Do you believe in God?

[niky]

Deja vu? Did I just walk into Monday's posts rehashed for Friday?

Wonder what the probability is of meeting a six fingered man in the street?

 

[Teflonicus]

These are outside religious sources. They make no mention of his divinity. Jesus' crucifixion being ordered by Pontius Pilate appears in Josephus' works, Tacitus' (of which virtually modern historians see as genuine), there are also letters by Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan informing him of Pilate's order to have Jesus executed (Pilate himself has sources in Philo of Alexandria, and also the Pilate Stone). Tacitus also showed no sympathy towards Christians. Mara-Bar Serapion wrote in a letter to his son about the murder of the Socrates, the burning of Pythagoras and the execution of "the wise king" of the Jews. There are no Christian themes in the letters and many scholars see little doubt that "The king of the Jews" is a reference to Jesus.

There are also various other sources which talk about the treatment of Jews and Christians during the 1st century, like Suetonius, who, again thouht little of Christians, he calls there leader Cherstus, and again most historians believe this to be Christ.

Diverting from the topic of "Jewish, Roman, and Greek (non-religious) sources," which hasn't been satisfied, where are the contemporary accounts? Where is the physical evidence: writings of Jesus, physical abodes, works of carpentry, Roman records of his existence--let alone execution?

Why, when we have contemporary evidence of other aspects of ancient history is there not ONE, single solitary piece for Jesus Christ?

 

[homeforsummer]

Wonder what the probability is of meeting a six fingered man in the street?

Depends how inbred the town containing the street on which you're walking is

 

[ProjectVRD]

I am compelled by my own belief to admit that God either has, does or will exist. Such is the nature of eternity.

We are starting to believe that the Universe might actually be infinite, which goes against many theories postulate by the great scientists of the 20th Century including the great man himself... Albert E=MC2.

The reason for this sudden understanding is that a team set out to prove them all right by firing two lasers deep into the cosmos at very slightly different angles. They were aiming for the exact same object in space which a specific star in a different galaxy to our own. As you can imagine then, those two laser beams would appear to be exactly parrallel from our perspective because they would not converge until several thousand lightyears away even if they were off target.

They were expecting to see the two laser beams curve, because our knowledge of the Universe tells us that it is roughly spherical in shape. And any straight line across a spherical 3D volume will never be straight but instead have a slight bend. Think of the highways across the United States, they go in a straight line but every several hundred miles there is this return turn to the left of about 20 degree's... but from a satalite photo that road is a straight line, mind boggling but that is physics for you. The same for the airplane routes, a flight from New York to London goes up towards the Artic Cirle yet both cities are over a thousand miles below the Arctic Circle, however it is still the shortest route! All because straight line bend in a 3D spherical space.

They detected no bend, nothing. And over larger distances the bend should be more visible. The two beams were perfectly straight, which can only be possible if there is no boundary within the volume. this indicates that the Universe is in fact infinite and still growing. Crazy concept I know.

But the thing about eternity is that anything and everything is possible, including the existence of God. In fact, all the Gods of all the various religions will have existed at some point in the infinite time an infinite Universe would allow. And it is because of quantum mechanics, the specific theme of physics at play here, that I have to admit that God may exist.

 

[Tired Tyres]

No it does not. You are confusing eternity with infinite and even then that only allows for what is possible to exist and the Universe is not infinite.

As for eternity. The Universe will continue to expand until all the stars die and all that is left are super massive black holes.

 

[ProjectVRD]

No it does not. You are confusing eternity with infinite and even then that only allows for what is possible to exist and the Universe is not infinite.

As for eternity. The Universe will continue to expand until all the stars die and all that is left are super massive black holes..

You have absolutely no proof that the universe is finite. There has never been any evidence for that and even Einstein admitted so. But we do now have some evidence for an infinite universe, and that would mean eternity is a given. Although Eternity refers specifically to time and outside of time at that, it would have to happen if the universe if infinite. Because this branch of quantum mechanics stipulates a multiverse, where you can have a situation outside of time.

PS. What you described about stars and black holes is called entropy, which would remain for eternity itself. And that is something most scientists believe, and also does not contradict the infinite universe model.

