Do you believe in God?

[Villain]

SuperCobraJet, as a Christian, how do you deal with the Bible's contradictions?

 

[Bobalob]

I like the bible. I enjoyed its stories as a child. I could possibly even live my life by it(edit: not dashing infants on rocks and whatnot however), but I could never consider it the word of a perfect being who created the universe.

 

[Atomics]

The belief in spirits is the same as the belief in the tooth fairy,

This claim about spirits is a simple philosophical assumption, not substantiated by scientific data. There is at least some evidence provided through the observations of medical professionals in documented cases of near death experiences that suggest you could be wrong, though you expressed your desire to unscientifically dismiss that data. I say "unscientifically" because you can't provide any evidence to support your claim that spirits don't exist. Is it more rational and "scientific" to say that spirits could exist, than to claim that they absolutely don't.

but unfortunately the soul has been given an unfair boost in creditability because it has been around long enough that people don't remember who made up the idea or when. So in the minds of many, it's not some baseless fantasy but a long standing idea. That couldn't be anymore wrong.

You cannot cite any scientific studies or data to support most of the above assumptions. I'm not trying to persuasively argue that you are wrong. I'm only pointing out that you have no scientific data to support the above claims. What you said is a very legitimate opinion, however.

Again, comfort from what? The afterlife is harmless. I don't see why someone would be in denial over that. Even gods aren't so bad when they're not cruel or crazy like in mainstream religions. I'm not in denial, I'm just trying not to be gullible.

I disagree. You seem quite gullible to me. Again, evidence please.

What kind of petty god sends people to hell for not believing in him or following rather stupid rules?

Thankfully, the God I believe in doesn't do that. Out of curiosity, which rules don't you like. Perhaps it is the one that says "love one another". Perhaps you disagree with "do to others as you would have them do to you", or "love your neighbor". These principles for living are the central one for Christian living. Sure religions have been twisted and stereotyped, but non-religious ideas like Marxism and evolution-based superman theories have been responsible for far more atrocities that religion in the last 200 years.

Also, I don't have to hope. It's pretty clear that an afterlife and a god are not the same thing. You can have one without the other. Or you can have neither, which is what current evidence points to.

Please describe the scientific findings providing the "current evidence" you are referring to.

My point is not to argue for or against the claims you made above. My point is that you are claiming to have evidence while asserting that others have none, yet you are not making claims established by any scientific study or tangible data. There is at least some data that suggest that you could be wrong. Anecdotal evidence and testimonies are evidence, even if you don't place any stock in that evidence due to your philosophical assumptions.

I'm a scientist by profession. If you look at the conclusions of science on a lot of topics, you'll find that there are assumptions made and many conclusions are only based on statistical significance. Many things commonly discussed as scientific fact are just the prevailing theory. Just a few years ago the universe was said to be expanding slower and slower. Very recently evidence was found that caused this scientific truth to be abandoned. Theories frequently change, sometimes in revolutionary ways. If you don't like believing in things invisible bone up on dark energy and dark matter. Read a little about string and super string theories. Check out wikipedia on tachyns, or the debate about whether the universe is flat or not. Yep, there are scientists who say the universe is flat. Not like the earth was once said to be flat, but flat nonetheless. Science provides a whirlwind of changing claims. If you don't see it, you may not be old enough or may not have noticed that many scientific theories come and go and are constantly revised.

 

[Exorcet]

This claim about spirits is a simple philosophical assumption, not substantiated by scientific data. There is at least some evidence provided through the observations of medical professionals in documented cases of near death experiences that suggest you could be wrong, though you expressed your desire to unscientifically dismiss that data. I say "unscientifically" because you can't provide any evidence to support your claim that spirits don't exist. Is it more rational and "scientific" to say that spirits could exist, than to claim that they absolutely don't.

What evidence is there that suggests I could be wrong? What NDE has ever suggested the possibility of the afterlife?

I also didn't really dismiss anything. As I said in the post before that one

There is zero evidence for the afterlife.

That's my stance.

You cannot cite any scientific studies or data to support most of the above assumptions. I'm not trying to persuasively argue that you are wrong. I'm only pointing out that you have no scientific data to support the above claims. What you said is a very legitimate opinion, however.

Yes, it was an opinion and wasn't meant to be anything other than that.

I disagree. You seem quite gullible to me. Again, evidence please.

Evidence for what? A cruel god in religions? I'd point to religions themselves.

Thankfully, the God I believe in doesn't do that. Out of curiosity, which rules don't you like. Perhaps it is the one that says "love one another". Perhaps you disagree with "do to others as you would have them do to you", or "love your neighbor". These principles for living are the central one for Christian living. Sure religions have been twisted and stereotyped, but non-religious ideas like Marxism and evolution-based superman theories have been responsible for far more atrocities that religion in the last 200 years.

The rules I don't like are the stupid ones. Rest on Sunday, don't eat pork, don't be gay, have faith, etc. None of them are helpful. The "good rules" don't require religion in the first place and as a result religions can't really claim them solely.

