God is real?

[MarcAC]

It is quite a stretch to assume that the term "MAKE A DOG" was randomly generated

That's because it wasn't.
It's called evolution, look it up on google if you want.
Dee Cee

Well Evolution may explain how dog's arose through what many see as "random" changes. It doesn't explain how the encoding mechanism arose in the first place. Darwin starts with the DNA of some ancient thing which keeps changing.

The whole point of my post is that there is information in the term MAKE A DOG as opposed to a repeated pattern ABC... ABC.... Evolution was not the source of the info - it utilized the info. That source had to be separate and apart from Evolution.

 

[Alpha]

*hisses*

LOL, easy there!

Arrrgh! So what does it matter if they are irrational?! There is no rule saying that one MUST be rational, nor that one MUST be irrational.

Are you serious? They're wrong, their beliefs are untrue, they're irrational. Simple.

Not that I am advocating irrationality -- couldn't be further than that! But people do act irrational, it is an observable phenomenon -- that's my point. And you cannot make anyone to be rational. You cannot demand from people to be rational -- as absurd as this may sound to you.

This much is obvious. But I can point out that they're wrong, and the point is still true, as I have done.

Because she has some irrational fear of foreign languages. It has cost her a lot of bad grades and a lot of money. But no positive approach, no good and sound reason, no evidence persuaded her (so far).

That's not entirely irrational. It has been shown that most people tend to make emotional judgements first, and then attempt to justify them via reason if necessary. You may have been very reasonable, but you weren't appealing to the right emotions or reasoning she was using. I imagine she simply needed a comfortable way to be exposed to english.

You, who have a great mind, time, resources -- you can afford to not count on your faith to survive.

If you're worrying about survival, how can you count on faith? That makes little sense. If I was worried about survival, faith is the last thing I would rely upon. I would work to ensure each aspect of my environment is susceptible to as much of my influence as possible, leaving nothing to faith.

You and I can bask in our comfort -- but not everyone has that, not even remotely.

I've been there, and I never relied on faith.

I need to find you a Kant expert on this one.

You'll find I don't agree with much of Kant's writings. I haven't read Kant myself yet, but I've read of him and his beliefs, and the influence he's had.

How is it corrupt?

The main way is that it lessens the importance given to life, since it gives the promise of an afterlife.

I know a few Christians who are very good and noble people. And they refer to the Bible all the time.

Some people simply are good people, and would be with or without religion. Same with some bad people. But believing in the bible tends to lead to most people having a corrupted sense of ethics.

If anything can be corrupt, then it is what one does with those Biblical stories, how one interprets them. I shudder at Matthew 12:30, but I have also been presented a very noble argument about it once. It is confusing.

Oh?

Of course it's not God.

Hm, you seemed to imply it was.

Similar with God: our brain has this fancy function to feel "oneness" and such -- and we then *interpret* and *abstract* this as "God".

Some interpret it as God, though it depends on the situation. It is not the source of the concept of God though, and does not influence the definition.

Are you saying that "God", "eternal life" and such are objective truths?!

Not exactly. I'm saying the existence of God has an objective truth value, but I didn't specify in those statements whether that truth value was true, false, or incoherent.

What a concession?

To concede; acknowledge defeat, or concede a point in a debate.

The conversation. It's been tedious sometimes, but very pleasant on the whole.

Ah, YW.
//---

Faith may defy logic, but faith is necessary for all (atheists included).

BS.

Some things just have to be accepted without a logical basis.

But not without a reasonable basis.

You either accept that on faith (through necessity) or you just leave the question of whether you exist open.

And what's wrong with that?

Faith drives human advancement. Without it we'd be stagnant.

Non-sequitur. Evidence/support?

Maybe not all faith is rooted in reason, but all reason is inevitably rooted in faith.

Faith is not rooted in reason by definition. Reason is not rooted in faith, as a necessary corollary.

Thus faith has it's place in everyone's existence, providing you believe you exist.

Some truths are self evident, such as that one.

Well Evolution may explain how dog's arose through what many see as "random" changes. It doesn't explain how the encoding mechanism arose in the first place. Darwin starts with the DNA of some ancient thing which keeps changing.

First, "evolution" is not capitalized. Second, it does explain it if you'd care to educate yourself, but I fear you've already been brainwashed. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to refer you to an appropriate source anyway:
www.talkorigins.org

The whole point of my post is that there is information in the term MAKE A DOG as opposed to a repeated pattern ABC... ABC.... Evolution was not the source of the info - it utilized the info. That source had to be separate and apart from Evolution.

