The Definition of God [Archive]

draqon

10-22-07, 03:16 AM

Oh man, you are stupid!

This is a GAME. The purpose of the game is to prove or disprove God without logical argumentation. I don't CARE if that is true or not. You must assume that to be true and go from there to play the game.

I am not stupid, I am ignorant...as you have claimed earlier.

Now ok...since this is a game and has nothing to do with reality of things than yes I shall play.

I am picking the side 1) why God exists

God exists because today when i looked up in the sky I saw beautifull birds fly by me wishing me luck in the upcoming day and as I passed the morning doves quitly gossiping in the rays of the azure sun I saw it there the true beauty of the Angel's wings touch upon the crescent young moon reflection within the calm cyan water of the nearby lake...how beautiful the angel was with the eyes of purity and sincerety the angel glanced at me and made me sing of the beautiful week that is to unfold before the dawn is set to touch the timid laughing children who dance around fields of flowers just beside us.

TruthSeeker

10-22-07, 03:22 AM

That's logical. It's a whole bunch of lies and non-sequiturs......

And an argument from ignorance... :D

lightgigantic

10-22-07, 04:59 AM

Assume that the definition of God is the following:

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

Two sides of the argument:
1) God exist
2) God does not exist

Pick a side.

Now... DEBATE! :D

:thumbsup:
therefore you find that logic is not sufficient to establish god's existence

but logic can be called upon to bring one to the point of applying practices that enable one to establish god's existence

(IOW logic can be sufficient to bring one to the point of applying normative descriptions in scripture)

kerux

10-22-07, 05:47 AM

Assume that the definition of God is the following:

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

Two sides of the argument:
1) God exist
2) God does not exist

Pick a side.

Now... DEBATE! :D

:thumbsup:

Biblically speaking, not ignorantly speaking, we come here to reason together (Isaiah 1:18). There are gods. Which god cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning.

On my Bible, particularly the derivation of John 1:1 in the new testament says, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.

Any debate?

geeser

10-22-07, 07:57 AM

Assume that the definition of God is the following:

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

and to further that reasoning Assume that this is also part of the definition

"That which can be proven by means of illogical reasoning."
now we can debate.

here the first reasoning not using logic, thus proving with illogic, that god must exist
"God must exist, because if he didn't, then there wouldn't be a God to disbelieve in, in the first place."

TruthSeeker

10-22-07, 04:25 PM

So you are saying that the abscence of logical reasoning is necessarily illogical? Why? Couldn't there be something in between? ;)

What I'm saying is... if something is not logical, is it nevessarily illogical? Or could it be something else?

TruthSeeker

10-22-07, 04:30 PM

"God must exist, because if he didn't, then there wouldn't be a God to disbelieve in, in the first place."
That's not illogical. It's perfectly logical. It's a fallacy (altough I can't figure out which one at the moment.... :scratchin: ). Why would you need a God to disbelieve in? It assumes that you need a God to believe in. It seems like a non-sequitur as well...

Here's a question for you. Is it possible to say something illogical? :)

shichimenshyo

10-22-07, 04:45 PM

Biblically speaking, not ignorantly speaking

Are you implying that anything that is not biblically spoken is ignorant? :bugeye:

Reiku

10-22-07, 04:52 PM

It's paradoxical this anyway. You cannot define God.

shorty_37

10-22-07, 04:58 PM

Definition of God..........

The "INVISIBLE MAN" lolol

Reiku

10-22-07, 05:01 PM

To define God, would be to know his mind, and know a unified theory of physics. We can't ever know this because of restrictions placed upon human knowledgable capabilities. It essentially goes beyond all logical and epistemological reasonings.

VitalOne

10-22-07, 05:19 PM

#2

God does not exist because there is no proof sufficient enough to prove of God's existence
Argument from ignorance (illogical argument)

I wonder if its possible for atheists to argue without being 100% illogical, I guess not, I mean when you're an atheist you're just trapped in a delusional world

Reiku

10-22-07, 05:24 PM

Consider the following then.

1. That there is proof for God that turns out to be suffice.

If there is, then it must be all around us.

Sarkus

10-23-07, 04:19 AM

Consider the following then.

1. That there is proof for God that turns out to be suffice.

If there is, then it must be all around us.And the difference between this definition and the definition for "the Universe", or "everything"? What additional aspect does defining it as God provide?

kerux

10-23-07, 08:02 AM

Are you implying that anything that is not biblically spoken is ignorant? :bugeye:
No, I am not. But I am not ignorant of the meaning of the word "god/s" in the Bible. Anyone acan define God, but I do define that term biblically.

Photizo

10-23-07, 08:05 AM

Are you implying that anything that is not biblically spoken is ignorant? :bugeye:

Anyone not knowledgeable* in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is certainly ignorant...and that ignorance will cost them dearly.

* "thoroughly acquainted with and skilled in something through study or experience"

draqon

10-23-07, 03:23 PM

Argument from ignorance (illogical argument)

I wonder if its possible for atheists to argue without being 100% illogical, I guess not, I mean when you're an atheist you're just trapped in a delusional world

ignorance of what? Ignorance of everything...well everything summons up to nothing, no evidence of this God.

VitalOne

10-23-07, 03:24 PM

ignorance of what? Ignorance of everything...well everything summons up to nothing, no evidence of this God.

Its an illogicl argument, look it up :rolleyes:

draqon

10-23-07, 03:28 PM

Its an illogicl argument, look it up :rolleyes:

illogical statement, says who/wrote who? the God believers. So yeah, illogical to them...because they believe in God, no proof of God, but they believe in God never the less. Or as they say proof of God is everywhere and evil is just lack of God. Well hear me, I don't need this God who reluctantly happens to lack in a lot of places.