 

[Skuh]

You have absolutely no proof that the universe is finite. There has never been any evidence for that and even Einstein admitted so. But we do now have some evidence for an infinite universe, and that would mean eternity is a given. Although Eternity refers specifically to time and outside of time at that, it would have to happen if the universe if infinite. Because this branch of quantum mechanics stipulates a multiverse, where you can have a situation outside of time.

All stars will die, all planets will die, then the universe will end. If it ends, it cant be infinte. Multiverse is just one theory.
Quoting multiverses after you said somebody has no proof the universe is infinite makes no sense.

 

[Tired Tyres]

You have absolutely no proof that the universe is finite. There has never been any evidence for that and even Einstein admitted so. But we do now have some evidence for an infinite universe, and that would mean eternity is a given. Although Eternity refers specifically to time and outside of time at that, it would have to happen if the universe if infinite. Because this branch of quantum mechanics stipulates a multiverse, where you can have a situation outside of time.

PS. What you described about stars and black holes is called entropy, which would remain for eternity itself. And that is something most scientists believe, and also does not contradict the infinite universe model.

It is finite within its expanding border. As it gets bigger, it gets bigger. That is not infinite. What is outside the expanding Universe is an entirely different question.

Absolutely none of which make a god possible at all.

 

[ProjectVRD]

All stars will die, all planets will die, then the universe will end. If it ends, it cant be infinte. Multiverse is just one theory.
Quoting multiverses after you said somebody has no proof the universe is infinite makes no sense.

Just because the stars will die, and planet's ultimately get sucked into black holes does not mean the universe will disappear. It means the energy will be so dispersed that there is no heat, it is called the heat death theory. The blackholes will evaporate their energy into the surrounding space and the universe will be a cold, dark place. But the universe will still exist.

I didn't say somebody has no proof the universe the infinite, I said there is no proof the universe is finite for that is based on theory which has yet to be tested and proven correct. It is widely accepted that for the test to be successful, they have to find the boundary either directly or indirectly, however with the visible universe being far smaller than the invisible universe, due to expansion occurring faster than the speed of light, there is no way to see beyond the first detectable light so direct evidence is out of the question at this moment. The laser test was supposed to provide indirect evidence, however, that laser test was a condition of proof that the universe is in fact infinite because the beams did not bend.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

In fact, all the Gods of all the various religions will have existed at some point in the infinite time an infinite Universe would allow.

So all of religion's gods existed? Well, no.. Besides that I don't know how you managed to connect an infinite universe to meaning that all gods could exist, how would that even work, when they were all (okay not all) said to have created the universe? And in different ways. So either all gods exist and they all created the universe in different ways (uh what), or they all exist at different times, but still created the universe in different ways (again, what). I'm not quite seeing it. But okay, maybe they existed, but didn't do the things they were said to have done, well then why call them gods?

Also I'd like to see some sort of source to this laser experiment you're talking about.

Just because the stars will die, and planet's ultimately get sucked into black holes does not mean the universe will disappear

I think he just means the universe as we know it is finite.

 

[Famine]

The reason for this sudden understanding is that a team set out to prove them all right by firing two lasers deep into the cosmos at very slightly different angles. They were aiming for the exact same object in space which a specific star in a different galaxy to our own. As you can imagine then, those two laser beams would appear to be exactly parrallel from our perspective because they would not converge until several thousand lightyears away even if they were off target.

They were expecting to see the two laser beams curve, because our knowledge of the Universe tells us that it is roughly spherical in shape.

This would be intensely stupid of them.

There's several problems with the experiment as you describe it.

• How would you detect the path of the lasers? We don't have any detecting equipment on any distant bodies (we don't even have any on any nearby bodies - only reflectors on the Moon and we detect the reflecting signal back on Earth).
• The only way to track the path of the lasers is to look down them and that would always appear to be a straight line even if it curved.
• What about gravitational lensing - the phenomenon (predicted by Special Relativity) whereby massive, moving objects can distort the path of light the nearer it gets to the object? The more distant the object they're aiming at, the more pronounced the effect as the more bodies the light has to pass.
• How powerful were the lasers? We barely have anything that, if aimed at the reflectors on the Moon, 200,000 miles away, we can detect more than a handful of photons on their return to Earth.
• Where were they located? Even if they were sent from antipodes on Earth towards an object perpendicular to both (tricky timing), there'd be almost no angle detectable once the lasers have reached even a million miles. Even if one was sent from the Earth and the other from the Moon, there'd be no detectable angle from even ten million miles away.