Atrocities are probably easy to trigger when you have people ignoring common sense. Theories don't promote this way of thinking, but when you are conditioned into believing things automatically, things can turn out poorly.

Please describe the scientific findings providing the "current evidence" you are referring to.

There is no evidence for the after life, and pretty much everything that is presented as evidence can be explained as NDE's were in this thread (and this wasn't the first time).

Anecdotal evidence and testimonies are evidence

They're not. They're nothing more than what you just called them. You say you're a scientist. Then you should know how to conduct an experiment. You don't just go with the first explanation that pops into your mind. 10,000 people could see a UFO in the sky. It wouldn't be evidence for UFO's, especially if what they were seeing was a spot light from the next town over.

many scientific theories come and go and are constantly revised.

This is basic knowledge. I'll add though, that it's evidence driven. Unlike religion.

EDIT

I'll also add that while things change, they very rarely are completely discarded. Early aerodynamic theory centered on potential flow, which couldn't even explain where drag came from. Yet to this day, it's still used in aerodynamics because it's essentially correct.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Though she's ten months old now. So corrupt.

Fret not, it usually begins to emerge around the age of 2 yrs.

I doubt seriously, that at ten months old she has commited any sins.

BTW Famine, a real test and learning for you, is just beginning.

Yes it is.

See above.
Your about to find out that it isn't.

"Science" is just "knowledge". If you're claiming that not all knowledge is knowledge, you're going to have a problem.]

I'm claiming that scientific knowledge is one form of knowledge.
It's not necessarily all knowing and complete, or even correct at times.
It is a process of knowledge confined to one dimension.
Hence it can only provide from that perspective only.

If you're referring to the scientific method, then yes it is infallible - it's the only tool able to describe the entirety of reality and is tested time and time again.

You know as well as I do the historical record is full of evidence to the contrary.
And some of those tests fail.
Scientist don't even agree with one another on many issues.
They do a pretty good job within the limitations they're subject to.
But science is not infallible by a long shot.

All things that can be observed (meaning "detected") and all knowledge gained to date.

"Physically detected"
Spirituality is another matter.

There are many things the scientific method cannot describe.

Thats for sure.

They are things that cannot ever be known,

Knowing the God of the Bible is not one of them.

There is the same weight of evidence for your particular branch of "spirituality" as there is every other branch, for your religion as there is for all others. None.

That depends completely on what you consider evidence.

Do you believe in Allah, Vishnu, Thor and Set too? There's no evidence of unicorns, Thetans, fairies and Spiderman either - do you believe in all of these things too?

If not, why not?

No not necessarily.
Why not? Because I have no compelling reason to, and I do not see where they have anything to offer, that fits the bill.

Taking that to be reality for a second (which, let's face it, it isn't - but let's go with it)...

The book you're quoting was written by a guy - you know, a fallible, corrupted, sinful guy. How faithful was his transcription of the Holy dictation to him?

For that matter, the individual book was only included in the overall book at the decision of a completely different guy a few hundred years later - - you know, a fallible, corrupted, sinful guy. How faithful was his anthology of the books to how God wanted it?

Then of course, some guys changed the language it was written in - you know, some fallible, corrupted, sinful guys. How faithful was their translation? Some other people disagree with their translation and made their own. Which is right?


If you're quoting God, you should probably make sure you're doing so, rather than quoting some guy who quoted some guy who quoted some guy who said he was quoting God in a different language.

Sort of, but not exactly.
Some guys penned it and organized it, and translated it.
But God claims he authored it.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Amplified Bible (AMP)

20 [Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving).

21 For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so—it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.


2 Timothy 3:16

Amplified Bible (AMP)

16 Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),


Now as you say, lets go with it.
If God is who he says he is and has done what he says he's done, I don't see where, working through man to author, organize, and translate a book he would like to publish, is a unsurmountable feat for him.

Incidentally, using evidence there's around a 2% annual chance of a car accident happening to me - and a 0% chance of God existing. Probabilities are also evidence.

Using evidence, there is a calculated annual chance of appox. 2% for a general demographic of which you are part of, along with millions of others.
That is a remote possibility, or improbability.
However as stated earlier, there is absolutely no evidence to attribute to you individually or personally for such an event.

There is likewise no such thing as 0% chance for the exsistence of God or even the things you mentioned above.

Just a little evidence for thought:
Just as God said he would, about 3000 yrs. prior, he sent his son to the nation of Israel. The man called Jesus of Nazereth, claimed his identity, and was crucified for it, also just as God predicted.

He also predicted that he would scatter the Nation of Israel among the other Nations and gather them back together into their original land to become a Nation again. After almost 2000yrs. this became a reality in 1967.
As far as I know, this has never happened in the history of the world.

 

[Touring Mars]

But science is not infallible by a long shot.

He said the scientific method is infallible, not science. The scientific method makes it impossible for errors and incorrect theories to persist.

 

[Tired Tyres]

You know as well as I do the historical record is full of evidence to the contrary.
And some of those tests fail.
Scientist don't even agree with one another on many issues.
They do a pretty good job within the limitations they're subject to.
But science is not infallible by a long shot.