Enmos

10-23-07, 03:31 PM

draqon

10-23-07, 03:48 PM

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

If God cannot not be logically established by definition, then there is no way of knowing if he exists. It also would mean that he is unable to interact with us.
So, while it then cannot be known if God exists, it really doesn't matter whether he does or not because his existence would have no bearing on ours.

that is also wrong...as how would you know that God has not been silent all this time and used illusions on us for us to think there is no proof of God at all, when he/it is amongst us all.

You know whats the difference between me and VitalOne? I see God as us...consciousness of universe which includes us all. What does VitalOne see God as? something like a being with an image Christians gave him...the old shepherd of humans?... But than I never asked him/her...

VitalOne

10-23-07, 04:01 PM

illogical statement, says who/wrote who? the God believers. So yeah, illogical to them...because they believe in God, no proof of God, but they believe in God never the less. Or as they say proof of God is everywhere and evil is just lack of God. Well hear me, I don't need this God who reluctantly happens to lack in a lot of places.

Wtf is your problem, it has nothing to do with theism or atheism, just logic, look it up, oh wait, I'll do your work for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

What a delusional atheist, these atheists will go at any length to preserve the atheistic faith and remain in delusion

Now whats your argument "oh I don't care if its illogical" right?

draqon

10-23-07, 04:03 PM

Wtf is your problem, it has nothing to do with theism or atheism, just logic, look it up, oh wait, I'll do your work for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

What a delusional atheist, these atheists will go at any length to preserve the atheistic faith and remain in delusion

Now whats your argument "oh I don't care if its illogical" right?

WHAT IS MY IGNORANCE? IGNORANCE OF WHAT? your God presence everywhere? nonsense...it is you who are ignorant.

VitalOne

10-23-07, 04:05 PM

WHAT IS MY IGNORANCE? IGNORANCE OF WHAT? your God presence everywhere? nonsense...it is you who are ignorant.

I never said you were ignorant, I SAID YOU WERE USING AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE...CAN YOU READ?

Wisdom_Seeker

10-23-07, 05:31 PM

Being ignorant is not a bad thing, you guys are all ignorants, so what? Except for the moderator off course...

Cris

10-23-07, 05:34 PM

TS,

Assume that the definition of God is the following:

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

Two sides of the argument:
1) God exist
2) God does not exist

Pick a side.Since the assumption implies that since logic cannot be used then the only alternative is that illogic or irrationality must be used. The only reasonable response is to respond with an equally irrational choice.

I choose both sides concurrently, which is impossible and appropriately irrational and suits the idiocy of the op.

Wisdom_Seeker

10-23-07, 05:47 PM

Assume that the definition of God is the following:

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

Two sides of the argument:
1) God exist
2) God does not exist

Pick a side.

Now... DEBATE! :D

:thumbsup:

God exists because He is everything, God does not exist because he is also absolute nothingness. God is love, but God is also hate; God is all that is matter, but he is also all that is inmaterial.
God is in each and every one of us, God is in the Sun, in the stars; and He is also in the air we breath, the water we drink, the animals, stones, mountains and rivers. God is all of that, and God is nothing of that, because each thing cannot contain the wholeness of it; at the same time, each thing is a micro-cosmos of the macro-cosmos.
God is reality, but also "maya"; God is mind, but also soul. God transcends duality, but that which transcends duality cannot exist by logic... Logic lives in duality and God doesn´t, but at the same time, he does because he works throught duality.

Illogical enough for you?

ghost7584

10-23-07, 08:04 PM

Assume that the definition of God is the following:

"That which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning."

Two sides of the argument:
1) God exist
2) God does not exist

Pick a side.

Now... DEBATE! :D

:thumbsup:

The assumption of yours is a false assumption. God can be proven by logical reasoning. The problem with many atheists is that devils are controlling their thinking, to a greater or lesser degree, and they cannot think logically about God or Jesus.
One definite sign of devil possession is the inability for someone to say that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. These atheists that keep on denying that Jesus Christ is a real historical figure are exhibiting one of the syptoms of devil possession and probably are not in control of their own minds. They cannot think logically about God or Jesus.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Logical reasoning:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

draqon

10-23-07, 08:08 PM

ghost7584

10-23-07, 08:15 PM

the laws of probability, tell us that this universe complexity means it was made by someone else?

oh reallly? since when?

Well than lets examine the quantum world...its all chaotical, or has God not created the quantum world? Complexity comes from system organizations of quantum particles that create protons...neutrons...less chaos and more complex interactions...than atoms...less chaos and more complex interactions...than molecules....cells...organisms...

less chaos and more social complex interactions...and not because God made it so. It is a result of a growing interactions between chaos.

Your reasoning violates the established law of entropy that disorder always increases in physical processes. The interactions you named will tend to disorder and not order. An intelligent designer deliberately manipulating it tends to order. God built that up, it did not happen by chance processes. Chance tends to disorder.

draqon

10-23-07, 08:17 PM

so what law of entropy not applicable to quantum world? what sense is there?

Cris

10-23-07, 08:20 PM

Gost7584,

Logical reasoning:Hmm, we’ll see.

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.OK. So by the exact same reasoning we must conclude that God who must be vastly more complex since he was able to create the complexity of DNA, must have been created. This must be true since by your reasoning ordered complexity cannot come into being by chance and that it must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

In which case please tell us who created God?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, Hmm, invisible things being clearly seen! Kinda sounds like an oxymoron?

being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Wonderful image, almost a rival for the Lord of the Rings stories.

ghost7584

10-23-07, 08:35 PM

Gost7584,

Hmm, we’ll see.

OK. So by the exact same reasoning we must conclude that God who must be vastly more complex since he was able to create the complexity of DNA, must have been created. This must be true since by your reasoning ordered complexity cannot come into being by chance and that it must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

In which case please tell us who created God?

Hmm, invisible things being clearly seen! Kinda sounds like an oxymoron?

