Proof god doesn't exist

[beingofone]

Birdjaguar:

Ok how about cells, molecules and atoms?

Consciousness interpenetrates all things, it is vast like space, the ocean, or the sky.

All is consciousness vibrating or resonating at different frequencies. It is different aspects of consciousness.

Awareness is commonly refered to as consciousness, this is just a property not the totality of it.


Quarky:

Does god exist? It really doesn't matter.

Does you existence matter?

1) god knows everything
2) god knows what I had for breakfast this morning.
3) god knows what I had fur lunch
4) god knows what I will have for dinner.

Unless of course God knows everything that can be known, not everything that will be.

If that is true, then if god exists, we have no freewill, and are therefore not responsible for our actions.

The same can be said of blind cause and effect.

If cause and effect is true, then cause and effect exist, you have no freewill, and are therefore; not responsible for your actions.

Therefore; whether the universe exists or not - it really doesn`t matter. And ergo; we cannot know that we ourselves experience existence because only cause and effect is true.

Therefore, god created us knowing how we will live and where we will end up (heaven or hell). So we either have freewill, or a god, and a creator that creates people knowing that they will end up in heaven or hell right from the start (and all the evil that that entails).

Unless freewill and God`s intention are one in the same - there; mystery resolved.

Also; if light creates heat, those closest to God will get burnt the hottest. Its just those that do not like the light that experience a 'hell' - because the darkness is so appealing, the light hurts.

Even if people doubt 4), you must remember that time is a property of the universe. If god created the universe, he must be outside it, and therefore unaffected by time (unless god *is* still affected by time in which case he sat around for eternity twiddling his thumbs before creating the universe?), which means that everyone that has/is/will happened/happening/happen is all the same. From god's perspective there would be no difference between past, present and future.

Unless of course; time is a property of God that is contained within himself. Then he would experience time and at the same time - transcend it.

He is not outside of time - he contains it, until it pops, like a bubble.

God is not the sum total of his parts and properties though these are elements of God`s nature. God is not subject to what he can only be, he is eternal and as such; contains all properties and things of the universe.

This does not exclude time as a factor - it merely is incorporated into his experience of being.

The whole deity concept is so out-dated and easy to blow holes in that it is remarkable that anyone believes it anymore.

Atheism is so outdated and a concept based in fear. It is so easy to blow holes in it is remarkable anyone cannot see the obvious.

There is more evidence that the moon is made of cheese than there is for god (we can see the moon).

Can you see space?
Can you see light?
Can you see in the dark? Didn`t think so - its hard to see in the dark isn`t it?

There is more evidence that Santa Claus is real, than for god (he at least was considered by many to be based on a real person, St Nicolas).

Why would God show up as Santa Claus?

If God has all the properties you just gave him, where would you go to find the evidence?

I doubt he would show up as the moon, wood elf, unicorn, or Santa. If God transcends time - where would you look for God?

Someone picking up the bible and using it to justify god, is little different than someone in 2000 years picking up a Superman comic and saying that he was real...

And you equate all the archaeological digs, and there are thousands, that validate the scripture to a comic book?

That is comical, you are reaching.

Check into Davids palace found last year, looks like King David was a real king after all and not just a comic book.

Don't be afraid to think things through!

Ditto

 

[Quarky]

Quarky:



Does you existence matter?

In the grand scheme of things, unfortunately not.

Unless of course God knows everything that can be known, not everything that will be.



The same can be said of blind cause and effect.

If cause and effect is true, then cause and effect exist, you have no freewill, and are therefore; not responsible for your actions.

Therefore; whether the universe exists or not - it really doesn`t matter. And ergo; we cannot know that we ourselves experience existence because only cause and effect is true.

Not true. Heard of quantum mechanics? The same randomness that is built into the little flashing led on your PC exists in everything. However, as I clearly demonstrated, if god exists, freewill doesn't.

Unless freewill and God`s intention are one in the same - there; mystery resolved.

Not really. If god *knows* I will have a vegetable soup tonight, I don't have freewill because if I have anything other than veg. soup, god is wrong, and he can't be wrong.

Also; if light creates heat, those closest to God will get burnt the hottest. Its just those that do not like the light that experience a 'hell' - because the darkness is so appealing, the light hurts.

Err.. not sure what you are trying to say there. The bible clearly lays down all sorts of conditions for being damned (read the old testament for a start).

Unless of course; time is a property of God that is contained within himself. Then he would experience time and at the same time - transcend it.

He is not outside of time - he contains it, until it pops, like a bubble.

So god sat around for eternity twiddling his thumbs before he created the universe? You actually believe that?

God is not the sum total of his parts and properties though these are elements of God`s nature. God is not subject to what he can only be, he is eternal and as such; contains all properties and things of the universe.

This does not exclude time as a factor - it merely is incorporated into his experience of being.



Atheism is so outdated and a concept based in fear. It is so easy to blow holes in it is remarkable anyone cannot see the obvious.

No. There are thousands of gods that monotheists don't believe in. Athiests simply believe in one less. Not sure how you can blow a hole in that.

Can you see space?
Can you see light?
Can you see in the dark? Didn`t think so - its hard to see in the dark isn`t it?

We can experiment to show the concept of space, and light can't we?

Why would God show up as Santa Claus?

He wouldn't. But there is more evidence for the existance of Santa, than god.

If God has all the properties you just gave him, where would you go to find the evidence?

We wouldn't need to. He could MAKE us believe. Since there would be no freewill if god existed, we would not need to choose.

The only

I doubt he would show up as the moon, wood elf, unicorn, or Santa. If God transcends time - where would you look for God?

See above.

And you equate all the archaeological digs, and there are thousands, that validate the scripture to a comic book?

That is comical, you are reaching.

Check into Davids palace found last year, looks like King David was a real king after all and not just a comic book.

Verona existed. That does not mean I believe Romeo and Juliet to be true. Do you?