Deliberately misinterpreting what Famine wrote?

He said the METHOD was infallible, not the interpretation of different scientists.

Additionally, it is good that scientists disagree. Only by doing this can assumptions be challenged in a practicable, testable and above all, repeatable method.

Sort of, but not exactly.
Some guys penned it and organized it, and translated it.
But God claims he authored it.

2 Peter 1:20-21

Amplified Bible (AMP)

20 [Yet] first [you must] understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving).

21 For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so—it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit.


2 Timothy 3:16

Amplified Bible (AMP)

16 Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),


Now as you say, lets go with it.
If God is who he says he is and has done what he says he's done, I don't see where, working through man to author, organize, and translate a book he would like to publish, is a unsurmountable feat for him.

Man wrote the book. Man can claim anything they like about what God said, because it is Man that actually says it. This cannot be accepted in any sense of the word as evidence of anything other than the ability of Man to wrote things down.

 

[Exorcet]

"Physically detected"
Spirituality is another matter.

The scientific method is perfectly equipped to detect spiritual anything. It hasn't detected it most likely because of one of two reasons:

1. It can't be detected, which means you've never detected either
2. It doesn't exist

 

[Quackjack]

There is no evidence for the after life, and pretty much everything that is presented as evidence can be explained as NDE's were in this thread (and this wasn't the first time).

Oh really Mr. Expert Man? So your saying your assumptions automaticly trumps every single scientist, lawyer and the like who has agreed with the solid, objective evidence? Tell me, how much study have you done in this subject? I myself am an Atheist but I cannot deny the evidence I see in front of me. I don't need an afterlife to be happy, nor do I think it should affect anyones life in the least, but I take everything with a grain of salt. So I must say

 

[Exorcet]

Oh really Mr. Expert Man? So your saying your assumptions automaticly trumps every single scientist, lawyer and the like who has agreed with the solid, objective evidence? Tell me, how much study have you done in this subject? I myself am an Atheist but I cannot deny the evidence I see in front of me. I don't need an afterlife to be happy, nor do I think it should affect anyones life in the least, but I take everything with a grain of salt. So I must say

OK post it. It's easy to change my mind, all I need is proof. If there are that many scientists (don't know why lawyers are important, but go ahead and post their stuff too) supporting the idea, papers on this should be abundant.

 

[Quackjack]

Here's a decent list

http://hauntedtavern.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=other&action=print&thread=1877

 

[niky]

Humor us, Spiderman. Where is your solid objective evidence?

Fret not, it usually begins to emerge around the age of 2 yrs.

Children cannot and do not develop a sense of right and wrong until they're around four or five, and don't develop an emphatic understanding of ethics (and therefore the knowledge of good and evil) until long after.

A two year old doesn't even understand cause and effect properly.

 

[Touring Mars]

Here's a decent list

http://hauntedtavern.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=other&action=print&thread=1877

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong" - Carl Sagan

 

[Quackjack]

Humor us, Spiderman. Where is your solid objective evidence?



Children cannot and do not develop a sense of right and wrong until they're around four or five, and don't develop an emphatic understanding of ethics (and therefore the knowledge of good and evil) until long after.

A two year old doesn't even understand cause and effect properly.

Ah yes, the good old close-minded.

Here, you want some? Doubt you have an open-mind to this sort of thing however.

http://near-death.com/evidence.html

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong" - Carl Sagan

He asked, not you.


Well since half this thread is the blind-religous and the other half "I'm smarter than you hahaha" skeptics, I think I'll be going now. Have fun

 

[Touring Mars]

He asked, not you.

And so I'm not allowed to comment?? Sorry, but that is not how it works.

If you don't want to be part of a public discussion, don't make posts on an internet forum.

Just for that, here's the original quote in context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cak5AEbTQc#t=1m20s

Well since half this thread is the blind-religous and the other half "I'm smarter than you hahaha" skeptics, I think I'll be going now. Have fun

Bye then.

 

[Exorcet]

Here's a decent list

http://hauntedtavern.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=other&action=print&thread=1877

This is a pointless list. I don't care who believed in what. I want evidence. A peer reviewed paper documenting evidence for the afterlife is a start.

If there are that many scientists (don't know why lawyers are important, but go ahead and post their stuff too) supporting the idea, papers on this should be abundant.

 

[Scaff]

Here's a decent list

http://hauntedtavern.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=other&action=print&thread=1877

A list that contains this:

"THOMAS EDISON, one of the greatest scientists of all times, inventor of the phonograph and the first electric light bulb, accepted the afterlife (life after death)- accurately predicted communicating with the afterlife using electronic equipment."

Is enough to raise doubts, because Edison may have held the patents on the Phonograph and the electric light bulb, but he most certainly wasn't the originator of either (or quite a few other things - http://jawadonweb.com/?page_id=900).

That it says that he "accurately predicted communicating with the afterlife using electronic equipment" is even more interesting, as I would love to see the peer reviewed results of these experiments.