Wonderful image, almost a rival for the Lord of the Rings stories.

What you are tying to say is a logical fallacy. Think about this:

Nothing cannot create anything. Since there is something in existence it is reasonable to conclude that nothing never existed.
There never was nothing. It never existed.
Nothing cannot exist. To say that nothing exists is a contradictory in terms and descriptions. --if it exists it must be something. Nothing therefore cannot exist. Nothing never existed. There always was something.

The creator of something, simply always was.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

A designer was needed to design the something into extremely complex forms, like DNA molecules, for example. Random chance is not design. The designer always was.---God is His name.

Cris

10-23-07, 09:16 PM

Ghost3784,

What you are tying to say is a logical fallacy. Think about this:

Nothing cannot create anything. Since there is something in existence it is reasonable to conclude that nothing never existed.
There never was nothing. It never existed.
Nothing cannot exist. To say that nothing exists is a contradictory in terms and descriptions. --if it exists it must be something. Nothing therefore cannot exist. Nothing never existed. There always was something.Put more simply – if there was a time when nothing existed then would not have been anything to start everything. Hence something must have always existed.

I have used this reasoning many times and I am glad you understand it.

The creator of something, simply always was.And equally valid would be the statement that the universe has always existed and we know the universe exists and nothing to indicate a god can exist. We also know from physics that it appears nothing can be created or destroyed indicating that the universe has always existed.

If you want to argue that complexity MUST have an intelligent designer then you cannot arbitrarily apply that claim to the universe and not apply it to something even more complex like a god. If you insist that complexity must be designed then you are forced to accept that God must have been designed. That also leads us to ponder the issues of the designer of the designer of the designer, etc, etc.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. A random bible quote offers absolutely no support for your claim that a god is a first cause.

A designer was needed to design the something into extremely complex forms, like DNA molecules, for example. Random chance is not design. The designer always was.---God is His name.And how did something even more complex like God arise, by random chance? But cellular biology and chemistry doesn’t suggest that anything complex arises by random chance.

Go back to your science classes and examine your studies on molecular compounds for example. And look at the periodic table again. You should be able to understand how elements form into more complex forms naturally by their attractive and repulsive forces. Complexity simply doesn’t occur by random chance but is inevitable.

Is God complex? If you answer yes then you are forced to conclude from your own reasoning that he must have been designed since nothing complex can arise by random chance.

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:14 AM

I never said you were ignorant, I SAID YOU WERE USING AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE...CAN YOU READ?
He's not that smart.....

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:15 AM

TS,

Since the assumption implies that since logic cannot be used then the only alternative is that illogic or irrationality must be used. The only reasonable response is to respond with an equally irrational choice.

I choose both sides concurrently, which is impossible and appropriately irrational and suits the idiocy of the op.
Again, if it is not logical, is it necessarily illogical?

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:20 AM

Something which is illogical is necessarily not logical, but something not logical is not necessarily illogical.

VitalOne

10-24-07, 02:21 AM

Something which is illogical is necessarily not logical, but something not logical is not necessarily illogical.

But the definition of illogical is not logical...

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:23 AM

As I said, something which is illogical is necessarily not logical!

VitalOne

10-24-07, 02:24 AM

As I said, something which is illogical is necessarily not logical!

But you also said something not logical is not neccessarily illogical...

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:27 AM

Yes. It is a fallacy to assume that something not logical is necessarily illogical.

Here's an example of a similar fallacy:

"In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle:

Most Rimnars are Jornars.
Most Jornars are Dimnars.
Therefore, most Rimnars are Dimnars. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

VitalOne

10-24-07, 02:30 AM

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:33 AM

silence

VitalOne

10-24-07, 02:38 AM

silence
So you can't give an example...

The definition of illogical is not logical, its not a fallacy to assume that everything not logical is illogical becuase thats what the word illogical means...its like saying its a fallacy to believe that something inaccurate is not accurate...

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 02:45 AM

So you can't give an example...
No. That was the example. Silence is not logical nor illogical.

The definition of illogical is not logical, its not a fallacy to assume that everything not logical is illogical becuase thats what the word illogical means...
No. Illogical means that it is necessarily not logical. But not logical is not necessarily illogical. As I said, silence is neither.

So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then.........

VitalOne

10-24-07, 02:51 AM

No. That was the example. Silence is not logical nor illogical.
Silence isn't an argument...it cannot be logical nor illogical, nor not logical and logical nor illogical and logical

Now if you said something like "silence existing" then it would be different

No. Illogical means that it is necessarily not logical. But not logical is not necessarily illogical. As I said, silence is neither.
No, not logical neccessarily means illogical, and illogical neccessarily means not logical...its the definition

So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then.........
Then your argument is still flawed, but then it means the existence of God is unknown...

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:11 AM

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:12 AM

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illogical
link to the defination of illogical

VitalOne

10-24-07, 03:16 AM

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illogical
link to the defination of illogical

Thanks for the definition...it only re-confirms what I said :rolleyes:

Try harder

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:19 AM

Thanks for the definition...it only re-confirms what I said :rolleyes:

Try harder

um no it doesn't.

VitalOne

10-24-07, 03:21 AM

um no it doesn't.

Yes it does...the only difference is that it says "contrary" to logic, and the word contrary is a negation, a negative word, like not, so illogical is not logical

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:23 AM

it also says lacking sense or sound reasoning kind of what your doing right now

VitalOne

10-24-07, 03:24 AM

it also says lacking sense or sound reasoning kind of what your doing right now

Yeah, it has mutiple definitions, like lots of words

I'm the only one who does make sense

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:26 AM

Yeah, it has mutiple definitions, like lots of words

I'm the only one who does make sense

not multiple definitions merely one complex one you don't have very good reading comprehension do you?