Extraordinary claims (the existance of "god") requires extraordinary evidence. Whether David existed or not, only proves the existance of David, nothing else. The bible itself is full of errors. We know that rabbits don't chew their cud, that bats are not birds, that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, that PI is not equal to 3, fowl's do not crawl on four legs, that there is NO historical evidence for the story of Exodus, that Nazareth didn't even EXIST at the time of Jesus, that the Earth is not flat, etc. etc. For anyone to live their life around a book that is SO full of errors would be considered absurd, except of course if that book has "bible" on the front, in which case it seems to be perfectly acceptable to throw all logic and rationale out the window and accept it, errors and all.

As a former Catholic myself (and I am married to one), it would be nice believe in the the fairy story, but it would be nice to believe I was great looking too Unfortunately, just because it would be nice to believe something, does not make it true.

Ditto

 

[mdwh]

The theory that matter is made up of indivisible particles (we know them as atoms) was first proposed thousands of years ago; that matter is composed of some fundamental unit that cannot be divided further without changing its properties. (before this, the going theory was that a piece of iron could be chopped into smaller pieces forever, and the pieces would always be iron)

When the idea of the atom was first proposed, there was no way to verify it; it was not falsifiable.

Yet it was true.

Well they only had two possibilities - either matter could be divided infinitely, or there would be some lower limit. So, lucky guess?

Also note that their idea of the atom was very simplistic and not comparable to modern atomic theory. I believe the greeks viewed the atom as indivisible (that's what the word meant, isn't it?) so in that sense, they were wrong.

 

[punkbass2000]

I believe the greeks viewed the atom as indivisible (that's what the word meant, isn't it?) so in that sense, they were wrong.

Not really. The atom was defined as indivisible. The fact that modern scientists decided to name something "atom" which turned out not to be indivisible is immaterial.

 

[beingofone]

Quarky:

BO1:
Does your existence matter?

Quarky:
In the grand scheme of things, unfortunately not.

Since you do not matter, I can see why you think God is equally unimportant.

beingofone:
Unless of course God knows everything that can be known, not everything that will be.

The same can be said of blind cause and effect.

If cause and effect is true, then cause and effect exist, you have no freewill, and are therefore; not responsible for your actions.

Therefore; whether the universe exists or not - it really doesn`t matter. And ergo; we cannot know that we ourselves experience existence because only cause and effect is true.

Quarky:
Not true. Heard of quantum mechanics? The same randomness that is built into the little flashing led on your PC exists in everything. However, as I clearly demonstrated, if god exists, freewill doesn't.

What does that have to do with cause and effect?

So one part is the whole, is that what you are saying? There you have it, absolute proof that the universe is interconnected and therefore; a seemless force or energy that interpenetrates all and is the glue of the universe.

If this is true, what is this interconnectedness? Follow that trail of logic.

You did not "clearly demonstrate, if god exists, freewill doesn't." Its simple, both are equally true. Your will is God`s will.

Think through cause and effect regardless interconnectedness. Or are you saying that the sum total of the universe is what you are? In that case I would say; you matter a great deal in the grand scheme.

Even this discussion is God`s will.

beingofone:
Unless freewill and God`s intention are one in the same - there; mystery resolved.

Quarky:
Not really. If god *knows* I will have a vegetable soup tonight, I don't have freewill because if I have anything other than veg. soup, god is wrong, and he can't be wrong.

If God knows you will be eating vegetable soup, so do you.

If you are eating vegetable soup, it is God`s will.

I must say, you have thought more deeply on this subject than most religious types and so; I compliment you.

The fallacy is in projecting God as a being separate and distinct from yourself.

beingofone:
Also; if light creates heat, those closest to God will get burnt the hottest. Its just those that do not like the light that experience a 'hell' - because the darkness is so appealing, the light hurts.

Quarky:
Err.. not sure what you are trying to say there. The bible clearly lays down all sorts of conditions for being damned (read the old testament for a start).

Err... I am a theologian and have studied scripture and the ancient languages for almost forty years, I think I have a handle on it.

beingofone:
Unless of course; time is a property of God that is contained within himself. Then he would experience time and at the same time - transcend it.

He is not outside of time - he contains it, until it pops, like a bubble. It is still contained by God - even at beyond the speed of light when it pops.

Quarky:
So god sat around for eternity twiddling his thumbs before he created the universe? You actually believe that?

How do you know what God was doing before the creation? Do you actually believe you can know what he was doing? You think this may be his first universe?

When God thinks - he big bangs.

beingofone:
God is not the sum total of his parts and properties though these are elements of God`s nature. God is not subject to what he can only be, he is eternal and as such; contains all properties and things of the universe.

This does not exclude time as a factor - it merely is incorporated into his experience of being.


Atheism is so outdated and a concept based in fear. It is so easy to blow holes in it is remarkable anyone cannot see the obvious.

Quarky:
No. There are thousands of gods that monotheists don't believe in. Athiests simply believe in one less. Not sure how you can blow a hole in that.

Define God that you do not believe in. Atheism existed in ancient times as well, including Israel.

beingofone:
Can you see space?
Can you see light?
Can you see in the dark? Didn`t think so - its hard to see in the dark isn`t it?

Quarky:
We can experiment to show the concept of space, and light can't we?

Yup, but the conditions must be right and we must have the proper equipment, preparation, and mindset.

The same can be said of conducting experiments for God.

beingofone:
Why would God show up as Santa Claus?

Quarky:
He wouldn't. But there is more evidence for the existance of Santa, than god.

If he would not show up as Santa - why do you hold him to the same standard of proof?

Why the comparison?

beingofone:
If God has all the properties you just gave him, where would you go to find the evidence?

Quarky:
We wouldn't need to. He could MAKE us believe. Since there would be no freewill if god existed, we would not need to choose.

Unless God intended to hide himself, why might he do that?

It is clear in scripture there have always been many who did not believe, do you think this 'enlightened' post modernistic philosophy is the first?

And you will believe one day, whether you choose to or not. Its like doubting sunshine and yet, the evidence is a non sequitur.

God is both exoteric and esoteric. To realize God, he cannot be found first in the objective. One must first look at the experience of the subjective. He then becomes obvious everywhere and everywhen.

beingofone:
And you equate all the archaeological digs, and there are thousands, that validate the scripture to a comic book?

That is comical, you are reaching.

Check into Davids palace found last year, looks like King David was a real king after all and not just a comic book.