Ah yes, the good old close-minded.

Here, you want some? Doubt you have an open-mind to this sort of thing however.

http://near-death.com/evidence.html

Near death experiences and out of body experiences are not proof of an afterlife as has already been discussed here and links provided that cover the scientific basis and research behind them, that they exist is not really an issue, what they do not constitute is proof of an afterlife.

We know that spaghetti exists, doesn't prove that the Flying Spaghetti monster exists


And drop the attitude and attacks on other members right now, as failing to do so will see your membership here be a very short one.

 

[Famine]

Fret not, it usually begins to emerge around the age of 2 yrs.

I doubt seriously, that at ten months old she has commited any sins.

Then you have just defined her as not human, by your terms.

Does this mean that, in the eyes of your God, one can kill someone under 2 without penalty?

BTW Famine, a real test and learning for you, is just beginning.

The other one's eleven. I'm wondering how corrupt she is also.

I'm claiming that scientific knowledge is one form of knowledge.

What an extraordinary claim. You know the word "science" literally means "knowledge" right?

So where's your extraordinary evidence?

It's not necessarily all knowing and complete, or even correct at times.
It is a process of knowledge confined to one dimension.
Hence it can only provide from that perspective only.

There is no evidence that science is confined to anything.

You know as well as I do the historical record is full of evidence to the contrary.
And some of those tests fail.
Scientist don't even agree with one another on many issues.
They do a pretty good job within the limitations they're subject to.
But science is not infallible by a long shot.

I quite clearly said "the scientific method". Since it's the only mechanism we have for understanding the entirety of existence and is not only 100% successful in doing so thus far but also rigourously tested itself throughout the entire of human history with a 100% success rate, it's the closest thing in existence to infallible.

Of course, you'll claim that it's limited to existence. Which is a fun way of accidentally claiming God doesn't exist.

"Physically detected"
Spirituality is another matter.

And the evidence for this is where?

The scientific method is perfectly equipped to detect spiritual anything. It hasn't detected it most likely because of one of two reasons:

1. It can't be detected, which means you've never detected either
2. It doesn't exist

Thats for sure.

Knowing the God of the Bible is not one of them.

That falls under one of the three categories - that which cannot ever be known, that which does not exist and that which cannot be falsified.

That depends completely on what you consider evidence.

Actually, it doesn't. One of the truly great things about the scientific method is its objectivity - and the objectivity of evidence.

There is zero evidence for the existence of any deity or supernatural entity.

No not necessarily.
Why not? Because I have no compelling reason to, and I do not see where they have anything to offer, that fits the bill.

I note you lovingly abandon objectivity there.

Allah and Yahweh offer exactly the same to you as God. Only one requires you to know Arabic and the other Hebrew. I think we can guess why you think the one you think needs you to know English gives you more.

Not that having anything to offer is evidence or objective, of course.

Sort of, but not exactly.
Some guys penned it and organized it, and translated it.
But God claims he authored it.

The guys who penned, organised and translated it say that.

Now as you say, lets go with it.
If God is who he says he is and has done what he says he's done, I don't see where, working through man to author, organize, and translate a book he would like to publish, is a unsurmountable feat for him.

Luckily it's easy to refute, even for you.

Read an alternate "version" of the Bible. Why are they different? How are both the same word of an infallible entity and not the fallible people who wrote/translated/anthologised it? Learn Greek and read an older "version" of the Bible. Why are they different? How are both the same word of an infallible entity and not the fallible people who wrote/translated/anthologised it? Learn Hebrew and Sanskrit and read an even older "version". Read one of the books cut from the Bible that also claims to be God's word. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Using evidence, there is a calculated annual chance of appox. 2% for a general demographic of which you are part of, along with millions of others.
That is a remote possibility, or improbability.
However as stated earlier, there is absolutely no evidence to attribute to you individually or personally for such an event.

The probability of an event occurring requires two things. An instance of the event occurring and the commonality of that event. Both of these are evidence.

There is likewise no such thing as 0% chance for the exsistence of God or even the things you mentioned above.

The commonality of God providing evidence he exists is zero. The instances of these events occurring are zero. The probability of God existing, with all available evidence, is zero.

Just a little evidence for thought:
Just as God said he would, about 3000 yrs. prior, he sent his son to the nation of Israel. The man called Jesus of Nazereth, claimed his identity, and was crucified for it, also just as God predicted.

He also predicted that he would scatter the Nation of Israel among the other Nations and gather them back together into their original land to become a Nation again. After almost 2000yrs. this became a reality in 1967.
As far as I know, this has never happened in the history of the world.

Nice effort.

Pity we only have fallible man's word for all of the first part. For the second part we've got religion and World War 2 to thank. Also, 1948.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

SuperCobraJet, as a Christian, how do you deal with the Bible's contradictions?

What contradictions are you referring too.

Famine and others have already clearly pointed out exactly what the issues with your stand on evidence are and why you are wrong. I however doubt that will stop you moving the goalposts to suit your own ends.

