributable to Jesus? Considering, I expect, you've done research and such, understand the scholarship on the matter.

I doubt you'd be letting your personal distaste of Christianity and disbelief in God cloud your beliefs on this matter in discarding absolutely everything. Surely not?

Jesus never wrote anything down, so how does one know what is attributable to Jesus? It's just a matter of taking someone else's word for it; right?

Such would be an area for literary criticism. You know, just because the words weren't penned by Christ, doesn't mean it's right to simply discard any and all credibility. Research into the manuscripts, other sources, archaeology and the like all form an important part. Scholarly papers are submitted to journals, arguments made, all within a historical critical manner as opposed to accepting such as some divinely inspired text.

There would be zero scholars of any respect or credibility who would just simply walk away saying Jesus didn't exist, or said nothing of the words attributed to him in such texts. To know the reasons why, and even build a position of real substance for yourself, it'd require a trip into literary criticism.

RickD wrote:Love you Kenny*



* I hope Kenny doesn't ignore my hug.

Hugging you back my friend.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: It would be, and people still didn't believe.

• 7“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
  
  8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

I suppose the guy who said that was loco, out of his mind, or possibly just the best most convincing cult leader who ever existed, managing to convince a great portion of the world that he was God even until this day.

Neither Jesus nor God wrote the Bible, people who claim to speak for Jesus and God wrote it. That's my point.

Ok, so I'm willing to listen to any historical critical arguments as to why these particular words might not be attributable to Jesus? Considering, I expect, you've done research and such, understand the scholarship on the matter.

I doubt you'd be letting your personal distaste of Christianity and disbelief in God cloud your beliefs on this matter in discarding absolutely everything. Surely not?

Jesus never wrote anything down, so how does one know what is attributable to Jesus? It's just a matter of taking someone else's word for it; right?

Such would be an area for literary criticism. You know, just because the words weren't penned by Christ, doesn't mean it's right to simply discard any and all credibility. Research into the manuscripts, other sources, archaeology and the like all form an important part. Scholarly papers are submitted to journals, arguments made, all within a historical critical manner as opposed to accepting such as some divinely inspired text.

There would be zero scholars of any respect or credibility who would just simply walk away saying Jesus didn't exist, or said nothing of the words attributed to him in such texts. To know the reasons why, and even build a position of real substance for yourself, it'd require a trip into literary criticism.

So for the sake of conversation; let's say the men who wrote the New Testament were 100% accurate in the message Jesus gave. How do you know Jesus was actually telling the truth? Isn't it just a matter of faith?

Ken

RickD wrote:Love you Kenny*



* I hope Kenny doesn't ignore my hug.

Hey the christians need hugs too!

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:Love you Kenny*



* I hope Kenny doesn't ignore my hug.

Hey the christians need hugs too!

Who are these Christians of which you speak?
If truly Christian, then they'll have hugs for all eternity.
Those who aren't need as many as they can get here and now.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Such would be an area for literary criticism. You know, just because the words weren't penned by Christ, doesn't mean it's right to simply discard any and all credibility. Research into the manuscripts, other sources, archaeology and the like all form an important part. Scholarly papers are submitted to journals, arguments made, all within a historical critical manner as opposed to accepting such as some divinely inspired text.

There would be zero scholars of any respect or credibility who would just simply walk away saying Jesus didn't exist, or said nothing of the words attributed to him in such texts. To know the reasons why, and even build a position of real substance for yourself, it'd require a trip into literary criticism.

So for the sake of conversation; let's say the men who wrote the New Testament were 100% accurate in the message Jesus gave. How do you know Jesus was actually telling the truth? Isn't it just a matter of faith?

Two questions there. To your first, we (people) don't really know Jesus was telling the truth.

However, people seem reluctant to let go of this guy called Jesus, seem to have a great respect for him, no matter whether they be Christian, non-Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or the like.

Take your first course of action here, it wasn't to take Jesus to task for saying such, but rather you dismissed whether Christ ever said such things, making himself out to be God. This seems to show you kind of admire the guy, your questioning whether he made such statements. It was perhaps your small way of defending Jesus from such seemingly silly talk.

I was appealing to this sentiment people seem to have, for what appears to be no good reason except that Christ is seen as an enlightened figure in history who many tend to respect had some kind wisdom or the like. BUT, let's say we accept Jesus did say words aligning himself with God, well then it's like I originally said: "I suppose the guy who said that was loco, out of his mind, or possibly just the best most convincing cult leader who ever existed, managing to convince a great portion of the world that he was God even until this day."

If we believe Jesus existed and said such, let's not pretend he's a good teacher. Really, he's really no better than say a David Koresh. If Christ lied, then he is worse! Given the number of people who have died in Jesus' name all in vain. You see, now I'm playing your strange desire to want to like and accept the guy, with a picture of someone who if they truly said the things it is claimed Jesus said, such a man if a man and not truly God is an evil man.

Yet, these same people who wrote of Christ, followed their Jewish Rabbi's teachings, they also proclaimed he rose from the dead. Which is significant, especially considering many who followed Christ and taught about him were persecuted greatly early on and/or died with their beliefs. Furthermore, perhaps due to this passion, Christ and the teachings of "the Way" spread like wildfire amongst the people and throughout all nations.

Again, do we 2000 years later know whether such really happened? We've got a lot of information that needs explaining, but it's easy for us to dismiss since we're not part of that time to verify. Such is history, unverifiable from the future. We can only look to the information we have at hand, right? And it's easy for us to dismiss since we're not saturated by such a time and at a fair distance from such in our present day society.

So then to your second question, isn't it just a matter of faith?

How I define "faith" and you define "faith" I know would be quite different. Take that for me, everything in life that we believe, act upon, do or the like requires faith. In living day-to-day faith is just a common part of each of our lives. So, my response would be most complicated and I'll save for when I have more time perhaps.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Let's assume he did do that. Some believed him, many didn't. Now what?

Whether people believe him or not, the creator explaining how he created everything would still be extraordinary evidence IMO.

But he did do just that. So how come you don't believe Him then?

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Let's assume he did do that. Some believed him, many didn't. Now what?

Whether people believe him or not, the creator explaining how he created everything would still be extraordinary evidence IMO.

But he did do just that. So how come you don't believe Him then?

Because Kenny demands that God does it Kenny's way. Kenny won't recognize God unless it's on Kenny's terms.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Let's assume he did do that. Some believed him, many didn't. Now what?

Whether people believe him or not, the creator explaining how he created everything would still be extraordinary evidence IMO.

But he did do just that. So how come you don't believe Him then?

Because Kenny demands that God does it Kenny's way. Kenny won't recognize God unless it's on Kenny's terms.

And how many of ya xtians is any different?