This indicates that either you've misunderstood or misreported the experiment in several aspects or that it is an incredible poorly-designed experiment with untrustworthy and spurious results - perhaps one intended to generate a specific result and thus not with any scientific merit.

 

[Skuh]

This would be intensely stupid of them.

There's several problems with the experiment as you describe it.

• How would you detect the path of the lasers? We don't have any detecting equipment on any distant bodies (we don't even have any on any nearby bodies - only reflectors on the Moon and we detect the reflecting signal back on Earth).
• The only way to track the path of the lasers is to look down them and that would always appear to be a straight line even if it curved.
• What about gravitational lensing - the phenomenon (predicted by Special Relativity) whereby massive, moving objects can distort the path of light the nearer it gets to the object? The more distant the object they're aiming at, the more pronounced the effect as the more bodies the light has to pass.
• How powerful were the lasers? We barely have anything that, if aimed at the reflectors on the Moon, 200,000 miles away, we can detect more than a handful of photons on their return to Earth.
• Where were they located? Even if they were sent from antipodes on Earth towards an object perpendicular to both (tricky timing), there'd be almost no angle detectable once the lasers have reached even a million miles. Even if one was sent from the Earth and the other from the Moon, there'd be no detectable angle from even ten million miles away.

This indicates that either you've misunderstood or misreported the experiment in several aspects or that it is an incredible poorly-designed experiment with untrustworthy and spurious results - perhaps one intended to generate a specific result and thus not with any scientific merit.

I watched this experiment on Horizon iirc. You're right it's his misunderstanding. Basically the lazers 'prove' the theory of an expanding universe not an infinite one.

*Prove in marks for obvious reasons

I'll try and find source, it may have been Horizon:How big is the universe.

I think this is what he is talking about anyway.

 

[PeterJB]

Diverting from the topic of "Jewish, Roman, and Greek (non-religious) sources," which hasn't been satisfied, where are the contemporary accounts? Where is the physical evidence: writings of Jesus, physical abodes, works of carpentry, Roman records of his existence--let alone execution?

Why, when we have contemporary evidence of other aspects of ancient history is there not ONE, single solitary piece for Jesus Christ?

How is this diverting from the topic? I have listed at least three Roman historians who wrote about Jesus, usually in an unflattering light, as well as a Jewish holy book which talks of him, even though the Jews of the time saw him as a fraud and an imposter. The Delphi Inscription talks of Paul's trial before Gallio, some time after Jesus' crucifixion, he was a contemporary of Jesus, and famously wrote the Pauline letters. John the Baptist's co-existence with Jesus and execution by Herod Antipas is documented in Josephus' works too, which are seen as a key connection between the events he recorded and those of the Gospels. The Siloam Pool, where Jesus is said to have healed a blind man, was discovered in 2004. You should also consider the criterion of embarrassment, namely, why would people of the time invent a story that would be embarrassing to them and weaken their argument against opponents? Like the crucifixion, at hat the time that was considered by Romans to be the most shameful and degrading form of execution, so it is probably the least likely method that Jesus' followers would have invented.

Anyway, I'm no expert on ancient history, but the overwhelming majority of those who are almost unanimously agree that Jesus was born, was Baptised by John the Baptist, and ordered to be crucified by Pontius Pilate sometime in his early 30's.

 

[Skuh]

How is this diverting from the topic? I have listed at least three Roman historians who wrote about Jesus, usually in an unflattering light, as well as a Jewish holy book which talks of him, even though the Jews of the time saw him as a fraud and an imposter. The Delphi Inscription talks of Paul's trial before Gallio, some time after Jesus' crucifixion, he was a contemporary of Jesus, and famously wrote the Pauline letters. John the Baptist's co-existence with Jesus and execution by Herod Antipas is documented in Josephus' works too, which are seen as a key connection between the events he recorded and those of the Gospels. The Siloam Pool, where Jesus is said to have healed a blind man, was discovered in 2004. You should also consider the criterion of embarrassment, namely, why would people of the time invent a story that would be embarrassing to them and weaken their argument against opponents? Like the crucifixion, at hat the time that was considered by Romans to be the most shameful and degrading form of execution, so it is probably the least likely method that Jesus' followers would have invented.

