God does exist.

[Cris]

Marc,

Hmmmmm. What makes me so sure that God exists?

The existence of numerous independent documents.

But of course I have assumed that intelligence, credibility, and relevance would also be involved in evaluating such things. I need not mention that when addressing intelligent people, especially when these factors are assumed in the definitions of “the principles of reason”.

It is interesting that the bible doesn’t qualify since it is a subset of a much wider set of writings and then heavily edited by a single organization to create what we see now. I.e. those writings that conflicted with what the Church wanted were rejected. So the requirement for ‘Independent’ fails for the bible.

And of course there are zero documents that report on the existence of Jesus at the time he was allegedly alive. That doesn’t prove he didn’t exist only that there is no proof that he did exist.

So where does that leave us for using ‘numerous independent documents’ as proof of a god? Pretty much nowhere since the context was addressing a live human named Shakespeare and god does not qualify.

When attempting to prove historical events we must rely heavily on documentation. The relevance and credibility of the documents is of course always the real target of investigation as I am sure you are aware. Where there are many documents then that lends weight to the argument and if they are from truly independent, reliable and authoritative sources, then again that lends weight.

Gods of course are not historical characters, they are meant to exist in the here and now. Clearly proofs other than historical documents are required. And of course there are no such proofs.

 

[Dark Master]

Firstly Dark

You should not let discussions like this anger you. It suggests poor argumentative skills. We are all here to learn remebere?

My patience grows thin for idiots. Angry...? Nahhhh, more arguments I get into the more I insult the others ideas and its fallacy. Just to get my point across. Can't have fun?

If you compare my first post to my more recent ones, in arguments that is, you will see change.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheists think their beliefs are correct; christians think theirs are; muslims; jews - and the list goes on. Christian doctrine states that all other religions are false in some kind of paraphrase - so it is unavoidable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you are telling me that this statement proves I am speaking for everyone?

Yes, if you can see you are trying too. The better thing to do is say "Most atheists think their beliefs are correct etc." Instead you say, "Atheists think their beliefs are correct etc." It is not a good generalization. Get that straight because i don't like to repeat myself. It is like saying, "Earth is water." Instead, say, "Most of the earth is water."

So your narrow mind thinks that the world consists only of Christians, muslims. and jews?!? I won't even include 'and the list goes on'.

No, stop making stupid inferences again. I think the world consists only of Christians, muslims, and jews??? Wha???? How the hell that get in there?? WTF.

Well you would think that if someone believes something is true they do assume it is correct. Well a smart person would.

So if I believe in the Santa Clause that hops down chimneys he is true and correct? hahaha

Beliefs is generally an opinion in something BELIEVE or ACCEPTED as true idiot. Strong opinion more like it.

That is why some only stand by their beliefs. While others, like you, think it is correct over others and that brings wars etc. You still haven't learned.

The dictionery meaning were pointless btw. Just more of your vapour. Sorry - can't help it.

It was to show you meaning and back up my claims.

No wonder this world is full of idiots that do not learn.

Can't help what? How stupid you are?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh...didn't know what Christianity was about?? Show me. And SHOW me where I "implied that I don't know what Christianity is about."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you go


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more logical Luke through his gospel shows that he is more theological then Mark and Matthew, universalism, everyone can be saved and everyone should live in peace. You saying that God wants you to tell others the right thing is very similiar to self-glorification, that doesn't tell people specifically how people to live in peace?! Again people would misinterpret that, a MISTAKE many do with the Bible, interpretation. Let me ask you this, what is the right thing to you? Everyone being a Christian? That would be arrogance if one was to say that.

Wtf, we went through this already. Do you wish to prove your stupidity yet again?

Wow. That statement illustrates your ignorance where Christianity is concerned.

Show me that "statement" where I lack ignorance on where Christianity is concerned.

Lata Dark. Do better next time. I think you know too much. That's the problem.

Yeah, the problem for you is I think you know too little. Or maybe because you don't have good reason? Or maybe you just don't know how to argue.

 

[Cris]

whatsup,

Try this.

http://members.telocity.com/mcpierce/old/freewill.html

At least make an attempt to understand the issue.

 

[inspector]

"Gods of course are not historical characters, they are meant to exist in the here and now. Clearly proofs other than historical documents are required. And of course there are no such proofs."