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:28 AM

this is what multiple defs look like
Noun

Singular
tank

Plural
tanks

tank (plural tanks)

1. A container for liquids or gases, typically with a volume of several cubic metres.
2. A armoured fighting vehicle, armed with a gun and moving on caterpillar tracks. For details see the Wikipedia article on "tank".
3. (Australian and Indian English), a reservoir or dam.
4. (American SouthWest English, esp Texas), a large metal container, usually placed near a wind-driven water pump, in an animal pen or field. By extension a small pond for the same purpose.
5. (slang) a very muscular and physically intense person
6. In USA scuba divers' usage, a compressed air or gas cylinder.
7. In online and offline role-playing games, a character designed primarily around damage absorption with offensive power as a close secondary consideration.
8. For uses as a name, see tank in Wikipedia.

VitalOne

10-24-07, 03:48 AM

not multiple definitions merely one complex one you don't have very good reading comprehension do you?

Yeah use a different dictionary not wiktionary and you get multiple definitions...for instance:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogical
l·log·i·cal /ɪˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.
[Origin: 1580–90; il-2 + logical]

CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

pjdude1219

10-24-07, 03:50 AM

Yeah use a different dictionary not wiktionary and you get multiple definitions...for instance:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogical
l·log·i·cal /ɪˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning: an illogical reply.
[Origin: 1580–90; il-2 + logical]

CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

true but you never said anything about another dictionary you just said it had multiple defs
so checkmate right back at you

ghost7584

10-24-07, 02:39 PM

Ghost3784,

Put more simply – if there was a time when nothing existed then would not have been anything to start everything. Hence something must have always existed.

I have used this reasoning many times and I am glad you understand it.

And equally valid would be the statement that the universe has always existed and we know the universe exists and nothing to indicate a god can exist. We also know from physics that it appears nothing can be created or destroyed indicating that the universe has always existed.

If you want to argue that complexity MUST have an intelligent designer then you cannot arbitrarily apply that claim to the universe and not apply it to something even more complex like a god. If you insist that complexity must be designed then you are forced to accept that God must have been designed. That also leads us to ponder the issues of the designer of the designer of the designer, etc, etc.

A random bible quote offers absolutely no support for your claim that a god is a first cause.

And how did something even more complex like God arise, by random chance? But cellular biology and chemistry doesn’t suggest that anything complex arises by random chance.

Go back to your science classes and examine your studies on molecular compounds for example. And look at the periodic table again. You should be able to understand how elements form into more complex forms naturally by their attractive and repulsive forces. Complexity simply doesn’t occur by random chance but is inevitable.

Is God complex? If you answer yes then you are forced to conclude from your own reasoning that he must have been designed since nothing complex can arise by random chance.

God is a spirit or you might say a universal mind. Existing outside of the physical world means something is not subject to the laws of entropy. The mind of men exists, but not in the physical world. Thoughts, emotions etc. exist but not in the physical world. They are connected to the physical body, however, by the aura energy field. The mind existing outside of the physical world is a designer. The mind of God did not need to be designed therefore. Not being in the physical world, the law of entropy don't apply.

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 03:26 PM

Silence isn't an argument...it cannot be logical nor illogical, nor not logical and logical nor illogical and logical

Now if you said something like "silence existing" then it would be different
That's the point. :bugeye:

No, not logical neccessarily means illogical, and illogical neccessarily means not logical...its the definition
Nope.

Then your argument is still flawed, but then it means the existence of God is unknown...
Looks like you lack an ability to understand sillogism....

So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then......... it follows that...

God is silence

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 03:29 PM

Yes it does...the only difference is that it says "contrary" to logic, and the word contrary is a negation, a negative word, like not, so illogical is not logical
You are clearly confused. You think that if A is opposite of B then if not A then B. This is binary thinking. Think of a gradient.

Cris

10-24-07, 03:32 PM

Ghost3784,

God is a spirit or you might say a universal mind.Ok, but that implies a significant level of complexity, correct?

Existing outside of the physical world means something is not subject to the laws of entropy. Not relevant, the issue of entropy was not something I raised. Neither does it address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.

The mind of men exists, but not in the physical world. Please explain then that when neurosurgeons probe the brain or examine brain damaged patients that they discover a direct correlation between mental abilities (mind and emotions) and the physical brain? The conclusion is inescapable that the mind and emotions are entirely dependent on normal physical brain function.

Thoughts, emotions etc. exist but not in the physical world. So if your brain is removed you’d still be able to think and have emotions, right? Clearly your point is nonsense.

They are connected to the physical body, however, by the aura energy field.Total fantasy. But still doesn’t address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.

The mind of God did not need to be designed therefore. Not being in the physical world, the law of entropy don't apply.Entropy is not an issue here as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to your claim.

Whether such a designer is in the physical world or not it still represents a significant level of complexity. Your assertion is that anything complex needs a designer. So I repeat who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer, etc?

You should be able to see that your assertion that complexity needs a designer leads to an impossible infinite series requiring an increasingly more complex designer at each stage. Once you accept this then you should also be able to comprehend that at some point complexity must have arisen naturally from simpler components before intelligence could have occurred.

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 03:44 PM

You guys are making this more complicated then necessary. Again, you are trying to express something intangible and beyond reason with logic. That is a futile exercise.

Think of silence, for a moment. Just silence your minds. When logic and absurdity ceases, God is all that is going to be left.

God is silence, because silence, though existing, is intangible and beyond reason. :itold:

VitalOne

10-24-07, 03:47 PM

You are clearly confused. You think that if A is opposite of B then if not A then B. This is binary thinking. Think of a gradient.

No you are the confused one, even your example used "Most Rimnars..", your example is not analogous, its BY DEFINITION, it has nothing to do with A and B :rolleyes:, it has to with A and A, not A and B

It has to do with a meaning of a word...obviously, there is no A and B only A

VitalOne

10-24-07, 03:50 PM

Looks like you lack an ability to understand sillogism....