Anyway, I'm no expert on ancient history, but the overwhelming majority of those who are almost unanimously agree that Jesus was born, was Baptised by John the Baptist, and ordered to be crucified by Pontius Pilate sometime in his early 30's.

This is absolutely untrue and could you list those roman historians for me please I missed them early, apologies. I am only interested though if they are from the time of Jesus.

 

[PeterJB]

I have clearly listed those historians above. I will admit that none of them lived during Jesus' lifetime, though Josephus was born only 5 years after Jesus' death. But their accounts of him and his contemporaries are seen to be genuine, even though none of them were Christians or even thought very highly of Jesus and his followers. The Gospels give four accounts from followers of his (even though they were written after he died), and there are also Paul's Letters. He lived in Jesus' time, and preached to churches after his death. His conversion to Christianity is supported by the discovery of the Delphi Inscription documenting his trial for preaching against Judaism. If he was going to be executed for it, then he could have easily said he was making it all up and get off scott-free, but he didn't, and he was killed. Nobody is willing to die for something which they know to be wrong.

 

[ProjectVRD]

I watched this experiment on Horizon iirc. You're right it's his misunderstanding. Basically the lazers 'prove' the theory of an expanding universe not an infinite one.

*Prove in marks for obvious reasons

I'll try and find source, it may have been Horizon:How big is the universe.

I think this is what he is talking about anyway.

Actually, no, lasers do not exhibit no bending due to expansion. Lasers can only not bend if the is no boundary within the space it is travelling, thus, it shows that the Universe is infinitely big. That is physics. You remembered incorrectly.

This would be intensely stupid of them.

There's several problems with the experiment as you describe it.

• How would you detect the path of the lasers? We don't have any detecting equipment on any distant bodies (we don't even have any on any nearby bodies - only reflectors on the Moon and we detect the reflecting signal back on Earth).
• The only way to track the path of the lasers is to look down them and that would always appear to be a straight line even if it curved.
• What about gravitational lensing - the phenomenon (predicted by Special Relativity) whereby massive, moving objects can distort the path of light the nearer it gets to the object? The more distant the object they're aiming at, the more pronounced the effect as the more bodies the light has to pass.
• How powerful were the lasers? We barely have anything that, if aimed at the reflectors on the Moon, 200,000 miles away, we can detect more than a handful of photons on their return to Earth.
• Where were they located? Even if they were sent from antipodes on Earth towards an object perpendicular to both (tricky timing), there'd be almost no angle detectable once the lasers have reached even a million miles. Even if one was sent from the Earth and the other from the Moon, there'd be no detectable angle from even ten million miles away.

This indicates that either you've misunderstood or misreported the experiment in several aspects or that it is an incredible poorly-designed experiment with untrustworthy and spurious results - perhaps one intended to generate a specific result and thus not with any scientific merit.

Well perhaps you would like to go and tell the genius' that their experiment is stupid? Don't forget to drop in on Harvard, Princeton, MIT, OHU, Cambridge and Oxford to tell them to halt all work on Quantum Physics because it is "stupid".

So all of religion's gods existed? Well, no.. Besides that I don't know how you managed to connect an infinite universe to meaning that all gods could exist, how would that even work, when they were all (okay not all) said to have created the universe? And in different ways. So either all gods exist and they all created the universe in different ways (uh what), or they all exist at different times, but still created the universe in different ways (again, what). I'm not quite seeing it. But okay, maybe they existed, but didn't do the things they were said to have done, well then why call them gods?

Also I'd like to see some sort of source to this laser experiment you're talking about.

Religion tells you that you couldn't possibility imagine how God works... what makes you think we could truly understand how infinity works when that is infinitely bigger than a deity? Why is it when people say there is a man in the clouds and they get treated with respect, but say the Universe is infinitely bigger with infinitely more possibilities which mathematical rules state all Gods are possible, including those we have not thought about?

You do understand what infinite infers, right?

 

[Skuh]

Actually, no, lasers do not exhibit no bending due to expansion. Lasers can only not bend if the is no boundary within the space it is travelling, thus, it shows that the Universe is infinitely big. That is physics. You remembered incorrectly.

No, either it is a different experiment, unlikely given the similarity but possible, in which case I apologise, or you are wrong. I will try and rewatch the program to find the original source, unless you can provide that?

What you have said there can also be explained by an expanding universe.