Quarky:
Verona existed. That does not mean I believe Romeo and Juliet to be true. Do you?

Extraordinary claims (the existance of "god") requires extraordinary evidence.

There is extraordinary eveidence - but you would have to have all the qualities necessary to find it.

Sodom:

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles.
More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.

Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."

Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 2450–2350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.

What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places. In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.

Jericho:

According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930's, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.

First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. The domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua's description of Rahab's quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).

Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city."{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.

A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks."{7} Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up. According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.

There are thousands upon thousands of digs that confirm the scripture. Only those who do not do a serious search cannot find, they just make assumptions about what they know nothing of.

The bible itself is full of errors. We know that rabbits don't chew their cud, that bats are not birds, that the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, that PI is not equal to 3, fowl's do not crawl on four legs, that there is NO historical evidence for the story of Exodus, that Nazareth didn't even EXIST at the time of Jesus, that the Earth is not flat, etc. etc.

I have been through this ignorance of scripture so many times - I am not doing it again. If you think these are contradictions that obviously come from know nothing atheistic websites are true criticisms - carry on.

I have answered every single one of these idiotic objections of spinning the texts and just plain ignorance of the scripture it is a weary.
I will answer but please - do your own homework and stop with the blind belief that websites actually know what they are talking about.

The rabbit and cud - there was only one way of saying it in Hebrew. An animal that chewed the cud and ate its feces meant the same thing.

Bats are not birds - when did the phylum system begin? About the 1700`s. What makes you think they classified animals the way you do?

Earth more than 10,00 yrs old - big deal, nothing in scripture dates the earth.

that PI is not equal to 3 - could you tell me what PI is equal to?

NO historical evidence for the story of Exodus - why would there be? They were nomadic, not sedentary. If there were evidence it would overturn the story not the other way around.

that Nazareth didn't even EXIST at the time of Jesus - baloney. Sticking a wet finger in the air for dating is not scientific.

that the Earth is not flat - there are two Hebrew words for earth, did you know that? One of them did not mean the sphere and yet when refering to the 'whole' earth it is described as round, did you know that?

erets and adamah.

For anyone to live their life around a book that is SO full of errors would be considered absurd, except of course if that book has "bible" on the front, in which case it seems to be perfectly acceptable to throw all logic and rationale out the window and accept it, errors and all.

No; you are just using blind faith in the criticisms without checking them out. I have checked out at least 800 - 1000 criticisms and they all evaporate with actual common sense.

As a former Catholic myself (and I am married to one), it would be nice believe in the the fairy story, but it would be nice to believe I was great looking too Unfortunately, just because it would be nice to believe something, does not make it true.

It is varified over and over and over - give ONE single solitary find that overturns the text, it cannot be done and yet thousands that confirm its precise accuracy.

You simply do not know the facts.
You are ignorant of the facts - that is all.

That is not to say you are not bright - I can tell you are a smart person.

 

[Quarky]

Quarky:



Since you do not matter, I can see why you think God is equally unimportant.

My thoughts on the significance of individuals has no bearing whatsoever on the question of god's existance or not.

What does that have to do with cause and effect?

So one part is the whole, is that what you are saying? There you have it, absolute proof that the universe is interconnected and therefore; a seemless force or energy that interpenetrates all and is the glue of the universe.

If this is true, what is this interconnectedness? Follow that trail of logic.

You did not "clearly demonstrate, if god exists, freewill doesn't." Its simple, both are equally true. Your will is God`s will.

But if MY will is GOD's will, then it cannot be my will. Look at it this way, if I am deciding to have beans or corn tonight for dinner, and god already knows that I will have beans, I cannot chose to have anything but beans. There is no choice. If god knows I will have beans, I will end up having beans. I might feel like I have made a decision but I cannot possibly do so since god already knows. What I will have is already predetermined before I eat, before I got up, before I was born. If my will will always be the same as gods will, and gods will was decided before I was a glint in the milkman's eye, it cannot possibly be either my will or freewill.

If god exists, there cannot be freewill. Therefore our actions are irrelevent (since they are predetermined), therefore the question of god is irrelevent (whether you or I believe does not matter, where we will end up (heaven or hell), god already knows).

Think through cause and effect regardless interconnectedness. Or are you saying that the sum total of the universe is what you are? In that case I would say; you matter a great deal in the grand scheme.

In five hundred years, will my life, or yours matter to the world at large. Lets round that down to no. What about in 1,000,000 years? Even less so.

Even this discussion is God`s will.

Exactly. If he exists, we were always going to have this discussion, there was no choice in the matter.

If God knows you will be eating vegetable soup, so do you.

No, I don't know what I will eat tomorrow, but god does already.

If you are eating vegetable soup, it is God`s will.

Yep, god's, it cannot be mine.

I must say, you have thought more deeply on this subject than most religious types and so; I compliment you.

Thanks As I said, I was a believer myself at one stage. It was not something that I gave up lightly (well in my opinion anyway!).

The fallacy is in projecting God as a being separate and distinct from yourself.

God is seperate from ourselves, unless we are like Jesus, which we are not. It is a trinity (depending on your flavour of christianity).

Err... I am a theologian and have studied scripture and the ancient languages for almost forty years, I think I have a handle on it.



How do you know what God was doing before the creation? Do you actually believe you can know what he was doing? You think this may be his first universe?

What about the universe before that? What about the one before that? Before that? Before that? An infinite time requires an infinite amount of universes, or god twiddling his thumbs for eternity before deciding what to do.

When God thinks - he big bangs.

There is stark evidence of that.

Define God that you do not believe in. Atheism existed in ancient times as well, including Israel.

That is like me asking you to define colours you don't believe in. I don't believe in any gods, tooth fairies, or invisible friends.

Yup, but the conditions must be right and we must have the proper equipment, preparation, and mindset.

The same can be said of conducting experiments for God.

What experiement proves the existence of god?

If he would not show up as Santa - why do you hold him to the same standard of proof?

Why the comparison?

Because there should be MORE evidence for the existance of god. There is infact less.

Unless God intended to hide himself, why might he do that?

It is clear in scripture there have always been many who did not believe, do you think this 'enlightened' post modernistic philosophy is the first?