So if God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning, and silence is not logical nor illogical, then......... it follows that...
God is silence
No what you just stated is illogical, "if God cannot be proven or disproven and silence is not logical nor illogical, then it indicates nothing about God's existence"

What you just stated is a non-sequitur logical fallacy, "it does not folow"

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 04:02 PM

You obviously missed the entire discussion.... :rolleyes:

Let me spoon feed this to you.... :rolleyes:

1) God is something which cannot be proven or disproven by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot prove God by means of logical reasoning
- You cannot disprove God by means of logical reasoning

If you cannot prove nor disprove God by means of logical reasoning, it follows that you cannot use logic in order to prove nor disprove God.

If you cannot use logic, then what CAN you use?

If you use illogical reasoning to prove or disprove God, your argument will be meaningless, therefore, it follows that you cannot use illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God.

If you cannot use a logical nor an illogical reasoning in order to prove or disprove God, it follows that you must use something which is not logical nor illogical.

2) Silence is not logical nor illogical

Therefore, one must use silence in order to define God.

If one uses silence in order to define God, it follows that the only conclusion possible from silence is silence itself.

If silence is the only conclusion possible for the question of the definition of God, then it follows that the definition of God must be silence.

If the definition of God is silence, then God is silence.

You see... since you cannot use a logical nor an illogical argument, then it follows that you must use silence in order to prove and define God!

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 04:03 PM

"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things."

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/chapter01.html

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 04:04 PM

If you name God or you try to explain God through logical reasoning, you automatically lose track of God.

VitalOne

10-24-07, 04:09 PM

Enmos

10-24-07, 05:59 PM

that is also wrong...as how would you know that God has not been silent all this time and used illusions on us for us to think there is no proof of God at all, when he/it is amongst us all.

You know whats the difference between me and VitalOne? I see God as us...consciousness of universe which includes us all. What does VitalOne see God as? something like a being with an image Christians gave him...the old shepherd of humans?... But than I never asked him/her...

Yes, but then my argument still stands. IF God IS able to interact with us it is in principle possible to proof his existence through logical reasoning. I am not saying it will ever be done in that case only that it is possible.

TruthSeeker

10-24-07, 06:18 PM

Uhm...your whole argument is illogical...its non-sequitur, the fact that silence is not illogical nor logical has no connection to the existence of God (non-sequitur)

Also God can be proven or disproven, but its unverifiable currently, so thats the reaosn that it cannot be

You can use logical reasoning to refute arguments
You are obviously not acquainted with logic. You cannot prove a negative, so you cannot disprove God. Besides, you completely missed the whole point of the argument. :rolleyes:

Putting it as simple as possible:

Proof = not logical nor illogical.
Silence = not logical nor illogical
----------------------------
Proof = Silence

Now I not only spoon fed it to you, I also chewed it for you....! :rolleyes:

VitalOne

10-24-07, 09:18 PM

You are obviously not acquainted with logic. You cannot prove a negative, so you cannot disprove God. Besides, you completely missed the whole point of the argument. :rolleyes:
No, it is YOU who are not acquainted with logic, you're using logical fallcies to show you know that you're acquainted with logic :rolleyes:

Also you don't have to disprove God you just have to show evidnece of absence and make it unlikely

Putting it as simple as possible:

Proof = not logical nor illogical.
Silence = not logical nor illogical
----------------------------
Proof = Silence

Now I not only spoon fed it to you, I also chewed it for you....!
FOR THE LAST F***IN TIME THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY (look it up) WHY THE F*** DO YOU KEEP POSTING IT? You can't say proof = silence based on those things, its illogical...

You can't use a logical fallacy to pretend you know what logic is :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Logical_fallacy

1. All A are C
2. All B are C
3. All A are B

You only proved that YOU ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH LOGIC

ghost7584

10-24-07, 10:39 PM

Ghost3784,

Ok, but that implies a significant level of complexity, correct?

Not relevant, the issue of entropy was not something I raised. Neither does it address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.

Please explain then that when neurosurgeons probe the brain or examine brain damaged patients that they discover a direct correlation between mental abilities (mind and emotions) and the physical brain? The conclusion is inescapable that the mind and emotions are entirely dependent on normal physical brain function.

So if your brain is removed you’d still be able to think and have emotions, right? Clearly your point is nonsense.

Total fantasy. But still doesn’t address your assertion that complexity requires a designer.

Entropy is not an issue here as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant to your claim.

Whether such a designer is in the physical world or not it still represents a significant level of complexity. Your assertion is that anything complex needs a designer. So I repeat who designed the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer, etc?

You should be able to see that your assertion that complexity needs a designer leads to an impossible infinite series requiring an increasingly more complex designer at each stage. Once you accept this then you should also be able to comprehend that at some point complexity must have arisen naturally from simpler components before intelligence could have occurred.

The people declared clinically dead with no brain function, who see themselves floating over the bed where their body is lying, in what is called the near death experience [it really is death-temporarily] show that the mind of man does not depend entirely on brain function. Then they move swiftly through a dark tunnel toward a light. The light is described as a loving person. They feel themselves fall back into their body. The body comes back to life, etc. They tell the doctors detailed descriptions of what they saw and heard spoken while they were dead with no brain function. These cases are documented. The mind and the soul continues after death. It's the body that dies.

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 03:23 PM

No, it is YOU who are not acquainted with logic, you're using logical fallcies to show you know that you're acquainted with logic

Also you don't have to disprove God you just have to show evidnece of absence and make it unlikely
Oh Jesus.... as I said before, that's a fallacy. There's no such thing as evidence of abscence. You cannot prove a negative! :rolleyes:

FOR THE LAST F***IN TIME THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY (look it up) WHY THE F*** DO YOU KEEP POSTING IT? You can't say proof = silence based on those things, its illogical...