Required by whom? You? So, evidence for God must meet YOUR criteria? Most illogical.



No proof?


Once again, to say there is no evidence for God is illogical because it would require you to know and have had seen all evidences, which is impossible.


Historical? Here and now?


Psalm 90:1-2

Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

><>

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

The bible is not a reliable source of documented evidence.
Reasons:
1. Most of it is not eyewittness testimony, its just hearsay.
2. Very little of the bible is supported by other historical documents.
3. Massive internal contradictions. (and before you ask whatsupmuscle, No i will not post the 900 contradictions on skeptics bible so you can ignoe them and say they're false without giving reasons. That would be pointless and stupid)
4. Large parts of it can be scientificly disproven.

The bible is no more historicly valid than the Illiad or any other mythologies.

 

[Cris]

Inspector,

Once again, to say there is no evidence for God is illogical because it would require you to know and have had seen all evidences, which is impossible.

It is generally considered true that it is impossible to prove a negative, at least in this type of context. However, it only takes a single instance to prove a positive. In this case there is no one coming forward to show a positive so we can safely assume that no such proof currently exists.

Bear in mind that a proof of a god would be the most momentous event in the history of the universe. There are many who are shouting claims but no one has offered a credible proof yet.

If I am wrong then please show me such a proof.

The criterion is simple, it should be as clear as the sun in the sky and even a blind man can feel the heat from the sun. After all, the claim is for the most powerful being in existence and the creator of the universe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[whatsupyall]

History is not a reliable source of documented evidence.
Reasons:
1. Most of it is not eyewittness testimony, its just hearsay.
2. Very little of the History is supported by other historical documents, such as muslims winning against christianity at some point of wars, meanwhile europe controls part of middle east. And china's great wall, caliming it was built because of the mongolians, meanwhile mongolians were also at war with pakistan and other arab country.
3. I have answered 2 so-called bible contradcitions so far, then afterwards yopu ignored me. You falsely accuse me of not responding when the fact is I did, and I will look for it and post it here..AND IF YOU THINK THERE IS ANY CONTRADICTION IN THE BIBLE, PLEASE PLEASE, POST JUST ONE, I ASK, JUST ONE, NOT 900, AND STOP RAMBLING, PROVE YOUR CLAIM AND POST IT HERE, IM WAITING...

4. Large parts of God can be scientificly proven till today's miracles and healing, meanwhile an idiot will say there is no proof the french war ever took place, there is no proof for King henry, God or shakespeare, and there is no proof the Israelis ever went to Egypt, etc..

The bible is more historicly valid than the ATHEIST "SUPER LUCK" mythologies. FACT IS MIRACLES TOOK PLACE IN THE BIBLE, AND TODAY IT STILL DOES, HEALINGS, BLEEDING STATUES, EYEWITNESSES, THERE ARE EVEN CONFUSION OF THE DEVIL, SUCH AS UFO ALIEN FOLLOWERS, CULTS, ETC. ARE YOU DENYING THE REALITY OF THESE? LOL

 

[whatsupyall]

Originally posted by Cris
Inspector,

It is generally considered true that it is impossible to prove a negative, at least in this type of context. However, it only takes a single instance to prove a positive. In this case there is no one coming forward to show a positive so we can safely assume that no such proof currently exists.

CRIS, THE BRAINWASHED LOST SHEEP, NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO PROVE SOMETHING NEGATIVELY, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? STUPID..ANY CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE...ONCE AGAIN, ANY CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN BY LACK OF EVIDENCE....

Atheist will say "If God is not fake because u want proof he is, then prove to me tooth fairies/unicorns don’t hover around earth every night".

Smart Christian will say "A claim can b proven fake by lack of evidence. What evidence do u have of tooth fairy? How many eyewitnesses? Millions? If tooth fairies plucked out a teeth, is there any scientific investigation done to it?/ If so can u show it? How many testified? Show me healing, supernatural/miracles documented in the name of tooth fairy. How many died for tooth fairy to verify its value? / Thousands? Is there a Historical location of it? If so, where? Give up? Well tooth fairy because of its lack of evidence is fake. Period...