No. In fact, religious belief is largely a stepping stone between the intelligence levels of the other members of the animal kingdom, and our further enlightenment. While there will always be those who believe in a "higher being" or "creator", just as they will always be those who believe in UFO's or the Loch Ness monster, I think that as time passes, they will be more and more marginalised. Whether this is a good thing or not is irrelevent.

And you will believe one day, whether you choose to or not. Its like doubting sunshine and yet, the evidence is a non sequitur.

Well, in your opinion of course. Myself, I doubt it, just as I doubt that will ever go to heaven, hell, or anywhere when you die.

God is both exoteric and esoteric. To realize God, he cannot be found first in the objective. One must first look at the experience of the subjective. He then becomes obvious everywhere and everywhen.

There is extraordinary eveidence - but you would have to have all the qualities necessary to find it.

I looked, I didn't find it. I stopped believing. A bit like Santa

Sodom:


Jericho:


There are thousands upon thousands of digs that confirm the scripture. Only those who do not do a serious search cannot find, they just make assumptions about what they know nothing of.

Same argument as for David. Digs which prove the existance or a town or place prove that only. They do not prove the existance of any god, christian or otherwise.

I have been through this ignorance of scripture so many times - I am not doing it again. If you think these are contradictions that obviously come from know nothing atheistic websites are true criticisms - carry on.

Fair enough. I will accept that you are absolutely convinced that all "errors" can be "explained". It really is secondary to the main argument, which is that god cannot exist, and not an attack parse on the christian or catholic god.

It is varified over and over and over - give ONE single solitary find that overturns the text, it cannot be done and yet thousands that confirm its precise accuracy.

You simply do not know the facts.
You are ignorant of the facts - that is all.

In your opinion. I am happy to discuss the history of egypt, the geneology of Adam->Jesus (and the number of generations), and the length of a "day", as defined in both Genesis and Kings (2 Kings I think), the fact that not ONE contempary mentions Jesus (neither do the Dead Sea Scroll's), or the fact that Josephus provides a detailed list of all the of the towns of Galilee, but does not mention the City of Nazareth (no one mentions it at the time of Jesus, or before, expect in the bible) but as I wrote above, I don't want to waste your time or mine, or disrespect your beliefs anymore than I already have.

That is not to say you are not bright - I can tell you are a smart person.

Thanks If I may jump ahead a few posts, I would say it comes down to this. You consider the bible as the word, and evidence for god. You would say that god gets around the freewill problem "becausehecan" (in a nutshell).

So therefore, using the same technique, you cannot prove that I am not god. Perhaps I chose not to use my powers "becauseIcan". Perhaps I chose to appear human "becauseIcan". If you accept god, and the existance of freewill, you cannot disprove that I am actually god.

 

[Smidlee]

Not really. If god *knows* I will have a vegetable soup tonight, I don't have freewill because if I have anything other than veg. soup, god is wrong, and he can't be wrong.

This is nonsense. There is many time I know exactly what someone would do and they did it willingly.

 

[Smidlee]

the fact that not ONE contempary mentions Jesus (neither do the Dead Sea Scroll's), or the fact that Josephus provides a detailed list of all the of the towns of Galilee, but does not mention the City of Nazareth (no one mentions it at the time of Jesus, or before, expect in the bible) but as I wrote above, I don't want to waste your time or mine, or disrespect your beliefs anymore than I already have.

Of course this doesn't mean Josephus didn't write or know about Nazareth. They didn't exactly have the freedom of speech like we have today. This is the reason why I doubt the tomb of Jesus still here; For even Romans would have destroy any evidence of Jesus just as they did with the temple. There was a price to pay for any connection with Jesus in the early days. Why would any unbeliever risk his neck?

 

[Veritass]

If I may jump ahead a few posts, I would say it comes down to this. You consider the bible as the word, and evidence for god. You would say that god gets around the freewill problem "becausehecan" (in a nutshell).

This is a fundamental problem when discussing religious belief. I happen to believe in a monist view of God, but I am very clear that I believe what I believe because I choose to believe it. If the person you are discussing this with believes what they believe because it is the mysterious and all-pervasive Truth with a capital "T", then there is really no room for discussion.

At the end, there is no scientific proof for the existence of God. In my opinion, this is the mainly a limit of using science, more than a proof that God does not exist. Of course the skeptic will (and should) err on the side of not believing.

At the end, there is also a limit to how far science can go. Science can tell us the "how" of gravity, for example, but not the "why". We can use this information to our advantage. We can make better and better models of how gravity works: that matter in a way warps the space around it and causes time to bend toward the object, etc. None of this answers -- or will ever answer -- the question of why the universe works the way it does.

There is also no scientific evidence for the objective existence of beauty. However, we all have had experiences of it, and our world is enriched and enlarged because of this.

 

[Quarky]

This is nonsense. There is many time I know exactly what someone would do and they did it willingly.

I think my boss will go to work to work tomorow. If he does, does not mean that he had no choice. He had a choice, I just got it right. Me (or you) making a correct educated judgement on someones actions is not even close to the same as someone *knowing* what you will do before you do it. Let me know if you want me to explain this futher, but I would suggest you also read the section of my previous posts if you have not already done so.

 

[Quarky]

Of course this doesn't mean Josephus didn't write or know about Nazareth. They didn't exactly have the freedom of speech like we have today. This is the reason why I doubt the tomb of Jesus still here; For even Romans would have destroy any evidence of Jesus just as they did with the temple. There was a price to pay for any connection with Jesus in the early days. Why would any unbeliever risk his neck?

Ah, so because there is no record of Nazareth at or before the time of jesus, is simply because they didn't have free speech?? Come on. You seriously believe that not only did the Romans want to wipe a city out of history, but they managed to?

You don't seriously believe that do you? Do you also believe there is no record of Roman defeats, or anything which makes the Romans look bad.. If not, why not?

 

[Smidlee]

Ah, so because there is no record of Nazareth at or before the time of jesus, is simply because they didn't have free speech?? Come on. You seriously believe that not only did the Romans want to wipe a city out of history, but they managed to?

You don't seriously believe that do you? Do you also believe there is no record of Roman defeats, or anything which makes the Romans look bad.. If not, why not?