They're not my issues of evidence, they are yours.
The goal posts are still right where you left them.
If I am wrong, you need to prove it and show me some real evidence of why you buy insurance, that implicates you individually or personally.
I have clearly shown, where you have acted to protect yourself on a mear possibility, not evidence.
The question now is, why you would not consider the same latitude with respect to the possibility existence of God, and likewise all the possible ramifications?

Oh and I'm not agnostic so please do not address me as such.

I beg your pardon, but I believed I had evidence to support that projection.
Nevertheless, what do you consider yourself?

Nor am I of the opinion that scientific if infallible, quite the opposite the cornerstone of scientific theory and evidence is to test it to destruction, to try and prove it wrong (Falsifiability), something that all your, constantly changing, standards of evidence lack.

Again, I've just clearly shown that your standard of evidence doesn't necessarily match your actions.
So I don't see how that implicates me as having two standards.

I didn't say that people were cars, I was pointing out that bodies (I didn't say human) once alive and now long dead have returned a large amount of energy back to the universe to fuel your car.

I can agree with that, but only as referring to "other than creatures".

No he didn't, a range of human's who claim God told them a bunch of stuff wrote it down and its then been bastardised to suit the needs and whims of those in control of Christianity for the last 2,000 odd years.

See reply to Famine.

If you wish to claim otherwise would you explain why God suddenly decided that the book of Barnabus needed to go? Oh and who did he tell to remove it and why? If its his perfect word then why has it been edited?

For the same reason any other book is, I suspect.

No I did not, I said

"I will take my own morality and the need to be accountable for my own actions right here and now over those imposed by an unproved being and a desire to live in the clouds with him/her. No comfort blanket exists if I have to be accountable for all my actions, a bloody big one exists if I can rationalise it into 'going to' heaven if I make God happy.". That's the full quote not the paraphrased one you keep using because the point about being responsible to myself rather than a supernatural being is key to it - which I suspect is why you didn't bother with it.?

Suit yourself.

To which you replied:

"Certainly a noble stance.
Eternally speaking however you will fall far short of the mark."

So at no point did I compare my morals to yours, however I do see you doing just that, and I still would like an answer to the question I posed on this.

Now you claim that this is God's determination of me, but how do you know this is God's determination on me? The only way would be if God is communicating this directly to you and he was able to judge me directly and communicate that to you. That would be a little tricky however given that God doesn't exist.

Either its your judgement on my morals (in which case its rather presumptuous and something you are certainly in no position to pass judgement on) or God is talking to you about me. Which would it be?

Neither one.
The source of communication is to me, the same, as for everyone else.
I'm just passing it on:

Romans 3

10 As it is written, None is righteous, just and truthful and upright and conscientious, no, not one.

11 No one understands [no one intelligently discerns or comprehends]; no one seeks out God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have gone wrong and have become unprofitable and worthless; no one does right, not even one!


20 For no person will be justified (made righteous, acquitted, and judged acceptable) in His sight by observing the works prescribed by the Law. For [the real function of] the Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin [[a]not mere perception, but an acquaintance with sin which works toward repentance, faith, and holy character].

21 But now the righteousness of God has been revealed independently and altogether apart from the Law, although actually it is attested by the Law and the Prophets,

22 Namely, the righteousness of God which comes by believing with personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ (the Messiah). [And it is meant] for all who believe. For there is no distinction,

23 Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory which God bestows and receives.

24 [All] are justified and made upright and in right standing with God, freely and gratuitously by His grace (His unmerited favor and mercy), through the redemption which is [provided] in Christ Jesus,


If as you say, God does not exist, I am curious why you are concerned about this.
The comfort blanket then is obviously in your own believe concept of self justification.
Are there any other sources of standard for your stance on this?

 

[Scaff]

They're not my issues of evidence, they are yours.
The goal posts are still right where you left them.
If I am wrong, you need to prove it and show me some real evidence of why you buy insurance, that implicates you individually or personally.
I have clearly shown, where you have acted to protect yourself on a mear possibility, not evidence.
The question now is, why you would not consider the same latitude with respect to the possibility existence of God, and likewise all the possible ramifications?

Ah I see your not bothering to reply to Famine as he has already clearly answered this point, so I will simply quote him:

The probability of an event occurring requires two things. An instance of the event occurring and the commonality of that event. Both of these are evidence.

The commonality of God providing evidence he exists is zero. The instances of these events occurring are zero. The probability of God existing, with all available evidence, is zero.

Oh course this exact point has already been raised by myself and others, you simply ignore it and repeat the same line over and over again.

You insure against event that have a history of occurring, and therefore have evidence of the probability of them occurring to you. No evidence of God occurring has been presented.

Now you can easily defeat all of us on this point by providing evidence (to a scientific standard) that God exists.

I beg your pardon, but I believed I had evidence to support that projection.

Which is rather illustrative of the issue with your standard of evidence.

Nevertheless, what do you consider yourself?

Atheist

Again, I've just clearly shown that your standard of evidence doesn't necessarily match your actions.
So I don't see how that implicates me as having two standards.