 

[Famine]

Well perhaps you would like to go and tell the genius' that their experiment is stupid? Don't forget to drop in on Harvard, Princeton, MIT, OHU, Cambridge and Oxford to tell them to halt all work on Quantum Physics because it is "stupid".

I clearly gave two possibilities. The experiment cannot be as you described it, because the way you described it is incredibly flawed. I gave you several reasons why and you've not, apparently, read or responded to them.

Incidentally, if it's using lasers to measure distance and space-time curvature, it's not quantum physics (gravitation, particularly, being a singularly nonunified field with quantum physics). So quite why I'd need to go to a bunch of universities and tell them quantum physics is stupid because you gave a vague and implausible set of experimental conditions for an unrelated, uncited, unreferenced experiment escapes me.


Perhaps you could drop the attitude and provide us with the links you've been asked to provide so that we can determine the particulars of the experiment? As things stand, the "experiment" you described is implausible.

 

[photonrider]

ProjectVRD - I've searched high and low and my search engines have blown their gaskets - could you provide us with the missing link, if possible? Would make for interesting reading at the very least.
Thanks.

 

[Touring Mars]

You do understand what infinite infers, right?

Numbers are infinite, but that doesn't mean that there is a number 1q5,@3u,p6s.4

Just because the stars will die, and planet's ultimately get sucked into black holes does not mean the universe will disappear. It means the energy will be so dispersed that there is no heat, it is called the heat death theory. The blackholes will evaporate their energy into the surrounding space and the universe will be a cold, dark place. But the universe will still exist.

And you can bet your ass it will still be raining in Glasgow.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Probability is not evidence in itself, it requires already existing events to have a probability above zero.)

No it does not.
Positive probability exists for any known or unknown event.
In the unknown realm its more commonly referred to as "odds" and is still defined as probability.
It is always expressed in a positive numerically.

In reality, anything is possible, and that includes known and unknown events, and both have a probability above zero.
Even though it maybe a extremely small positive, it is always positive.

I've already proven to you, two different ways, anything is possible, but you failed to recognize the connection with probability.

If you disagree then provide a source to back up your claim, plenty have already been provided that disagree with you.

Actually I've done better than that.
I've proven it with common factual knowledge, and again two seperate ways.

No on probability above zero and less that one (which is how insurance rates and warranty periods and exclusions are calculated). Which is still beside the point because its not a tool of evidence but a product of it (known existing factors or the probability drops to zero and insurance is pointless - I have no insurance for events that have no chance of occurring, I don't have God insurance in the same way I'm not insured against Unicorn attack).

Even though you refuse to admit it, you are buying insurance on risk possibilty.
I've already proven that too.

Probability and Possibility remain different things and both are still not tools for evidence, if they are tools for evidence as you are claiming then please provide a source to prove such (just as you have been asked to do so following your claim that proof of God exists - of course I strongly suspect you are simply trying to change the definitions and use of both Probability and Possibility to then try and cite they as proof of God).

0 probabilty does not exist, for any event, known or unknown.

Look them up, I'm using standard definitons.

We haven't even gotten to God yet.

 

[Famine]

Look them up, I'm using standard definitons.

That would be a first.

 

[Scaff]

No it does not.
Positive probability exists for any known or unknown event.
In the unknown realm its more commonly referred to as "odds" and is still defined as probability.
It is always expressed in a positive numerically.

In reality, anything is possible, and that includes known and unknown events, and both have a probability above zero.
Even though it maybe a extremely small positive, it is always positive.

I've already proven to you, two different ways, anything is possible, but you failed to recognize the connection with probability.

No you haven't proven anything, you've made a claim and declared it to be right without a single source to corroborate it.

Actually I've done better than that.
I've proven it with common factual knowledge, and again two seperate ways.

No you haven't proven anything, you've made a claim and declared it to be right without a single source to corroborate it.

Even though you refuse to admit it, you are buying insurance on risk possibilty.
I've already proven that too.

No you haven't proven anything, you've made a claim and declared it to be right without a single source to corroborate it.

0 probabilty does not exist, for any event, known or unknown.

Look them up, I'm using standard definitons.

We haven't even gotten to God yet.

Odd then that every text on probability discusses zero probability as a value and its function, as such your not using standard definitions at all.