There been other examples in the past where critics claims there is no record later to discover there was. Just because we haven't found an record doen't mean the it never existed. So if the record of Nazareth did appear in other records critics would only pick something else.

 

[FredLC]

Random thought I had while reading this:

The theory that matter is made up of indivisible particles (we know them as atoms) was first proposed thousands of years ago; that matter is composed of some fundamental unit that cannot be divided further without changing its properties. (before this, the going theory was that a piece of iron could be chopped into smaller pieces forever, and the pieces would always be iron)

When the idea of the atom was first proposed, there was no way to verify it; it was not falsifiable.

Yet it was true.

Opinions?

Actually, it was wrong.

The obvious extrapolation to any basic material is that it could be divided forever without quality change.

But the idea that it could be composed by another, more fundamental, particle, while obviously more refined, was still an extrapolation of ordinary observations. And the idea of an indivisible minimal unit, after that, does not require that much of an leap of imagination.

Problem is, it is wrong. Currently, atom was divided time and time again into smaller particles. And before you say that it is just a matter of naming (they just called "atom" the wrong particle, but a smaller one could deserve that name - an obvious refutation to my text so far), it's worthy of note that particles being discovered aren't particles in many senses of the word - but a blur between matter and energy. So, the idea of a basic material unit being fundamental of physical existence is being defeated by the predicted expected consequences of relativity - matter and energy being variants of the same thing.

Regards .

 

[warpus]

Yup, but the conditions must be right and we must have the proper equipment, preparation, and mindset.

The same can be said of conducting experiments for God.

Let the experiments begin!!! Off to a lab we go

or do we? Nahh such experiments are impossible.

And you will believe one day, whether you choose to or not. Its like doubting sunshine and yet, the evidence is a non sequitur.

God is both exoteric and esoteric. To realize God, he cannot be found first in the objective. One must first look at the experience of the subjective. He then becomes obvious everywhere and everywhen.

Hey, just because you can see things that aren't there doesn't mean everyone else will eventually follow suit

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend.

That's supposed to be proof? It is a legend You might as well say that those cities were destroyed by an alien invasion force.

There are thousands upon thousands of digs that confirm the scripture. Only those who do not do a serious search cannot find, they just make assumptions about what they know nothing of.

You're the one making assumptions.

Here's your logic.

1. Archeological digs support some of the points of the bible.
2. Therefore all of the Bible must be true
3. Therefore God exists

That is a huge leap from 1. to 2. This sort of leap is not allowed.

It couldn't be possible at all that whoever wrote the Bible exagarated certain facts and introduced the supernatural later? Naaaah, that couldn't have happened at all.

There are thousands upon thousands of digs that confirm the scripture.

BZZZZT wrong, they confirm only certain parts of the scripture. There is no such evidence that confirms the supernatural parts of the Bible

btw very interesting post FredLC

 

[Quarky]

There been other examples in the past where critics claims there is no record later to discover there was. Just because we haven't found an record doen't mean the it never existed. So if the record of Nazareth did appear in other records critics would only pick something else.

Of course. But lets not forget that a few missing towns and cities is a fairly fundamental flaw as far as some people are concerned. Don't forget that not even the Talmud lists Nazareth when talking about the town of Galilee, and the christian theologean Origen didn't even know where it was, despite the fact that he lived a matter of miles from where the mythical Nazareth was supposed to exist. He couldn't even be sure if the town was called Nazareth, and this was only 200 years after the story of Jesus!

The bible should be free from all error. If it isn't how can anyone use it as a basis of such an important thing as faith? You might as well use LOTR and believe that Sauron is the devil and some elf is god. It makes as much sense.

 

[Perfection]

Atheism is so outdated and a concept based in fear.

Why is it outdated? When was it in date, and what made it change to out of date?

And why is it based in fear?

 

[beingofone]

Quarky, Warpus, and perfection; all three of you go way off the beam and are not responding to what I said.

You guys must be talking to someone nonexistent in this thread because it is certainly not me you are responding to.


Ill show ya.

Quarky:

beingofone:
Since you do not matter, I can see why you think God is equally unimportant.

Quarky:
My thoughts on the significance of individuals has no bearing whatsoever on the question of god's existance or not.

I did not say individuals were signifigant, I said you.

Since you are insignifigant, how could God be any more important?

But if MY will is GOD's will, then it cannot be my will. Look at it this way, if I am deciding to have beans or corn tonight for dinner, and god already knows that I will have beans, I cannot chose to have anything but beans. There is no choice.

This is a Red Herring fallacy.

Look; If you decide to eat beans and have the will, opportunity, and means to make that happen (barring random intervention) could you make that happen?

The question of whether God knows the future is irrelevent and is creating a false dillema. If you yourself determine to eat beans, are you predicting the future?

Yup

Try this; God does not know the future - but he does have will, opportunity, and the means to fullfil his desire.

If god exists, there cannot be freewill. Therefore our actions are irrelevent (since they are predetermined), therefore the question of god is irrelevent (whether you or I believe does not matter, where we will end up (heaven or hell), god already knows).

God does not exist - period.

You are still assuming God is somewhere 'out there' imposing his divine will on you 'here'.

God is not a being, he is not a supreme being, he is being in and of itself.

beingofone:
Think through cause and effect regardless interconnectedness. Or are you saying that the sum total of the universe is what you are? In that case I would say; you matter a great deal in the grand scheme.

Quarky:
In five hundred years, will my life, or yours matter to the world at large. Lets round that down to no. What about in 1,000,000 years? Even less so.

This was not the question, the question was; how would cause and effect mean you have free will?

If you are saying the quantum field interconnects the universe, therefore; you are the universe.

beingofone:
Even this discussion is God`s will.

Quarky:
Exactly. If he exists, we were always going to have this discussion, there was no choice in the matter.

And you are assuming God exists 'somewhere' and is interdicting his will into reality. If God is God he cannot possibly exist, he would of necessity transcend existence.

God is not 'somewhere'. The reason he cannot be found first objectively is because the whole time you are looking, you are seeing what God is, not where he is.

beingofone:
If God knows you will be eating vegetable soup, so do you.