No you haven't because you are working on the assumption that God exists (scientific evidence for the existence of insurable events exists, none does for God).

I can agree with that, but only as referring to "other than creatures".

What "other than creatures"? Do you not accept how crude oil originated?

For the same reason any other book is, I suspect.

Well the main reasons books get edited is to remove inaccuracies and refine clarity.

If God was indeed the author and he failed first time in these points then how can he be infallible?

Suit yourself.

With regard to being quoted correctly and it context I will do.

Neither one.
The source of communication is to me, the same, as for everyone else.
I'm just passing it on:

No your working with a version that has been subject to multiple translations and re-writes and your interpretation of what it says and a massive set of assumptions about me as an individual.

You are in no position to pass judgement on my moral standpoint with no real knowledge of me and using a reference paper who's author you can't prove and you have acknowledge (as its been edited) has required clarification over the years.

So its either your interpreted view of my morals (based on partial data as you don't know me) or you have a direct line to God. Argue all you like your either talking to God or talking for him (which would seem a tad presumptuous).

 

[Public'sTwin]

SuperCobraJet, as a Christian, how do you deal with the Bible's contradictions?

Faith.

 

[Villain]

What contradictions are you referring too.

You're going to make me dig them up for you?

Fine...

Deuteronomy 21:10-11:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Female slave-wives won in war? That's okay with you?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Female slave-wife won in rape? Well, at least he had to buy her from her father...

Genesis 29:17-28:
26 Laban replied, "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. 27 Finish this daughter's bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work." 28 And Jacob did so. He finished the week with Leah, and then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife.

Takes the term "sister-wives" quite literally, doesn't it? Only cost him 7 years of work...

Deuteronomy 23:
1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
2 No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.

I thought all you had to do was believe in God and take Him as your Lord and Saviour and you got into heaven? It says there that even if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents had a forbidden marriage then you cannot enter heaven.


=======

I can keep going, but I think you get the idea. Is this the infallible word of the Lord? Do you follow these rules to a T?

 

[Exorcet]

They're not my issues of evidence, they are yours.
The goal posts are still right where you left them.
If I am wrong, you need to prove it and show me some real evidence of why you buy insurance, that implicates you individually or personally.
I have clearly shown, where you have acted to protect yourself on a mear possibility, not evidence.
The question now is, why you would not consider the same latitude with respect to the possibility existence of God, and likewise all the possible ramifications?

This has become ridiculous. Go read a probability book and stop trying to make things up. Or at least read what Famine said.

A non zero probability is direct evidence that an event can occur. Zero probability means it can't. Car accident is the former, burning in hell so far is the latter. And then even if the latter case had a non zero probability, it is directly contradicted by every other religion known and unknown. Let's say the people on planet Q believe Q-god, and that anyone who does not believe in him goes to Q-hell. Or even better, there is a god called the ironic god. He only spares you from hell if you're an atheist. Such a being is as real as God is. Becoming a christian won't improve my chances so I might as well stay where I am.

If this excuse for logic that you keep bringing up is something you follow then I must ask if you have insurance, after all you don't think there is any evidence that anything bad can happen to you since you just ignore all the evidence. And if instead you go by the other non sense logic that rewards taking precautions against things that may not exist, I hope you would have alien abduction insurance, Zeus insurance, and insurance against being pranked by Santa Clause on February 32nd.

 

[XoravaX]

I thought all you had to do was believe in God and take Him as your Lord and Saviour and you got into heaven? It says there that even if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents had a forbidden marriage then you cannot enter heaven.

You missed the point of Christianity existing as a separate religion. Judaism is the religion which bases itself on the Old Testament (and yes, it doesn't have afterlife, or that no-one is eligible for it), while Christianity is (mostly) based on the New Testament. The early Christians in the 1st to 3rd centuries already decided (against a so-called Judaist-Christian minority) that Christianity is separate from Judaism and Christians don't (or don't have to) follow the teachings of Judaism (ie. the Old Testament), which was later approved by the councils.
If it didn't happen, Christianity would still be just a Judaic sect.

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

"The law and the prophets" refer to the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Prophets, the Bible's two first collections, or Pentateuch and History in the Old Testament by their Christian names.

Therefore, the Old Testament is invalid as a source of the teachings of Christianity; a Christian can decide to follow the OT teachings too though.

However, there are contradictions in the New Testament too.

A non zero probability is direct evidence that an event can occur. Zero probability means it can't.

I wouldn't have said that if I wanted to disprove God's existence.
Though, that works brilliantly for saying that there is a fifty-fifty chance for the existence of any supernatural being (god) that can't get any scientific evidence, neither for nor against.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

What contradictions are you referring too.

Here you go.

 

[Scaff]

You missed the point of Christianity existing as a separate religion. Judaism is the religion which bases itself on the Old Testament (and yes, it doesn't have afterlife, or that no-one is eligible for it), while Christianity is (mostly) based on the New Testament. The early Christians in the 1st to 3rd centuries already decided (against a so-called Judaist-Christian minority) that Christianity is separate from Judaism and Christians don't (or don't have to) follow the teachings of Judaism (ie. the Old Testament), which was later approved by the councils.
If it didn't happen, Christianity would still be just a Judaic sect.

