Evidence for God from Science

I've heard so much about the DaVinci Code and Atheist propaganda, and I see a lot of panic about how this will affect vunerable youths. But I see the DaVinci Code movie as good for Christianity.

What I mean by this could use an example: For the last year and a half, I've been fascinated with the JFK Assassination. Before that, I was kind of interested in it, but I didn't get too involved. Like most of the world, I believed that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK, but I didn't feel like I needed to thrust myself into the subject...it didn't seem like the "conspiracy theorists" needed my help.

Then, on ABC during the 40th anniversary of the President's death, a 2-hour program aired. It was a detailed documentary that put forth the view that there was NO conspiracy, and that Oswald acted alone. It was very professionally done, and it ridiculed the many key issues that may have pointed to a conspiracy. It also ridiculed Oliver Stone's JFK movie.

I came out of it thinking hey, maybe there was no conspiracy after all. So I went on the internet to find out about the assassination. I dived into the gigantic subject, asking questions, reading, reading more, reading some more, studying, getting all sides of issue...just trying to find out the truth.

I came out of it realizing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy, ordered by men in powerful positions, carried out by the country's most powerful covert forces, and covered up with the Warren Commission. I realized that the ABC program that I saw, was the biggest truck-load of lies, deceit and propaganda, and backed-up by old, discredited information with more holes in it than swiss cheese!

What's my point? My point is that as a result of watching that garbage program, I became involved in the issue, and I eventually realized that it was much more important an issue than I previously thought...it had the complete opposite effect on me than the producers of the program expected! I'm now a home-grown expert on the JFK murder. So what would the DaVinci Code Movie do? Well, it would encourage people to think, damn it! The media is FAR more fair and balanced on religion than it ever will be on JFK's murder. Despite liberal Hollywood, religion has been usually treated respectfully.

I strongly believe that as long as there's an open dialog on religion, then Christianity CAN'T lose. I can personally testify that the disease of Atheism can be overcome, but only if there's a frank and open exchange of views. Call me extremely naive, but I think the DaVinci Code movie will be the best thing to happen to Christianity, because it will awake America from it's religious slumber, and people will stop being luke-warm and start keepin' it real.

Suppressing the teaching of witchcraft in schools is NOT the way to make one's faith grow stronger...it only weakens it. A child should be exposed to all kinds of beliefs and religions, while emphisizing Christian beliefs and how they differ from others, thereby strengthening their faith. Christians are not strong enough mentally in the world, and they're not well-rounded or cultured enough...I mean, what are you afraid of, man? I've exposed myself to other people's views, and looked at the evidence, and now, NOTHING CAN TOUCH ME! HIT ME WITH ALL YOU GOT YOU HEATHEN BASTARDS!!

BTW, IMO the movie JFK is one of the most accurate movies ever made.

The JFK movie fudges the facts, making the single bullet seem like a miracle bullet-by changing the actual location of the president and the other guy. And, I doubt there was a conspiracy. The greatest evidence for a conspiracy is the lack of evidence

So what would the DaVinci Code Movie do? Well, it would encourage people to think, damn it!

Yes, but if a skeptic of Religion came up to a Christian and said:

"Did Jesus and Mary really get it on?"

and you said

"No."

they would ask

"How do you know?"

"The Bible told me."

It's only going to piss them off more, because the Bible being a historical document made around two thousand years ago does not really count as hard core fact, and hard core fact my friends is the only thing that us skeptics love.

I have the unusual talent of being able to twist any argument against its creator, and as such, I eat skeptics for breakfast. In your example, I would simply tell the skeptic the burden of proof lies on him to provide us with evidence that Jesus and Mary did get it on, and when the skeptic can't come up with any, I get to point and laugh at his inability to stick to his own guidelines.

DR wrote:It's only going to piss them off more, because the Bible being a historical document made around two thousand years ago does not really count as hard core fact, and hard core fact my friends is the only thing that us skeptics love.

And why does this matter to us? I'd perhaps recommend a little skepticism of your skepticism, but then they do say ignorance is bliss... I suppose because you can then make up what you want to believe.

Now generating a response is perhaps pointless on someone as decided as you against Christianity. I'm sure you are also very highly educated to be able to judge the historical documents the Bible consists of. Anyway, I'd recommend looking into the authenticity and reliability of the NT amongst scholars. You'll find it hard to discover a historical scholar who would dismiss them entirely out of hand. There is no reason for it except a bias against Christianity. Somehow you think this to be objective though?

Kurieuo.

Mastermind, I think the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion which contradicts 'accepted' knowledge. From this perspective, it is accepted knowedge that, at the time Jesus was born, conception required intercourse or something very close. (For the record, my wife once did see a virgin birth in one of her patients. I probably don't need to explain the details...). There are no verifiable examples of conception and birth w/o intercourse, save for IVF, or high-tech methods, which still require the union of genetic material from two human beings. Thus, outside the venue of Christianity and its believers, the assertion that Jesus was conceived from the genetic material of one human and one non-human, without intercourse, would certainly place the burden of proof on the proponent.

john hammond,

the burden of proof is on the deviant. since christianity is the world religion with the most followers (or one of the largest world religions), and since we live in a christian society...and since the virgin birth and Jesus' divinity are christian beliefs, the atheist or skeptic must prove US wrong.