There is no information in DNA. Information is something which exists in the mind. It requires an observer to give it meaning, or it's not information. DNA is simply a self replicating chemical. As it replicates, it mutates (has errors), which causes multicelled organisms to change. Changes that are detrimental (which is determined by the environment) tend to die off, while beneficial changes allow more procreation and live on. This effect is called natural selection. Read up on it.

 

[water]

Are you serious? They're wrong, their beliefs are untrue, they're irrational. Simple.

So they have untrue beliefs, they are irrational. Is that a crime? What are you trying to say?

I imagine she simply needed a comfortable way to be exposed to english.

Yes, it would be best if it could be "poured into her head".

If you're worrying about survival, how can you count on faith? That makes little sense. If I was worried about survival, faith is the last thing I would rely upon. I would work to ensure each aspect of my environment is susceptible to as much of my influence as possible, leaving nothing to faith.

You, you, you. Try to walk in someone else's shoes.

To fully act on reason is not a matter of course.
To act on reason, and to trust is reason, that is: to have faith in reason, one must have nough positive experience with its use. This is hard, as reason demands (empirical) evidence to work with, it demands information -- and we all know how hard it is to gather evidence, gain information (since we are limited beings): one must ask questions, investigate, make hypotheses, test them.
I think that it is obvious that if we want to act -- and act we must in order to survive -- we must at some point stop collecting data, and act on the limited amount of date we have gathered. And hope that we haven't missed out too much.
In other words: we must have faith that the data we have collected will ensure us to get what we pursued.

You'll find I don't agree with much of Kant's writings. I haven't read Kant myself yet, but I've read of him and his beliefs, and the influence he's had.

I thought so.

The main way is that it lessens the importance given to life, since it gives the promise of an afterlife.

Unfortunately, yes, this is what the belief of many degenerates into. I remember reading a Mormon article about this life -- the title was "It is a test. Only a test".

To concede; acknowledge defeat, or concede a point in a debate.

I don't feel defeated. To me, the logical-philosophical and the religious discourse are two different discourses that are not to be mixed up. You are taking a completely different position. -- And so we're arguing about the proverbial apples vs. oranges.

 

[Alpha]

So they have untrue beliefs, they are irrational. Is that a crime? What are you trying to say?

I've already said it repeatedly: they're wrong. That's the point.

You, you, you. Try to walk in someone else's shoes.

Are you implying my own are insufficient?

To fully act on reason is not a matter of course.
To act on reason, and to trust is reason, that is: to have faith in reason, one must have nough positive experience with its use. This is hard, as reason demands (empirical) evidence to work with, it demands information -- and we all know how hard it is to gather evidence, gain information (since we are limited beings): one must ask questions, investigate, make hypotheses, test them.

Uh, OK there.

I think that it is obvious that if we want to act -- and act we must in order to survive -- we must at some point stop collecting data, and act on the limited amount of date we have gathered. And hope that we haven't missed out too much.

This is true, thought still doesn't require faith.

In other words: we must have faith that the data we have collected will ensure us to get what we pursued.

Not at all. One not even need hope, necessarily, though surely one would.

I don't feel defeated. To me, the logical-philosophical and the religious discourse are two different discourses that are not to be mixed up. You are taking a completely different position. -- And so we're arguing about the proverbial apples vs. oranges.

It is you who attempted to change the paramaters of the debate/discussion.

 

[water]

Are you implying my own are insufficient?

You are a bit stiff sometimes, yes.

Not at all. One not even need hope, necessarily, though surely one would.

We are not robots.

It is you who attempted to change the paramaters of the debate/discussion.

I didn't know what the parameters of the debate were until I brought them up. The parameters of a debate are often not obvious.

 

[Alpha]

You are a bit stiff sometimes, yes.

And how does that imply that my own experience is insufficient?

We are not robots.

Of course. Depends on the person and the situation. Nevertheless, it makes my point.

 

[water]

And how does that imply that my own experience is insufficient?

I did not say that it is insufficient.
You just think what could be termed "typically manly". I am not saying this to offend you, and indeed, it is more professional to argue the way you do -- but I like it when people get emotional. Not in terms of getting sappy or losing their temper -- just a little warmth and creativity in thought and style.

 

[Sirius83]

A point I saw earlier, and which I believe was not addressed, was this:

"Well then, who created God?" If this is a valid argument against God's existence, then "Who created the Universe" is also a valid argument.

We don't know for sure, how the Universe came into existence. However, we still try to explain it. We may not be able to right now, but we attempt to find out. That is the difference. In the case of God, it is just a matter of accepting that God exists, always has, and has no creator(brrr?). To one such as myself, accepting such a flawed argument is to believe in something I don't. I will, instead, accept that we do not know how the Universe came into existence, but will continue to seek out a viable explanation to its birth.