Then why do Christian's still refer to the Garden of Eden, Genesis, Creation, etc?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all Abrahamic sects, they have far more in common than they do different.

"The law and the prophets" refer to the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Prophets, the Bible's two first collections, or Pentateuch and History in the Old Testament by their Christian names.

Therefore, the Old Testament is invalid as a source of the teachings of Christianity; a Christian can decide to follow the OT teachings too though.

However, there are contradictions in the New Testament too.

Ah so Christian's get to pick and chose what they want from the Old Testament, that must explain why so many bang on about Homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God while tucking into a bacon sandwich and wearing poly-cotton blend.

Leviticus is a straightforward guide to permitted behavior and punishments, as such I'm a little confused as to who got to pick and chose which ones were still valid and which ones God got wrong. I'd also be interested to know how these people knew God got it wrong, how exactly did that consultation meeting play out.

Its also would seem to put you and SCJ on a collision course, as you both identify as Christian, but appear to have very, very different interpretations of the same text. Exactly who is right and why?

I wouldn't have said that if I wanted to disprove God's existence.
Though, that works brilliantly for saying that there is a fifty-fifty chance for the existence of any supernatural being (god) that can't get any scientific evidence, neither for nor against.

No, it doesn't work like that at all. First off the burden of proof doesn't disappear simply because you want it to and even if you could do so having zero evidence full stop gives a zero probability event. Its doesn't jump to 50/50 just because you want it to. A 50/50 event is a coin toss, 'heads' will be the proven outcome (and proven as evidence exists to prove it is the outcome) 50% of the time.

The existence of God has a 0% proven outcome, as such it can't be a 50/50 probability event.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Then you have just defined her as not human, by your terms.

Does this mean that, in the eyes of your God, one can kill someone under 2 without penalty?

Sorry but I don't follow you here.

The other one's eleven. I'm wondering how corrupt she is also.

Not very, probably.
But it depends who's scale you want to use.

What an extraordinary claim. You know the word "science" literally means "knowledge" right?

So where's your extraordinary evidence?

That has no bearing on the fact there are other forms of knowledge.
Such as, already mentioned spiritual, additionally relational, carnal, emotional, tactical, strategic, etc.
There is also wisdom which is the recognization and application of knowledge, which is not limited to science by the way.

There is no evidence that science is confined to anything.

Sure it is.
Limited is probably a better way to describe it, though.
This is proven out by it's inability, or refusal to recognize the spiritual.

I quite clearly said "the scientific method". Since it's the only mechanism we have for understanding the entirety of existence and is not only 100% successful in doing so thus far but also rigourously tested itself throughout the entire of human history with a 100% success rate, it's the closest thing in existence to infallible.

The only mechanism for you apparently, but not for everyone.
You mean eventual success rate.
Obviously you are not counting errors along the way.
It maybe the closest thing, but certainly not the only thing.
It is forever stuck in attempting to explain two dimensions from one, the physical.

Of course, you'll claim that it's limited to existence. Which is a fun way of accidentally claiming God doesn't exist.

How so?

And the evidence for this is where?

You personally do not recognize anything as evidence, unless it conforms to your predetermined standard, so it would not be of any use to pursue that.
But yet you will insure yourself on nothing more than a possibility.
That being the case you should be able to consider the possibility of God.

That falls under one of the three categories - that which cannot ever be known, that which does not exist and that which cannot be falsified.

It that case, for you it would have to be the last.
In my examination thus far, it is the absolute foundational epitome of truth, and in reality it cannot be falsified.
I can further testify to the fact, that it absolutely exists and is knowable.
BTW there are hundreds of millions of people who can testify to the same thing.
Oops, let me guess, thats just not scientific enough.

Actually, it doesn't. One of the truly great things about the scientific method is its objectivity - and the objectivity of evidence.

Yea, as long as its physical.

There is zero evidence for the existence of any deity or supernatural entity.

Only by your narrow definition.

I note you lovingly abandon objectivity there..

Not at all, I'm honestly, albeit briefly, answering the question.

Allah and Yahweh offer exactly the same to you as God. Only one requires you to know Arabic and the other Hebrew. I think we can guess why you think the one you think needs you to know English gives you more.

You aren't even close on this one.
Apparently you have not bothered to compare the two.
It involves claims, consistency, and atonement, not language.

The probability of an event occurring requires two things. An instance of the event occurring and the commonality of that event. Both of these are evidence.

They sure are.
But they are only evidence of occurance and frequency which determines probability.
There is absolutely no evidence beyond that.
Or to who, individually may or may not be involved in the occurance.
That remains a possibility only.

The commonality of God providing evidence he exists is zero. The instances of these events occurring are zero. The probability of God existing, with all available evidence, is zero.]