AND YOU STILL THINK THERE IS NO PROOF OF GOD? WELL THEN, IN THAT CASE KING HENRY, SHAKESPEARE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, NAPOLEON, ETC. ARE ALL MYTHOLOGY..THERE IS NO PROOF OF THEM AS WELL. PERIOD....

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

1. Most of it is not eyewittness testimony, its just hearsay.

Many historical documents ARE based on eyewitness testimony.

2. Very little of the History is supported by other historical documents, such as muslims winning against christianity at some point of wars, meanwhile europe controls part of middle east. And china's great wall, caliming it was built because of the mongolians, meanwhile mongolians were also at war with pakistan and other arab country.

Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is?

3. I have answered 2 so-called bible contradcitions so far, then afterwards yopu ignored me. You falsely accuse me of not responding when the fact is I did, and I will look for it and post it here..AND IF YOU THINK THERE IS ANY CONTRADICTION IN THE BIBLE, PLEASE PLEASE, POST JUST ONE, I ASK, JUST ONE, NOT 900, AND STOP RAMBLING, PROVE YOUR CLAIM AND POST IT HERE, IM WAITING...

Well you answered one of them saying all god killings were justifeied then failed to respond to my point that its kinda difficult to justify killing babies. I think i posted 2 others and im pretty sure you didnt even address them but ill go back and look.

4. Large parts of God can be scientificly proven till today's miracles and healing, meanwhile an idiot will say there is no proof the french war ever took place, there is no proof for King henry, God or shakespeare, and there is no proof the Israelis ever went to Egypt, etc..

Ummm... are you trying to say something here?
I never said there is no proof for the french war (whichever french war that is) or any kings, because those are very well documented.
Information on god is only found in the bible and ive already explained why i dont accept that.

The bible is more historicly valid than the ATHEIST "SUPER LUCK" mythologies.

Well the "ATHEIST SUPER-LUCK MYTHOLOGY" has alot of fossil evidence supporting it.

FACT IS MIRACLES TOOK PLACE IN THE BIBLE, AND TODAY IT STILL DOES, HEALINGS, BLEEDING STATUES, EYEWITNESSES, THERE ARE EVEN CONFUSION OF THE DEVIL, SUCH AS UFO ALIEN FOLLOWERS, CULTS, ETC. ARE YOU DENYING THE REALITY OF THESE? LOL

Pretty much.

May the fnords be with you.

 

[inspector]

"Most of it is not eyewittness testimony, its just hearsay."
--------------------------------------

There is a difference between the two. You know it but won't admit it because acknowledging this fact would invalidate your presuppositions.


"Information on god is only found in the bible and ive already explained why i dont accept that."
--------------------------------------

Not accepting the Bible doesn't make it invalid.


"In this case there is no one coming forward to show a positive so we can safely assume that no such proof currently exists."
--------------------------------------

Many things wrong with this statement. I have given you much evidence regarding the validity of the Bible. However, you must dismiss the evidence and prostitute your intellect in favor of satisfying your presupposition that there is no God. Once again, I do not have proof, only evidence. OTOH, you have no proof AND no evidence.

To assume is subjective, or in this case, opinionated, and subjectivity is simply relativism. Do you believe in logical absolutes? For example, 'X' cannot be both 'X' and NOT 'X' at the same time. Also, what is your position? Do you KNOW there is no God, or do you 'LACK BELIEF' in God?

><>

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

"Most of it is not eyewittness testimony, its just hearsay."
--------------------------------------

There is a difference between the two. You know it but won't admit it because acknowledging this fact would invalidate your presuppositions.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. My point is that hearsay is not as credible as eyewitness, and the bible is hearsay.

 

[inspector]

"My point is that hearsay is not as credible as eyewitness, and the bible is hearsay."
-----------------------------------------------

So you admit that the Bible is somewhat credible then?

BTW, where are your answers to my previous questions regarding logical absolutes? Where is the summary of your beliefs? I am interested.

Regarding evidence for the validity of Christianity, China has the most ancient, unbroken society dating back thousands of years. The ancient Chinese character for "sin" is a tree with a snake in it (Garden of Eden). The ancient character for boat is a boat with eight mouths in it (eight people on Noah's Ark). There are more. Is this not evidence of a single original religion in harmony with Christian teaching? If not, how would you explain this? Also, would your atheism allow you to entertain this evidence as being true?