What I can already say, is that the concept of God always has existed and has no creator, defies logic. It is the same as saying that a giant chicken laid the Universe like an egg, to use a rather poorly made analogy.

I will quicker follow logic than faith. Why should I follow something that does not make sense? I will instead, accept that I do not have an answer to the birth of the Universe, but that at the same time, God as commonly depicted defies logic, and as such is not a viable answer for me.

 

[MarcAC]

What I can already say, is that the concept of God always has existed and has no creator, defies logic. It is the same as saying that a giant chicken laid the Universe like an egg, to use a rather poorly made analogy.

I recently happened upon an analysis of this situation in some literature.

The person defines two types of things that can exist - dependent things and independent things (mutually exclusive categories). If a thing is neither of these it doesn't exist. As you can imagine a dependent thing is a thing that wouldn't exist without the existence of another thing (thus cause and effect). An independent thing is a thing which exists uncaused (basically).

Now if dependent things do exist then there must be at least one independent thing. Right? Cause there is no way everything can be dependent. If that were the case we'd never stop searching for [...the cause of the cause of the cause of...] etc. Infinite number of causes right?

Now imagine you and your friend are about to race at the beginning of an infinitely long road. Halfway along the road is your destination. That means your destination lies 'a half of infinity' units away from you. Now lets say you get to a 'half of infinity' before your friend. Do you win the race? Of course not, cause if your friend was at say 'a third of infinity' it'd be a tie. Because 'a half of infinity' is still infinity which is 'a third of infinity'. Is that logical? Does it make sense?

Dependent things do exist (I'm sure you can produce some examples).
Eventually though you must stop at an independent thing. Our current knowledge indicates two possibilities - God, or the Universe. The Universe is a dependent thing - obviously (because its existence depends upon the dependent things which comprise it). The independent thing may, therefore, appropriately be called God.

I will quicker follow logic than faith. Why should I follow something that does not make sense? I will instead, accept that I do not have an answer to the birth of the Universe, but that at the same time, God as commonly depicted defies logic, and as such is not a viable answer for me.

Even if you follow logic, you inherrently follow faith. Without faith in your mode of reasoning you have no reason any more justifiable than the theist's to accept your logic. Faith is necessary to the human condition - it sustains us and our endeavours.

 

[MarcAC]

What theists like myself do is say 'God did it' (by our interpretation of available evidence of course). Then we try to find out how He did it until our time in this existence is up, and we can, hopefully, have a better understanding of it in the next. In light of the above that makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Sirius83]

No, what i am doing is taking a stance of "I don't know the answer" and trying to find what the answer is, rather than "God is the answer" and trying to justify how that correct. I am working on an open minded basis, as opposed to trying to find how an assumption works out.

The theist way, as I see it, is assuming a certain answer, and trying to be proven right in that assumption. My way of doing it, is to accept that I don't have an answer(thus not assuming anything), and go from there.

As for dependent and independent things, the problem is this. Where does the independent thing come from? How does it come into existence? Nothing could simply arise from zilch. That makes no sense. The other problem, is the Universe does not have to be dependent. The "Universe" encompasses everything, including a void - i.e. nothingness. The Universe does not have to be dependent on anything.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

What theists like myself do is say 'God did it' (by our interpretation of available evidence of course). Then we try to find out how He did it until our time in this existence is up, and we can, hopefully, have a better understanding of it in the next. In light of the above that makes perfect sense to me.

I am glad and sad for you, glad that it makes sense to you, but sad that you think theres a next.
now that is sad, one consolation though, you wont know.

 

[water]

No, what i am doing is taking a stance of "I don't know the answer" and trying to find what the answer is, rather than "God is the answer" and trying to justify how that correct. I am working on an open minded basis, as opposed to trying to find how an assumption works out.

The theist way, as I see it, is assuming a certain answer, and trying to be proven right in that assumption. My way of doing it, is to accept that I don't have an answer(thus not assuming anything), and go from there.

That's a foolish ruse you've got there.

Taking the stance of " "I don't know the answer" and trying to find what the answer is" you will never come to any answer at all -- or only due to a miracle.

What you need to come to an answer is to make a hypothesis and then test it.
This hypothesis is a possible answer, and if you want to come to any true answers, you must first set up some hypotheses and test them.

Saying "My way of doing it, is to accept that I don't have an answer(thus not assuming anything), and go from there." is insisting in a status quo, and calling it "open-mindedness".