Quarky:
No, I don't know what I will eat tomorrow, but god does already.

Can you think about what you will eat tomorrow and make up your mind?

Congrads; you just made up God`s mind what you will be eating.

beingofone:
If you are eating vegetable soup, it is God`s will.

Quarky:
Yep, god's, it cannot be mine.

Nope; its the same.

beingofone:
The fallacy is in projecting God as a being separate and distinct from yourself.

Quarky:
God is seperate from ourselves, unless we are like Jesus, which we are not. It is a trinity (depending on your flavour of christianity).

And that is why you think God is a logical fallacy when you introduce freewill.

Think of Jesus like your perfect mirror and the conundrum resolves itself.

What about the universe before that? What about the one before that? Before that? Before that? An infinite time requires an infinite amount of universes, or god twiddling his thumbs for eternity before deciding what to do.

We are not God`s first experiment.

God desires to create - he is really good at it - its all good.

beingofone:
Define God that you do not believe in. Atheism existed in ancient times as well, including Israel.

Quarky:
That is like me asking you to define colours you don't believe in. I don't believe in any gods, tooth fairies, or invisible friends.

No; it is not the same thing at all.

If you are looking for a tooth fairy, you have a good idea of what you are looking for. Same goes for the invisible man.

If you fail to define God, how could you possibly know if you found him? You may have already been introduced and not have known it.

It would be akin to trying to find light in the sunshine, just cannot see any light for all the sunshine.

beingofone:
Yup, but the conditions must be right and we must have the proper equipment, preparation, and mindset.

The same can be said of conducting experiments for God.

Quarky:
What experiement proves the existence of god?

What experiments prove you can taste salt, hold the image of a lake in your mind, or feel love?

beingofone:
If he would not show up as Santa - why do you hold him to the same standard of proof?

Why the comparison?

Quarky:
Because there should be MORE evidence for the existance of god. There is infact less.

How and what would God show up as?

If you cannot answer this question, how do you know if you have evidence or not?

No. In fact, religious belief is largely a stepping stone between the intelligence levels of the other members of the animal kingdom, and our further enlightenment. While there will always be those who believe in a "higher being" or "creator", just as they will always be those who believe in UFO's or the Loch Ness monster, I think that as time passes, they will be more and more marginalised. Whether this is a good thing or not is irrelevent.

And I know that the life of Jesus will be the catalyst for the next major paradigm of mankind.

Well, in your opinion of course. Myself, I doubt it, just as I doubt that will ever go to heaven, hell, or anywhere when you die.

Do you know what and who you are?

Are you your name?
Are you your history?
Are you your job title?

I looked, I didn't find it. I stopped believing. A bit like Santa

You looked everywhere but the one place he can be found.

Where would Jesus have looked for God?

Same argument as for David. Digs which prove the existance or a town or place prove that only. They do not prove the existance of any god, christian or otherwise.

You obviously; did not read the entire article that I quoted.

In your opinion.

No; I dare say I have devoted more time to this matter than almost anyone I have ever met. That is not bragging, that is just remaining objective.

I am happy to discuss the history of egypt

Here we go - I can tell you right now, these are fluff, but if you must, bring it.

the geneology of Adam->Jesus (and the number of generations),

The geneology that is listed in each of the texts - one is for Joseph the other for Mary.

and the length of a "day", as defined in both Genesis and Kings (2 Kings I think)

This is a first for me, could you get me the exact verses please?

the fact that not ONE contempary mentions Jesus (neither do the Dead Sea Scroll's)

Early Christianity:
On a bad weekend in Rome, there were 60,000 people watching the games. On a good day 90,000.

In Ephesus there were 35,000 watching the plays.

Jesus, at the peak of his ministry, drew crowds of 15 - 20,000.

There is a pastor in my city, that I have shared meals with, that has 25,000 attending. His name is Mark Martin, and they claim to have miracles taking place on a regular basis there.

How come no CNN coverage? Have you heard of him? Why not?

Later Christianity:
It is a capital crime to be a Christian and there is a mystery as to why no one wants to address the issue? It was kinda touch and go, you would only risk your head if you were taken wrong.

Yup; include him in a poem and lose your head, hard choice I know.

Seneca - writer on ethics, philosophy, morals, natural scientist who tracked eclipses & quakes - doesn`t sound like he needed to risk his head and all to speak on issues that were better off without appealing to a Jewish prophet that had been executed and then responsible for a dangerous cultic revolution.

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Pliny the Elder - books on natural events such as earthquakes - what does Jesus have to do with earhtquakes?

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Quintilian - morals and virtue. Mention how Jesus was an example of morality and lose your head.

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Martial - poet about human foibles and the diverse characters of Roman Empire. Mention Jesus in a poem and lose your head, tough call, he probably enjoyed his life enough not to risk it, don`t ya think?

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Juvenal - satirical poet, wrote about injustice and tragedy in Roman gov’t. I wonder why he did not mention the injustice of crucifixion of a Jewish prophet, what a mystery, huh?

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Plutarch - morals and ethics.

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Epictetus - former slave who became a recognized moralist, philosopher and wrote about the "brotherhood of man" and the importance of helping the poor and oppressed.

Why no mention of Jesus, who drew smaller crowds?

Pliny the Younger - letter in 112CE asking Emperor Trajan about prosecuting Christians who "met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as to a god." Hmm, only historical dialogue of the time period in dispatch form, and he does mention Christ.

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Suetonius - authored, Lives of the Emperors , a history of 11 emperors; writing in 120 about Emperor Claudius 41-54CE who "expelled from Rome the Jews who under the influence of Chrestus, did not cease to cause unrest."
Historian - take note, none that excluded Jesus were historians.

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

Tacitus - noted Roman historian - "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate."
Another historian, and he mentions Jesus. I wonder why writers of poetry do not mention Jesus? What a mystery - huh?

Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

The Dead Sea scrolls were Jewish scripture - and there is a crucified Messiah scroll, did you know that?

or the fact that Josephus provides a detailed list of all the of the towns of Galilee, but does not mention the City of Nazareth (no one mentions it at the time of Jesus, or before, expect in the bible)

No; he just writes about Jesus himself. So he does not mention Nazareth, but he mentions Jesus - and this is proof of what again?