Thats strictly your opinion since you refuse to recognize any evidence presented.
However, as you well know, there doesn't have to be any, for something to be a possibility.
You know the same standard you use to insure yourself.

Nice effort.

Pity we only have fallible man's word for all of the first part. For the second part we've got religion and World War 2 to thank. Also, 1948.

Not quite.
We have historical record for both.

Circumstances do not have anything to do with the validity of the predicted outcome coming to pass.

 

[XoravaX]

Then why do Christian's still refer to the Garden of Eden, Genesis, Creation, etc?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all Abrahamic sects, they have far more in common than they do different.

You already answered it.
Because Christianity was separated from Judaism. And Christianity gives the chance to refer to them if one agrees with them.

Ah so Christian's get to pick and chose what they want from the Old Testament, that must explain why so many bang on about Homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of God while tucking into a bacon sandwich and wearing poly-cotton blend.

Leviticus is a straightforward guide to permitted behavior and punishments, as such I'm a little confused as to who got to pick and chose which ones were still valid and which ones God got wrong. I'd also be interested to know how these people knew God got it wrong, how exactly did that consultation meeting play out.

Nothing in the Leviticus is needed because of the Great Commandment. The Christians who share the views of the Torah interpret the Great Commandment and Golden Rule in harmony with those, as the two are pretty subjective.

Great Commandment:

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Golden Rule:

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Its also would seem to put you and SCJ on a collision course, as you both identify as Christian, but appear to have very, very different interpretations of the same text. Exactly who is right and why?

Heh, since when have Christians agreed with each other's views?
The problem of Christianity is the subjectivity of the rules, unlike the clear do and don't do's of Judaism.
I don't think his views are wrong; they're how he sees them.

No, it doesn't work like that at all. First off the burden of proof doesn't disappear simply because you want it to and even if you could do so having zero evidence full stop gives a zero probability event. Its doesn't jump to 50/50 just because you want it to. A 50/50 event is a coin toss, 'heads' will be the proven outcome (and proven as evidence exists to prove it is the outcome) 50% of the time.

The existence of God has a 0% proven outcome, as such it can't be a 50/50 probability event.

Can you prove there is no God? There might be or there might not - what would you call that then?

Scientifically, there is no such thing as the probability of the existence of God/a god/gods. Therefore you can't use science in the arguments against God himself, only against the Bible or the (eg. Catholic) interpretation.
God is not a matter of science, nor is his existence.

 

[Scaff]

You already answered it.
Because Christianity was separated from Judaism. And Christianity gives the chance to refer to them if one agrees with them.

Back to the pick and mix approach that the church itself can't agree a consensus on.

Given that if one believes then obeying God's law is fundamental to getting into heaven it seems as if your God is making as deliberately difficult as possible to meet the required standard as its not been made even remotely clear what that the required standard for entry into heaven is.

Oh and if God is all powerful why did he get it so wrong that he's had to start again not once, but twice. As no matter which way you cut it the Abrahamic faiths all have the exact same God.

Nothing in the Leviticus is needed because of the Great Commandment. The people who share the views of the Torah interpret the Great Commandment and Golden Rule in harmony with those, as those two are pretty subjective.

Then explain to me why is wheeled out on such a regular basis in regard to homosexuality.

Oh and nothing at all in those two passages specifically rejects the OT at all.

Heh, since when have Christians agreed with each other's views?
The problem of Christianity is the subjectivity of the rules, unlike the clear do and don't do's of Judaism.
I don't think his views are wrong; they're how he sees them.

So which of you will get into heaven?

Can you prove there is no God? There might be or there might not - what would you call that then?

Burden of proof doesn't work like that. You can't dis-prove that I'm actually an alien from a far flung galaxy. If I make that claim however I would hold the burden of proving it.

Their are no God's and zero evidence to a scientific standard that can prove otherwise.

Scientifically, there is no such thing as the probability of the existence of God/a god/gods. Therefore you can't use science in the arguments against God himself, only against the Bible or the (Catholic) interpretation.

I didn't bring probability into this, SCJ did, he used it as a (deeply flawed) way of trying to prove that God exists.

Probability is a strawman argument being used to avoid the key issue that absolutely no evidence of a scientific standard exists for a God or God's.

Oh many people claim they have evidence or that evidence exists, but as soon as they are pressed to provide it in a usable form (i.e. to a scientific standard) it either goes quiet or we get avoidance.

What you and SCJ have is faith. You believe that a God exists, something that I have no issue with, what I take issue with is when this faith and belief are passed off as proof.

They are not proof and fail at the very first hurdle, falsifiability.

 

[homeforsummer]

Only by your narrow definition.

Then provide evidence of God.

Personal accounts aren't evidence, because they cannot be verified. Scripture cannot be considered evidence, because it's just the written word of people's personal accounts, no more than you'd consider The Tiger Who Came To Tea evidence of an actual tiger that actually went to a little girl's house for tea (and at least we know tigers actually exist...).

And if you can't verify it, it isn't evidence. Famine's definition of evidence is the only definition, not just a "narrow definition".