 

[Sirius83]

No no, please don't get the wrong idea. In order to have a hypothesis, you need to have a reason for that hypothesis. For me, the hypothesis of God does not work. By admitting to myself that I don't know the answer, I leave open whatever possibilities may come; I have just ruled out God due to my personal reasoning. I do think we may never know the answer, not anytime soon anyway. There's a difference between accepting that and just blindly taking a hypothesis that doesn't have sound reasoning behind it. A hypothesis has reasoning, just no proof. To me, God doesn't have sensible reasoning, and as such is not a hypothesis I would use.

 

[Jenyar]

In other words, you're willing to believe in God as long as it doesn't require faith. It has to be on your terms, limited to your abilities.

I do think we may never know the answer, not anytime soon anyway. There's a difference between accepting that and just blindly taking a hypothesis that doesn't have sound reasoning behind it. A hypothesis has reasoning, just no proof. To me, God doesn't have sensible reasoning, and as such is not a hypothesis I would use.

We got the answer two thousands years ago. Why are you still waiting? Jesus didn't bring reasoning or brilliant hypotheses - He told us what we needed to know, and did what needed to be done.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.​

 

[Sirius83]

I am willing to believe in God if it can be proved with reason. I have yet to see that. It does have to make sense to me, indeed. If it doesn't, then I am not believing it with my all.

Jesus didn't bring reasoning or brilliant hypotheses - He told us what we needed to know, and did what needed to be done.

You said it yourself. He didn't bring reasoning or hypothesis. I will even suggest that Jesus was no more than an influential figure in history, and not anything to do with the existence of a real "God". But I digress. Without said reasoning or hypothesis, I have no reason to believe. That is why I am still waiting. What Jesus said and did thousands of years ago...has no real proof.

 

[SVRP]

The historical event of the resurrection of Jesus is proof of God’s existence. A reasonable mind can examine the evidence regarding the resurrection through an honest investigation and come to the same conclusion.

Professor Thomas Arnold, fourteen years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God [has] given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

 

[Godless]

The historical event of the resurrection of Jesus is proof of God’s existence

ASSUMPTION!! There's no evidence that a entity called "Jesus" even existed, let alone rise from death!.

Professor Thomas Arnold,

IS FULL OF SHIET!! He was not present to see the aclaimed resurection!!.

Ready to learn read this:

Leave No Stone Unturned
An Easter Challenge For Christians

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.

One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.

This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:
What time did the women visit the tomb?

* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

* Mark: No (16:13)
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

* Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Oh!!! Yea!! I forgot those bible verses quoted by Dan Barker " loosing faith in faith" must of been (out of context) riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggghhhhhtttttttttttttt!!!!!

Godless.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Godless,

ASSUMPTION!! There's no evidence that a entity called "Jesus" even existed, let alone rise from death!.

Why don't you just chill out a bit......you know........take some deep breaths, try and have a conversation. :m:

Yeah....that's better.

Jan Ardena.

 

[water]

No no, please don't get the wrong idea. In order to have a hypothesis, you need to have a reason for that hypothesis.

Yes, certainly, there must be a reason for making a hypothesis.
Now ask yourself about what exactly are you trying to make a hypothesis in this case -- about the meaning of life.

I do not know how a mortal, aware of his mortality, is supposed to know, for sure, with evidence and proof, what the meaning of life is.

For me, the hypothesis of God does not work. By admitting to myself that I don't know the answer, I leave open whatever possibilities may come; I have just ruled out God due to my personal reasoning. I do think we may never know the answer, not anytime soon anyway. There's a difference between accepting that and just blindly taking a hypothesis that doesn't have sound reasoning behind it. A hypothesis has reasoning, just no proof. To me, God doesn't have sensible reasoning, and as such is not a hypothesis I would use.
/.../
I am willing to believe in God if it can be proved with reason. I have yet to see that. It does have to make sense to me, indeed. If it doesn't, then I am not believing it with my all.

When you fall in love -- how much reason do you employ into believing that you are in love? How much reason do you employ into collecting evidence and proof that your parents and your friends love you?

Reason is not all there is to us.

If we rely only on reason, we become robots.

Without said reasoning or hypothesis, I have no reason to believe. That is why I am still waiting.

Such a stance is like the one in Beckett's "Waiting for Godot": you will wait for ever.

What Jesus said and did thousands of years ago...has no real proof.

What would be real proof? Videotapes?
I don't mean to jest -- but approaching religion with logical reason as the only acceptable basis for thought will necessarily render religion irrational.

So, if reason is all you want from life -- go ahead. But then I am surprised that you should be *waiting* that you get some data that may prove that your position of reason is not the only one. If reason is your only position, then reason is all you'll ever get.

But do ask yourself: Isn't that snowflake just beautiful? Don't those flowers smell ever so preciously? -- And you wish to analyze this beauty with reason -- and you think this analysis will satisfy you?! Does it satisfy you?