The Jewish scriptures never mention Nazareth, neither does the Talmud. Are you saying it did not exist?

There is even the mention of James, the brother of Jesus, did you know that?

but as I wrote above, I don't want to waste your time or mine, or disrespect your beliefs anymore than I already have.

And they evaporate under real critical thought.

There have been unearthed, in 1945 AD 40 brand new, never before seen, books. Did you know they all verify Jesus?

Its called the Nag Hammadi - Google it and see what happens.

You consider the bible as the word, and evidence for god. You would say that god gets around the freewill problem "becausehecan" (in a nutshell).

No; you are making assumptions - you should ask what I think.

So therefore, using the same technique, you cannot prove that I am not god.

Exactly "And God created man in his own image."

He may be in the very last place you have looked.



warpus:

Let the experiments begin!!! Off to a lab we go

or do we? Nahh such experiments are impossible.

Exactly why you cannot find God - you believe it is impossible, what a mystery.

beingofone:
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend.

Warpus:
That's supposed to be proof? It is a legend You might as well say that those cities were destroyed by an alien invasion force.

You didn`t read the article, did you?

Grabbing snippets is not critical thought, no matter how much you wanna win the debate.

You're the one making assumptions.

Here's your logic.

1. Archeological digs support some of the points of the bible.
2. Therefore all of the Bible must be true
3. Therefore God exists

That is a huge leap from 1. to 2. This sort of leap is not allowed.

I didn`t - that is your reinterpretation of what I said.

It couldn't be possible at all that whoever wrote the Bible exagarated certain facts and introduced the supernatural later? Naaaah, that couldn't have happened at all.

Uh Huh - now I am positive you did not read the articles I quoted.

beingofone
There are thousands upon thousands of digs that confirm the scripture.

Warpus:
BZZZZT wrong, they confirm only certain parts of the scripture. There is no such evidence that confirms the supernatural parts of the Bible

Pinch back at ya - read the articles please.


Perfection:

beingofone
Atheism is so outdated and a concept based in fear.

Perfection:
Why is it outdated? When was it in date, and what made it change to out of date?

Dude- that was sarcasm quoting Quarky, just interjecting atheism for Christianity.

It has been around since the dawn of history.

It is outdated because we now can prove God is real through consciousness, and no, I do not want to go through it all again with you when you did not even attempt to understand in multiple posts.

It is fear based because it has blind belief in abiogenesis.

 

[Quarky]

Quarky, Warpus, and perfection; all three of you go way off the beam and are not responding to what I said.

You guys must be talking to someone nonexistent in this thread because it is certainly not me you are responding to.


Ill show ya.

Quarky:



I did not say individuals were signifigant, I said you.

Since you are insignifigant, how could God be any more important?

My significance has no bearing at all on the existance of god. God exists, or doesn't exist regardless of what I think.

This is a Red Herring fallacy.

Look; If you decide to eat beans and have the will, opportunity, and means to make that happen (barring random intervention) could you make that happen?

That depends if god exists. If god exists, he already *knows* whether I will have beans or not. I might get home and think, "hmm, corn, no wait, I will have beans for the hell of it", but that is immaterial. If god exists, he already knows. If he knows I will have beans, I will have beans, or god is wrong. God cannot be wrong, therefore I will have beans even if I feel like I have made a decision. The decision wasn't mine to make because the outcome was known long before I was born.

The only way that that cannot be true if if god is not omniscient, and if god exists within and is bound by, the rules of the universe (specifically time). If god is not bound by the rules of the universe, he is not bound by time (so knows the future), and if he is not omniscient, well, I fail to see how you can have a god not bound by time but who does not know the future. It would be like you not being able to read a word on this page (not not understand it, but not read it).

The question of whether God knows the future is irrelevent and is creating a false dillema. If you yourself determine to eat beans, are you predicting the future?

Yup

No. If I decide to eat beans, I am fulfilling gods will. If I decide not to eat beans, I am fulfilling gods will. God already knows, therefore it is not my choice to make.

Try this; God does not know the future - but he does have will, opportunity, and the means to fullfil his desire.

If he is not bound by time, he cannot not know the future (sorry, excuse the double negative but it gets the point across better) unless he makes a concious decision to. That being said, he would need to decide to forget it. Either way, he already knew it since he is not bound by the laws of the universe, and therefore time.

God does not exist - period.

You are still assuming God is somewhere 'out there' imposing his divine will on you 'here'.

God is not a being, he is not a supreme being, he is being in and of itself.

Being, supreme being, whatever. Either he is exists or he doesn't. Either we have free will, or we don't.

This was not the question, the question was; how would cause and effect mean you have free will?

Is it is about cause and effect meaning I have freewill, it about the existance of god meaning I don't. It is possible that god doesn't exist AND I don't have free will (due to some other cause), however, if god exists, I definitely cannot have free will.

If you are saying the quantum field interconnects the universe, therefore; you are the universe.

No idea what you are stretching for here. I am not the universe, I am made of particles that are a part of the universe, as is all of the universe.

And you are assuming God exists 'somewhere' and is interdicting his will into reality. If God is God he cannot possibly exist, he would of necessity transcend existence.

If god is god he cannot possibly exist? So are you saying that god does not exist?

God is not 'somewhere'. The reason he cannot be found first objectively is because the whole time you are looking, you are seeing what God is, not where he is.

What is god then?

Can you think about what you will eat tomorrow and make up your mind?

Congrads; you just made up God`s mind what you will be eating.

No, first of all, I could decide eat beans and get hit by a truck on the way home. See above though, GOD ALREADY KNOWS what I will eat tomorrow. I may FEEL like I have made a decision, but if GOD ALRADY KNOWS, I haven't. It was decided before I "decided" what to eat.

Nope; its the same.

And that is why you think God is a logical fallacy when you introduce freewill.

I don't see how god can exist without free will, unless we are god. Is that what you are saying? Is god inside me? Am I therefore "part-god"? Is that what you believe?

Think of Jesus like your perfect mirror and the conundrum resolves itself.