><>

 

[Cris]

whatsup,

ANY CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE...ONCE AGAIN, ANY CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN BY LACK OF EVIDENCE....

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The proof for the non-existence of a god is considered impossible because we are currently unable to search every corner of the universe to test the claim. This is what is usually meant when we say it is impossible to prove a negative, in this context.

The above two statements are usually considered basic for debates such as this. As an inexperienced debater I suggest you make a note.

Also, you appear unable to comprehend simple syllogisms so I suggest you study some logic before you continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Here is a course covering an introduction to logic, I suggest you read it.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/philosophy.department/modules/introlog/PROP.HTM

Here is another good reference that will help you to understand most of the errors in your debating style.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

 

[MarcAC]

I've had it

Originally posted by Dark Master

"My patience grows thin for idiots. Angry...? Nahhhh, more arguments I get into the more I insult the others ideas and its fallacy. Just to get my point across. Can't have fun?

If you compare my first post to my more recent ones, in arguments that is, you will see change.

Yes, if you can see you are trying too. The better thing to do is say "Most atheists think their beliefs are correct etc." Instead you say, "Atheists think their beliefs are correct etc." It is not a good generalization. Get that straight because i don't like to repeat myself. It is like saying, "Earth is water." Instead, say, "Most of the earth is water."

No, stop making stupid inferences again. I think the world consists only of Christians, muslims, and jews??? Wha???? How the hell that get in there?? WTF.

So if I believe in the Santa Clause that hops down chimneys he is true and correct? hahaha

Beliefs is generally an opinion in something BELIEVE or ACCEPTED as true idiot. Strong opinion more like it.

That is why some only stand by their beliefs. While others, like you, think it is correct over others and that brings wars etc. You still haven't learned.

It was to show you meaning and back up my claims.

No wonder this world is full of idiots that do not learn.

Can't help what? How stupid you are?

Wtf, we went through this already. Do you wish to prove your stupidity yet again?

Show me that "statement" where I lack ignorance on where Christianity is concerned.

Yeah, the problem for you is I think you know too little. Or maybe because you don't have good reason? Or maybe you just don't know how to argue. "

K Dark

I give up... honestly.

Let's clear this up.

I did not say that if someone believes something that means it is correct. I stated that if someone believes something they also believe* it is correct. Don't you agree Dark? Be honest. I actually respect you as a theist.

And the whole paragraph was the statment.

Nothing else is needs addressing.

Lata Dark.

 

[MarcAC]

B Careful with logic

Originally posted by Cris
whatsup,

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The proof for the non-existence of a god is considered impossible because we are currently unable to search every corner of the universe to test the claim. This is what is usually meant when we say it is impossible to prove a negative, in this context.

The above two statements are usually considered basic for debates such as this. As an inexperienced debater I suggest you make a note.

Also, you appear unable to comprehend simple syllogisms so I suggest you study some logic before you continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Here is a course covering an introduction to logic, I suggest you read it.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/philosophy.department/modules/introlog/PROP.HTM

Here is another good reference that will help you to understand most of the errors in your debating style.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Logic made astronomer Tycho Brahe back in the Renaissance conclude that the sun was still at the centre of the universe. Why? Because he couldn't detect stellar parallax. He said there is no way the stars are that far. Look at us now.

Logic made mathematicians assume that a square root other than a rational number was impossible. Because they only knew of 1,2,3,4,...n. and 1/2, 1/3, ..., 1/n. So numbers like the square root of 3 didn't exist. BTW the square root of 3 is 1.732050808.

Logic states that in 4 dimensions you cannot turn a sphere inside out without breaking the surface. In 5 dimensions logic states you can. Same universe. Different dimensions.

Be careful with logic. Open your minds.

 

[MarcAC]

There is Secular Documentation

Originally posted by Cris
Marc,

But of course I have assumed that intelligence, credibility, and relevance would also be involved in evaluating such things. I need not mention that when addressing intelligent people, especially when these factors are assumed in the definitions of “the principles of reason”.

It is interesting that the bible doesn’t qualify since it is a subset of a much wider set of writings and then heavily edited by a single organization to create what we see now. I.e. those writings that conflicted with what the Church wanted were rejected. So the requirement for ‘Independent’ fails for the bible.