You can't use a logical fallacy to pretend you know what logic is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Logical_fallacy

1. All A are C
2. All B are C
3. All A are B

You only proved that YOU ARE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH LOGIC
Maybe I oversimplified too much for you... :rolleyes:

What I mean is that silence is the only way you can prove or disprove God. Anything logical or illogical won't work. :rolleyes:

Enmos

10-25-07, 03:26 PM

Also you don't have to disprove God you just have to show evidnece of absence and make it unlikely

:confused:
Well... look around. I don't see God anywhere..:shrug:

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 05:46 PM

And I don't see radio waves.....

draqon

10-25-07, 05:46 PM

And I don't see radio waves.....

look closer than.

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 05:48 PM

Still don't. Do I have miopia? :shrug:

draqon

10-25-07, 05:48 PM

Still don't. Do I have miopia? :shrug:

look closer...cause its all right there. boy.

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 05:53 PM

So you are saying you can see radio waves.... :rolleyes:

draqon

10-25-07, 05:55 PM

So you are saying you can see radio waves.... :rolleyes:

no I am saying you are looking for the wrong this...it isnt radio waves you are looking for...they are just waves. Its love you are looking for. :rolleyes:

Wisdom_Seeker

10-25-07, 06:00 PM

no I am saying you are looking for the wrong this...it isnt radio waves you are looking for...they are just waves. Its love you are looking for. :rolleyes:

lol, you are weird man! :D

Wisdom_Seeker

10-25-07, 06:01 PM

:confused:
Well... look around. I don't see God anywhere..:shrug:

Just look within you... You will be surprised of the "inner depth" that your eyes have.

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 06:03 PM

God is silence.

Enough said..... :D

Wisdom_Seeker

10-25-07, 06:04 PM

God is silence.

Enough said..... :D

God is movement with repose...

VitalOne

10-25-07, 06:12 PM

Oh Jesus.... as I said before, that's a fallacy. There's no such thing as evidence of abscence. You cannot prove a negative! :rolleyes:
ROFL!!!!

Yes there is :rolleyes:

Man I'm not even going to explain this, its too funny

Maybe I oversimplified too much for you...

What I mean is that silence is the only way you can prove or disprove God. Anything logical or illogical won't work. :rolleyes:
WTF? How is silence the only way to prove or disprove God?

All you did was take a logical fallacy and say it's logical...

VitalOne

10-25-07, 06:13 PM

:confused:
Well... look around. I don't see God anywhere..:shrug:

ROFL...what a deluded atheist

"I don't see anything, and even though nothing should be visibly there, it indicates non-existence, because whatever exists we can directly see"

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 06:40 PM

It's incredible how the entire premise of atheism is based on a fallacy.... :rolleyes:

superluminal

10-25-07, 06:51 PM

(Q)

10-25-07, 06:51 PM

It's incredible how the entire premise of atheism is based on a fallacy.... :rolleyes:

And what would that fallacy be, exactly?

superluminal

10-25-07, 06:53 PM

BTW, did I mention that I am god?

And I can prove it.

Enmos

10-25-07, 07:02 PM

So you are saying you can see radio waves.... :rolleyes:

Just look within you... You will be surprised of the "inner depth" that your eyes have.

Well, than how do you suppose I should get evidence of absence, hm ? :rolleyes:
Last time I checked the one that makes the claim has to come up with the evidence.

ROFL...what a deluded atheist

"I don't see anything, and even though nothing should be visibly there, it indicates non-existence, because whatever exists we can directly see"

So, even though God is everywhere he cannot be seen.. is that about right for you ?
Tell me then how a sentient being can be invisible please.
Give me some tangible evidence of his presence.

Enmos

10-25-07, 07:04 PM

Hmm... I don't see any evidence that a god thingy did anything. Therefore I will dismiss the god thingy idea as silly and completely without explanatory power until someone clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Sounds like a good approach to anything that some yahoo claims without evidence.

Right?

Right, and to call that a fallacy.. it's just mind boggling they way they hang on to their delusion.

VitalOne

10-25-07, 07:25 PM

So, even though God is everywhere he cannot be seen.. is that about right for you ?
Yeah, exactly HE exists everywhere from HIM all things come forth HE is the origin of all things....

Tell me then how a sentient being can be invisible please.
Sure, you see God is the origin of all things, all things are visible, to be the origin, he must be in-visible, otherwise if he was visible then he would be just like us, already existing within the universe (though he also has a physical form in the universe)

God is everywhere, nothing can visibly be everywhere at once, God must be in-visible, as Jesus says the "place where the light came into being by itself"

Give me some tangible evidence of his presence.
I can only give you a certain degree of evidence...why is this? Because only a certain degree is gatherable...the rest of evidence that is currently not gatherable, I obviously cannot give...

Jesus said If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest'"

There is something called the Quantum double-slit experimetn, motion is superposition and rest is the collapsed-state, what is the source of this phenomenon? It is something, something within you (the Father)

shaman_

10-25-07, 07:33 PM

ROFL!!!!

Yes there is :rolleyes:

Man I'm not even going to explain this, its too funnyHypothetically, how do you think we could prove god's non-existence?

VitalOne

10-25-07, 07:47 PM

Hypothetically, how do you think we could prove god's non-existence?

I NEVER said you could disprove God's existence...

I said there was a such thing as evidnece of absence...for instance scientists showed the concept of the aether was wrong with innumerable experiments, this is evidence of absence

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 07:51 PM

And what would that fallacy be, exactly?
BEHOLD YOUR ENLIGHTNEMENT!!! (yeah right... :rolleyes: )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

TruthSeeker

10-25-07, 07:54 PM

shaman_

10-25-07, 08:20 PM

I NEVER said you could disprove God's existence...