Well, I doubt he existed, but if he existed according to the bible, him and I are vastly different people. If Jesus is god is Jesus, then if we are the mirror image of Jesus, we are the mirror image of god. You seem to allude to this a few times.. I don't believe we are god, and the Christian faith does not teach that (well not at my level anyway!).

We are not God`s first experiment.

God desires to create - he is really good at it - its all good.

So god has been "watching the same movie" knowing every nuance, over and over for eternity? You might buy that, but I don't. Not only is there no evidence for it, it does not make sense.

No; it is not the same thing at all.

If you are looking for a tooth fairy, you have a good idea of what you are looking for. Same goes for the invisible man.

If you fail to define God, how could you possibly know if you found him? You may have already been introduced and not have known it.

It would be akin to trying to find light in the sunshine, just cannot see any light for all the sunshine.

OK. I don't believe in any "intelligent" "creator" of the universe. I certainly don't believe in "intelligent" "being" that is out there using us as playthings.

What experiments prove you can taste salt, hold the image of a lake in your mind, or feel love?

Salt - Cook too meals, identical, but one with added salt. See if you can taste the difference. That should be enough evidence.
Sky/Love - (off the top of my head) these are abstracts and I don't believe we have the technology CURRENTLY to prove these. However, it is coming. We can already show the impact on the brain when doing different tasks. Different emotions is a smallish step away in the grand scheme of things.

None of this proves or disproves god. I think I know what you are getting at, but it kind of brings us around full circle, back to my comment that whether god exists or not is irrelevent. As well as the inability for god to exist alongside our freewill, ANYONE can define a god that CANNOT be disproved, just as you cannot disprove that I am not god. Therefore, anyone can come up with an experiment that proves that a particular god of their creation exists. This does not mean that any god can be proven to exist, but a god (me for example if I claimed to be god) cannot be disproved, neither can the little blue fluffy bunny rabbit that created the world and everything in it, only a few hours ago. You cannot prove that that little blue bunny doesn't exist, and did not create the world a few hours ago. That doesn't mean that it exists though.

How and what would God show up as?

If you cannot answer this question, how do you know if you have evidence or not?

See my definition above.

And I know that the life of Jesus will be the catalyst for the next major paradigm of mankind.



Do you know what and who you are?

Are you your name?
Are you your history?
Are you your job title?

Yes, a collection of elementary particles in a particular arrangement.

You looked everywhere but the one place he can be found.

Where would Jesus have looked for God?

I don't remember that bit of the story

You obviously; did not read the entire article that I quoted.

I have now, and they change nothing. Do those articles prove the existance of god?

No; I dare say I have devoted more time to this matter than almost anyone I have ever met. That is not bragging, that is just remaining objective.

I'm sure you have, which is why I respect your views. Or would if they could be pinned down

Here we go - I can tell you right now, these are fluff, but if you must, bring it.



The geneology that is listed in each of the texts - one is for Joseph the other for Mary.

Was Jesus the son of Mary? If so, we have the geaneology for Jesus do we not? We can then count the generations, calculate an approximate age/generation, and we have the time back to Adam. We can add seven days or so and we have the age of the Earth/Universe upto the time of Jesus. That figure is accepted to be between 6k and 10k years (I round up for the sake of argument).

This is a first for me, could you get me the exact verses please?

Sorry, not Kings. Exodus 20:9

Early Christianity:
On a bad weekend in Rome, there were 60,000 people watching the games. On a good day 90,000.

In Ephesus there were 35,000 watching the plays.

Jesus, at the peak of his ministry, drew crowds of 15 - 20,000.

There is a pastor in my city, that I have shared meals with, that has 25,000 attending. His name is Mark Martin, and they claim to have miracles taking place on a regular basis there.

How come no CNN coverage? Have you heard of him? Why not?

Lots of people claim to have seen miracles. The vast majority are clearly not. Why should your friend be any different?

<snip>
Why no mention of Epictetus who drew bigger crowds than Jesus?

There must have been a mention of his somewhere otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned him. However, I am not sure what you are getting at here.

The Dead Sea scrolls were Jewish scripture - and there is a crucified Messiah scroll, did you know that?

Do the DSS's mention Jesus?

No; he just writes about Jesus himself. So he does not mention Nazareth, but he mentions Jesus - and this is proof of what again?

Two things. Josephus' section on Jesus is largely consider to be a forgery (surprise, surprise). Secondly, Nazareth does not need to exist for a historical person called Jesus to exist. Only for a Jesus as discribed in the bible to exist.

The Jewish scriptures never mention Nazareth, neither does the Talmud. Are you saying it did not exist?

Yes, Nazareth did not exist until 400AD according to all evidence uncovered so far by Jewish, Christian, and secular researchers. There is no evidence for the City of Nazareth at the time of Christ. None. Nada. Neic. Zip. Zilch. Not even early Christian theologists knew where this supposed city was supposed to have been. Pretty strange for a such an important city.

There is even the mention of James, the brother of Jesus, did you know that?

But no Nazarth?

And they evaporate under real critical thought.

There have been unearthed, in 1945 AD 40 brand new, never before seen, books. Did you know they all verify Jesus?

Do they mention Nazareth?

Are these the books that include the Gospel of Thomas? They verify the existance of Jesus as much as the bible does. In fact were some of them rejected for "membership" to the bible?

Christian writings justify the existance of Jesus as much as the LOTR justifies the existance of Sauron and the Ring.

Its called the Nag Hammadi - Google it and see what happens.

No; you are making assumptions - you should ask what I think.

What do you think?

Exactly "And God created man in his own image."

He may be in the very last place you have looked.

Where is he then?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You seem to be assuming that if God exists, he must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnietc. I can easily however imagine a God who is not.

You also said that since most miracles aren't real, that none are. Interesting argument - if some things that claim to be X are not X, then there is no such thing as X. This seems to me to not be valid.

 

[warpus]

Exactly why you cannot find God - you believe it is impossible, what a mystery.

No, I just have never heard somebody describe an experiment that would test for his existence accurately.

You said it's possible, so let's hear it.

You didn`t read the article, did you?

I did, I didn't want to quote it all though, my response was already long enough!

Pinch back at ya - read the articles please.

I did.

Please quote the parts that show proof of the supernatural, please. You won't find it.