And of course there are zero documents that report on the existence of Jesus at the time he was allegedly alive. That doesn’t prove he didn’t exist only that there is no proof that he did exist.

So where does that leave us for using ‘numerous independent documents’ as proof of a god? Pretty much nowhere since the context was addressing a live human named Shakespeare and god does not qualify.

When attempting to prove historical events we must rely heavily on documentation. The relevance and credibility of the documents is of course always the real target of investigation as I am sure you are aware. Where there are many documents then that lends weight to the argument and if they are from truly independent, reliable and authoritative sources, then again that lends weight.

Gods of course are not historical characters, they are meant to exist in the here and now. Clearly proofs other than historical documents are required. And of course there are no such proofs.

A first century historian [crap I don't remeber the name - but check http://www.discovery.com ] And search for Jesus. You might find the info there. And I left out all the gospels and letters of the new testament. What about those? Are they irrelevant?

I agree - this is a never ending debate. Proof exists for people who put their faith in God. I hope you find your proof someday.

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

inspector,

Ya sorry, i didnt have time to cover much.

Do you believe in logical absolutes? For example, 'X' cannot be both 'X' and NOT 'X' at the same time.

Everywhere except in quantum mechanics.

Do you KNOW there is no God, or do you 'LACK BELIEF' in God?

I think its highly unlikely that any god exits and if there is a god im convinced that its not the jeudo-christian-islamic one.

Not accepting the Bible doesn't make it invalid.

I gave my reasons for thinking the bible is invalid and its because those facts make it invalid that i dont accept it.

So you admit that the Bible is somewhat credible then?

I say that bits of it are. A few parts of it can be verified by looking at other sources (cant think of an example now but i know there are some) However just becasue a few events in the bible probaly did happen that dosent mean the whoe thing is correct. I mean we know the trojan war happened but we dont beleive in zeus right?

Regarding evidence for the validity of Christianity, China has the most ancient, unbroken society dating back thousands of years. The ancient Chinese character for "sin" is a tree with a snake in it (Garden of Eden). The ancient character for boat is a boat with eight mouths in it (eight people on Noah's Ark). There are more. Is this not evidence of a single original religion in harmony with Christian teaching? If not, how would you explain this? Also, would your atheism allow you to entertain this evidence as being true?

Religions alway borrow from each other this is a proven fact. There are many examples of christianity borrowing from earlier pagan religions. The similarites you mentioned are interesting but i dont think it really proves anything.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

The historic work on Q gives a very thorough commentary of the early years and the sources for the various Christian claims. The issue arises from a lack of eyewitness accounts of the alleged Jesus, the rampant illiteracy of the times, and the tradition of myth making by many of the storytellers. There was little regard for objective reporting in those times, and rumors and imagination especially anything mystical were wonderful targets for speculation and storytelling.

Q shows the history of the creation of the gospels, the need to have the miracle stories created (can’t have a god that doesn’t perform miracles), and the rumors about a potentially charismatic figure (name unknown) who had probably led a group of philosophers.

The letters of Paul, of course are particular interesting in that they say absolutely nothing of the life of Jesus, and mention no miracles, I believe. The original Greek text never uses the term Jesus (a Hebrew name) but only refers to the Greek name of Christ. Paul’s view of the Christian idea was purely of a spiritual being. The concept of god being born as a man would have been repulsive to him. There is much on this…….

Here is a good reference and summary of Q -
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

Try also the Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty – this explains the Jesus myth.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/jesuspuzzle.htm

Also try the Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S.
http://www.ebtx.com/dead/acharya.htm

I believe I have seen the Discovery channel program you mention. It was certainly not impartial and made many questionable assumptions. But thanks anyway.

 

[Cris]

Marc,

Proof exists for people who put their faith in God.

But is this real proof or just delusions?

How can you tell the difference? Without an objective and independent proof the Christian cannot know.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

The proof for the non-existence of a god is considered impossible because we are currently unable to search every corner of the universe to test the claim. This is what is usually meant when we say it is impossible to prove a negative, in this context.

Then don't say there is no God
As I said in the other thread, He is just not detectable for us, yet (but only for our minds...)...