Actually, there is no obligation for anyone to prove anything: you are free to have your beliefs and others are free to have theirs. My only point is that to the extent we even care to make a convincing argument to the non-Christian world regarding the virgin birth, the burden of proof would be on us. Christians do not make up a majority of the world's population, and among non-Christians the idea of virgin birth with a non-human father would certainly seem 'deviant', since no one alive now has likely ever seen such an event.

I guess my more pressing question is why anyone would even care to 'prove' this one way or the other?

BTW, colors, I do not live in a Christian society. Perhaps this is why, as a Christian, I am comfortable discussing some of these issues (though I think debate on this particular issue is rather silly).

I think the burden of proof lies solely on the person who is defying logic. In the case of Christianity it is not enough to say that Jesus was concieved without intercourse as this defies logic, you need to PROVE that it happened, the same goes for the resurrection, people dont just rise from the dead so it is up to those who are claiming it to prove that it happened.

As for Jesus and Mary hopping on the good foot and doing the bad thing, well The Da Vinci Code IS fiction after all however is there a possibility that it COULD have happened, hell yes! That is all the Da Vinci Code is suggesting.

PS: I dont see what so bad about the idea of Christ passing on his seed, does that not mean that there may be someone today that is divine? Wouldn't finding this person whom could perhaps perform mini-miracles only add to the Christian argument?

Darwin: Unfortunately, acceptance of what is logical is in the eye of the beholder. There is no single controlling standard regarding burden of proof. Assumption of the burden of proof is a matter of choice, not obligation. The choice is made based on subjective considerations of the value of entering into a debate, as well as perhaps the value of establishing a desired outcome. If a given participant in a debate is only passively attending to the debate, then that party has de facto chosen not to assume any burden of proof. However, if both parties are sincerely striving to arrive at a well-reasoned and logical endpoint to the debate, then both parties must assume some burden to prove their respective views.

In regards to matters of Christianity, the choice to assume burden is often based on the investment of achieving a desired outcome. If the Christian is comfortable with his beliefs, and cares not whether the atheist is converted; but the atheist is actively interested in moving the Christian away from his beliefs, then the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Conversely, if the interests of the atheist and the Christian are reversed, then it is the Christian who must assume the burden. If each person is comfortable in their respective beliefs, and cares not that the other person believes otherwise, then there is no assumption of burden by either party.

Christians, in their obligation to spread the Word, are inherently forced to assume the burden of proof in cases where non-believers are perfectly comfortable with their own beliefs and have no interest in debating the issue. OTOH, true atheists who are intent on 'converting' Christians away from their beliefs are required to assume the mantle.

he was talking about Jesus and Mary magdalene, not Jesus's virgin birth...

Although it is my understanding that a virgin birth is quite possible. I heard about a condition that allows a woman to impregnate herself. Although even so, the odds of getting a male child(no x chromosome or whichever is the male one) are even worse.

Hi Mastermind--There is a condition called uniparental disomy (uniparental=one parent), in which both chromosomes come from the same parent. This condition ranges in severity from small segments of a single chromosome being uniparental (leading to Prader-Willi syndrome, for example), to the entire chromosomal makeup being uniparental. In the latter case, the resulting product is just a mass of cells, with the occasional hair or tooth embedded in it. When both chromosomes are derived from the mother, it results in a rare form of carcinoma. There is nothing resembling the human form.

But it does prose some interesting questions: Was Jesus the son in the biologic sense? If so, does God also have DNA, half of which was passed on to Jesus? And what would be the purpose of a genetic template in a being who didn't reproduce as such? Or was Jesus the son a metaphorical sense? Did God create a purely biological vessel in which to create the consciousness of His son. If so, did Jesus suffer from the same temptations as humans, based on common physiology? (As I recall, this is the premise of Nikos Kazantzakis 'Last Temptation of Christ'.)

Speaking of genetics, I wonder what would happen if somebody tried to clone Jesus.

They've already tried...well, there was an organization that wanted to clone Jesus, to make a fourth part of the Trinity. It never happened though--thank God (pardon the pun). And we thought cloning dinosaurs would be an abomination!

Darwin_Rocks wrote:I think the burden of proof lies solely on the person who is defying logic.

Darwin, as a former Atheist, I feel inclined to agree...I used to feel the exact same way. A virgin birth does defy logic, but in order to have those opinions, you need to be flexible to other ideas being possible. For example:

I don't see what so bad about the idea of Christ passing on his seed, does that not mean that there may be someone today that is divine?

I agree. It amazes me that Christians are so rickety with their faith that they would let a concept like that (though I don't believe it myself), much less let a watered-down theory like the DaVinci Code scare them.

I believe that Christians have isolated themselves to the point where their comfort zone is so small that it can't handle the growing changes of a secular world. I mean, look how hard it's been to simply tell Christians that Genesis wasn't six literal days!

I encourage everyone to listen to other people's opinions, whether you severely disagree or not...it will only make you stronger. I've studied other cultures, and Lao-Tzu stands out in Taoism by saying.

To remain whole, be twisted!
To become straight, let yourself be bent.
To become full, be hollow.
Be tattered, that you may be renewed.

This approach will help you build a more solid foundation, so that you will approach life's problems easier. Look at Antony Flew, he says there's a lot of solid evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, even though he's not a Christian!

So my fellow Christians, you say that some "scholars" believe that the trial of Jesus didn't happen the way the Gospels wrote it, and they say that based on little evidence to back it up? So what--the magic bullet was only shot into a bucket of water; but the lone-nut buffs keep on rollin'.

The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds.
- John F. Kennedy