I said there was a such thing as evidnece of absence...for instance scientists showed the concept of the aether was wrong with innumerable experiments, this is evidence of absenceBut aether could still exist right?

I will rephrase the question then. Hypothetically, how could someone provide enough you with enough evidence that would be evidence of absence? Do you think this would be possible?

Enmos

10-25-07, 08:30 PM

Yeah, exactly HE exists everywhere from HIM all things come forth HE is the origin of all things....

Sure, you see God is the origin of all things, all things are visible, to be the origin, he must be in-visible, otherwise if he was visible then he would be just like us, already existing within the universe (though he also has a physical form in the universe)

Why must he be invisible ? You made up that rule yourself.
That he couldn't be seen before creation is something entirely different. Unless you want to say he couldn't see himself either.
Also, if God is everywhere where was he before creation ?

God is everywhere, nothing can visibly be everywhere at once, God must be in-visible, as Jesus says the "place where the light came into being by itself"

So even Jesus didn't think God created light then ? If light came into being by itself why are you saying God created it ? Or do you say God = light ? And if so, did God create himself ?

I can only give you a certain degree of evidence...why is this? Because only a certain degree is gatherable...the rest of evidence that is currently not gatherable, I obviously cannot give...

Not even by you ? And how do you know it is there then ?

Jesus said If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest'"

I don't get that.. it means nothing to me.

There is something called the Quantum double-slit experimetn, motion is superposition and rest is the collapsed-state, what is the source of this phenomenon? It is something, something within you (the Father)
I don't see how that proves anything about Gods existence.

TruthSeeker

10-26-07, 12:41 AM

Also, if God is everywhere where was he before creation ?
Creation within Himself? :scratchin:

Gustav

10-26-07, 01:01 AM

god needs a pr guy
me
the first promo has god at the local diner, kissing a baby
yes
god is to be found within chain of causality
slumming

yup
ratings on the rise

draqon

10-26-07, 01:03 AM

you all talk about God like you know him...meanwhile all this talk as well as little beings like us are dust below the Sun...and God isn't even the Sun, he is more than that (http://www.greatlie.com/images/miracles/Burning-Bush-WEB.jpg).

Gustav

10-26-07, 01:06 AM

there there
of course he is

draqon

10-26-07, 01:07 AM

there there
of course he is

were? were?
I cannot see at all, but mirror.

lightgigantic

10-26-07, 01:53 AM

And what would that fallacy be, exactly?

"god doesn't exist"

lightgigantic

10-26-07, 01:55 AM

Hmm... I don't see any evidence that a god thingy did anything. Therefore I will dismiss the god thingy idea as silly and completely without explanatory power until someone clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Sounds like a good approach to anything that some yahoo claims without evidence.

Right?

an even better method of inquiry would be to examine the criteria that indicates the qualification for becoming acquainted with evidence

sounds like a good approach to anything that some yahoo claims without examining the nature of qualification

;)

(Q)

10-26-07, 08:45 AM

"Originally Posted by (Q)
And what would that fallacy be, exactly?
”
BEHOLD YOUR ENLIGHTNEMENT!!! (yeah right... )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

"god doesn't exist"

So, an atheist, who doesn't accept YOUR claims of YOUR god existing, is ignorant of that god existing.

Then, what would YOUR arguments be, if not from the same ignorance, of any other gods purported to exist that YOU don't accept? Would YOU also be arguing from fallacious position of ignorance?

Yes, you most certainly would, by your own logic.

Photizo

10-26-07, 09:48 AM

Then, what would YOUR arguments be, if not from the same ignorance, of any other gods purported to exist that YOU don't accept? Would YOU also be arguing from fallacious position of ignorance?

Yes, you most certainly would, by your own logic.

Not necessarily. You fail to use the very logic you purport to depend on...if you can't even wield such an elementary concept consistently in accrordance with it's fundamental precepts, what guarantee do you have that 'where you stand' is correct? You and countless others here willingly participate in a mutually supportive type of herd mentality fostering, not enlightenment and growth, but stagnation through self deception.

Anyway... no argument. A simple statement that you can accept or reject. It's that, ah, simple.

Sarkus

10-26-07, 12:08 PM

Not necessarily. You fail to use the very logic you purport to depend on...if you can't even wield such an elementary concept consistently in accrordance with it's fundamental precepts, what guarantee do you have that 'where you stand' is correct? You and countless others here willingly participate in a mutually supportive type of herd mentality fostering, not enlightenment and growth, but stagnation through self deception.All very nice, I'm sure, but you haven't actually countered his argument.:rolleyes:
Rather you have just blathered on about how he can not, in your eyes, use logic properly - yet nowhere do you actually bother to point out the flaw in his logic that you seem to think exists.
So, in order to educate the rest, please do so, if you would be so kind and generous.

Or are you merely saying that your "arguments" are nothing but confidence statements, unable to be supported by either logic or evidence?

TruthSeeker

10-26-07, 12:17 PM

"Originally Posted by (Q)
And what would that fallacy be, exactly?
”
So, an atheist, who doesn't accept YOUR claims of YOUR god existing, is ignorant of that god existing.

Then, what would YOUR arguments be, if not from the same ignorance, of any other gods purported to exist that YOU don't accept? Would YOU also be arguing from fallacious position of ignorance?

Yes, you most certainly would, by your own logic.
Please let the record show that I'm not a theist, I'm an agnostic (or rather an "agnostic theist" :D ).

The reason why I'm not a theist nor an atheist is that both commit the argument from ignorance fallacy. ;)

TruthSeeker

10-26-07, 12:22 PM

So long as we use logic (or the lack of thereof) to try to understand God, our arguments will be riddled by chaos and confusion. God is not quantifiable by any means. Such is the nature of God that it disallows us to understand His existance in a logical manner.

Language is the seed of logic. Remove language, and what is left is all that we can use to understand Him.