Oh and at least one clearly discusses its misuse to try and prove the supernatural, creationism in this case but I think a valid argument could be made that you are going to try and use a version of it to prove god exists (rather ironic that you are now attacking Creationists and neither of you are even right).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Probability

Oh and still none of this makes probability a standard of evidence and you have still failed to provide a source that states it can be used as one.

 

[Exorcet]

No it does not.
Positive probability exists for any known or unknown event.
In the unknown realm its more commonly referred to as "odds" and is still defined as probability.
It is always expressed in a positive numerically.

"Possibility" "Prove" "Odds".

What's next? Literally, you are typing gibberish. That text up there, it has no meaning.

In reality, anything is possible, and that includes known and unknown events, and both have a probability above zero.

Wrong. Dead wrong. What even gave you this idea? Are you familiar with thermodynamics at all?

Even though it maybe a extremely small positive, it is always positive.

I'll regret asking, but proof?

I've already proven to you, two different ways, anything is possible, but you failed to recognize the connection with probability.

I already regret asking and I didn't post this post yet.

I've proven it with common factual knowledge, and again two seperate ways.

You've used none of the above. You have incorrectly used half of the English language, rewrote mathematics, and probably caused the implosion of physics. I don't think I've ever seen such blatant disregard for outright ignorance and misinformation.

Even though you refuse to admit it, you are buying insurance on risk possibilty.
I've already proven that too.

You can't "prove" something that doesn't even make sense.

0 probabilty does not exist, for any event, known or unknown.

I'll bet you my spot in heaven that Zeus will never dance on the top of the Empire State Building. You think he will given infinite time (but at the same time consider it impossible because you're convinced Zeus doesn't exist, because he's not God).

Look them up, I'm using standard definitons.

Yes, please do this SCJ.

We haven't even gotten to God yet.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's because you know you'd have lost anyway.

 

[dylansan]

Someone picks a random number between 1 and 10. What is the probability that the number is 6,734?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Religion tells you that you couldn't possibility imagine how God works... what makes you think we could truly understand how infinity works when that is infinitely bigger than a deity? Why is it when people say there is a man in the clouds and they get treated with respect, but say the Universe is infinitely bigger with infinitely more possibilities which mathematical rules state all Gods are possible, including those we have not thought about?

You do understand what infinite infers, right?

I'd say the opposite. Religions sure seem like they know a lot about about their gods. I think you're missing my point though, with all the claims each religion makes about their god and how (most of the time) it/he/she created the universe, how are they (the gods) all supposed to exist—be it at separate times or the same time—and still be responsible for the creation of the universe individually? And so I'll say it again, either they all created the same universe at difference times even if it was already created before them (which doesn't make sense, to me at least), or they didn't create the universe, in which case why call them gods (because the whole idea of gods is to explain the universe is it not)?

And yes I do understand what infinite infers, but I wouldn't call the universe—in terms of its volume—infinite. It is expanding, yes, but eventually it will cool down and stop. Stars and planets will die, black holes and supernovas will be rampant (probably), and eventually all that will be left is a supermassive black hole (or at least that is my current understanding).

Someone picks a random number between 1 and 10. What is the probability that the number is 6,734?

.00000000000001?

 

[TJC_69]

.... We haven't even gotten to God yet.

He's not the messiah ....

He's a very improbable probability fixated insurance orientated claimant of a naughty boy !!



In other news , they attempted the whole brainwashing thing with me at school also , the hymns , prayers and such ...

Even back then at the young age of 6 years old I had the foresight to recognise what a load of rubbish the whole concept of god was supposed to be .

How adults cannot logically think for themselves to distinguish reality from housewife superstition and fairy tales is beyond me .

EDIT - I'll check back in 4 pages to see if any evidence is brought to the table ..... And by evidence I mean '' Pahhaahhahahahhahahaaaaaa !! ''

''It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.''
Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Denur]

When I said “He doesn’t have everything planned ahead for us.” I was talking about God not predetermining each person’s individual outcome before “The End”. Which is why I then quoted (Mt 7:13,14) and gave some examples of God not using his foreknowledge in the Bible. Compare: (Isa. 24:6; Amos 3:7)

Yes, there were times when he foretold people’s births, kings ruling, cities destroyed etc. and he used human secretaries to record these. (2 Peter 1:21) I only gave examples where God chose not to know the outcome of certain circumstances as it mightn’t be as obvious.

No where does it say that God chose not to know, not in the verses quoted by you at least. You assume that He is omniscient, but I don't think that that is said anywhere within the Bible. Only based on the assumption that He is omniscient, can one conclude that He choose to know or not know something in advance.

God Himself and all the scriptures quoted would be a lie had He known everything in advance.

You may be on to something here. A bible written by men (not inspired by God) would explain so many of the fallacies in the Bible (when compared to actual data we have today) and even the inconsistencies within the Bible itself.

For example, can you tell me how many women were present when they found Jesus' tomb missing Jesus? And what did she/they find instead in the tomb: one man, one angel, two angels and was he/where they sitting or standing?

- Matthew 18:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
- Matthew 28:2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
- Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
- Mark 16:5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
- Luke 24:4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.
- John 20:12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

Maybe you can also explain all the other inconsistencies as mentioned in post #8262 (which happens to be just above your post).

Again, the Bible being a man-made fantasy, would explain so many oddities in the Bible. You have probably noticed that the Bible only mentions those things that can be seen with the naked eye and can have been witnessed by people from the authors' time. For example, why do you think there is no mention in the Bible of what I would consider incredible peaces of work: Mount Everest, Australia with its marsupials, Antarctica, Saturn's rings, the Americas with its native peoples who made the most impressive migration of all God's children.

But also: Why is the Earth not perfectly spherical? Why do you think there is no mention of all those billions of other galaxies? Why would an omnipotent god create an Earth that is tilted on its axes and why do we have seasons (and are the seasons even mentioned in the Bible)? Why do I have nipples? What is the use of a waxing and waning moon? Dinosaurs would have been a pretty impressive creation. Etc, etc, etc.

If God was not omniscient or just omniscient, it would mean God doesn’t have the ability to control His power and therefore He would be imperfect and not God as you said, but I’d rather a perfect God then imperfect being.

It's a nice wish, I must admit.

 

[Skuh]

"anything is possible"

That right there is the most ridicluous thing in this whole thread. No It isn't and that IS a fact.

My favourite bit is where you said, I dont need to provide a source i have done something better, i have told you its true....lmao

SuperCobraJet, you are now just talking gibberish as someone else has stated. Really really looking silly now son.

 

[Teflonicus]

How is this diverting from the topic? I have listed at least three Roman historians who wrote about Jesus, usually in an unflattering light, as well as a Jewish holy book which talks of him, even though the Jews of the time saw him as a fraud and an imposter. The Delphi Inscription talks of Paul's trial before Gallio, some time after Jesus' crucifixion, he was a contemporary of Jesus, and famously wrote the Pauline letters. John the Baptist's co-existence with Jesus and execution by Herod Antipas is documented in Josephus' works too, which are seen as a key connection between the events he recorded and those of the Gospels. The Siloam Pool, where Jesus is said to have healed a blind man, was discovered in 2004. You should also consider the criterion of embarrassment, namely, why would people of the time invent a story that would be embarrassing to them and weaken their argument against opponents? Like the crucifixion, at hat the time that was considered by Romans to be the most shameful and degrading form of execution, so it is probably the least likely method that Jesus' followers would have invented.

Anyway, I'm no expert on ancient history, but the overwhelming majority of those who are almost unanimously agree that Jesus was born, was Baptised by John the Baptist, and ordered to be crucified by Pontius Pilate sometime in his early 30's.

You misunderstood that. I was diverting from the topic, I wasn't accusing you of doing so.

Nonetheless, you could list 50 million Roman sources, and it still won't satisfy "all the Jewish, Roman, and Greek (non-religious) sources" you claimed to have at hand.

Embarrassment?! Really? So that's the criterion now? By that logic, you must also acknowledge the existence of Ra, Zeus, Osiris, and Pan. After-all, "why would people of the time invent a story that would be embarrassing to them and weaken their argument against opponents?"

So the Siloam pool has become your physical evidence now? Unless Jesus left his name carved there, and it can be proven to be his, you're merely falling upon another biblical source and dressing it up as physical evidence. Jupiter exists too, and so that is my evidence that there is a teapot orbiting the planet. My claim is equally absurd as yours. Moreover, other people have written (even during the teapot's lifetime, mind you) that the teapot exists, and so it does.