Photizo

10-26-07, 06:36 PM

All very nice, I'm sure, but you haven't actually countered his argument.:rolleyes:
Rather you have just blathered on about how he can not, in your eyes, use logic properly - yet nowhere do you actually bother to point out the flaw in his logic that you seem to think exists.
So, in order to educate the rest, please do so, if you would be so kind and generous.

Or are you merely saying that your "arguments" are nothing but confidence statements, unable to be supported by either logic or evidence?

I'm not going to spoonfeed you or anyone else... I said "not necessarily"...what does that imply, logically speaking, about his comment?

In another thread, I stated I'm not here to argue or debate with anyone, merely to inform from the standpoint of the Word of God. His Word needs no defense or apology. On the other hand, you might want to start considering/planning your defense or apology for not obeying/trusting--not that it will do any good: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.

Photizo

10-26-07, 06:52 PM

This is nonsense:So long as we use logic (or the lack of thereof) to try to understand God, our arguments will be riddled by chaos and confusion. God is not quantifiable by any means. Such is the nature of God that it disallows us to understand His existance in a logical manner.

Language is the seed of logic. Remove language, and what is left is all that we can use to understand Him.

In order to communicate with us or make Himself known it stands to reason that He would utilize a means consistent with how He made us...a means by which we could understand and comprehend Him...this would include both the Spoken and Written WORD. The Word of God both Written and Incarnate--The LOGOS (Word, Logic) of God: Jesus Christ.

Consider the following:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

There is no reason not to trust this testimony, but if one is skeptical, an honest study of God's Word (both Written and Incarnate) will yield enough evidence to sway any honest seeker.

superluminal

10-26-07, 07:00 PM

an even better method of inquiry would be to examine the criteria that indicates the qualification for becoming acquainted with evidence

sounds like a good approach to anything that some yahoo claims without examining the nature of qualification

;)
Ahhh... no.

Evidence just is. This is not and has never been about the evidence in and of itself. It's about the interpretation.

Trees are evidence of something. The question is, what?

An intellectually honest and rigorous person might say,

"Ok. What I know is that trees are plants with a cell structure of thus and such. They have apparently evolved from some common primordial instance of life, just like all life. I know this as the result and peer review of years of recearch and evidence in biology, archaeology (the fossil record), molecular physiology, etc.

Not being a plant biologist, I tentatively accept the findings of science in this area based on my understanding of how science works and the real, tangible results this method has delivered since its inception.

I even know some very bright highschool dropouts who can read and understand this very well."

Now, what might a different type of person say?

"God did it. How do I know this? Because a book (or series of books) that were last peer reviewed 2000+ years ago, and clearly written by men being driven by the word of God, says so."

Do any of the theists here get the fact that the assumption that a god is behind the tree is the least supportable of approaches? Training or not? What can you say about the mechanism that god used to construct the cell? What about the tree can you even attempt to explain by ending your investigation of the tree with "God did it"?

Religion has no place in the realm of science.

Take these two statements:

1) As far as we know, there are no alien lifeforms.

2) As far as we know, there are no gods.

They are both absolutely true to anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity. It's as simple as that. If you "believe" in aliens, than good for you, but understand that you have nothing to offer but feelings and hopes, and at best, an interesting challenge for a graduate psychology student.

If you "believe" in god, good for you, but the same thing applies.

Another question: Do any theists out there who insist that god is real see the absolute selfimportant arrogance of such a statement? I mean, come on! You insist that a certainty that you harbor inside your mind, with zero compelling evidence beyond that, is real. Really real, and we should all take heed of your warnings and prophecies of doom, or hellfire, or whatever.

Is any room big enough for you and your ego?

superluminal

10-26-07, 07:05 PM

There is no reason not to trust this testimony, but if one is skeptical, an honest study of God's Word (both Written and Incarnate) will yield enough evidence to sway any honest seeker.

You keep supporting your assertion of god's word by referring to the bible as god's word!

Are you truly that immune to your own circular reasoning? There's every reason to not trust any testimony without supporting, independent evidence.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that the earth and the planets orbit the sun?

If you do, why? It's obvious to me and everyone else that everything revolves about the earth. How will you convince me otherwise?

Give it a shot.

Cris

10-26-07, 07:09 PM

photizo,

In another thread, I stated I'm not here to argue or debate with anyone, merely to inform from the standpoint of the Word of God. His Word needs no defense or apology. On the other hand, you might want to start considering/planning your defense or apology for not obeying/trusting--not that it will do any good: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. Yes I've noticed your reluctance to enter into debate especially when you are presented with difficult issues that you are clearly unable to counter.

Please be aware that this is a DEBATE forum and not a platform for you to preach. If you persist in merely posting assertions then your posts will be deleted.

Cris

10-26-07, 07:13 PM

photizo,

There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. Prove it please or justify your assertion with at least an atempt at a reasoned argument.

Photizo

10-26-07, 07:16 PM

You keep supporting your assertion of god's word by referring to the bible as god's word!

Are you truly that immune to your own circular reasoning? There's every reason to not trust any testimony without supporting, independent evidence.

I told you, if you are still skeptical, READ The Word, specifically, the Gospels. Study the Person of Christ with a sincere, honest, and open mind, free of any conditions/stipulations ...'listen' to him, 'observe' Him...you will be given all the evidence your heart desires.

Cris

10-26-07, 07:18 PM

Photizo,

I told you, if you are still skeptical, READ The Word, specifically, the Gospels. Study the Person of Christ with a sincere, honest, and open mind, free of any conditions/stipulations ...'listen' to him, 'observe' Him...you will be given all the evidence your heart desires.Did it years ago. It didn't work. Now what?

superluminal

10-26-07, 07:19 PM

I told you, if you are still skeptical, READ The Word, specifically, the Gospels. Study the Person of Christ with a sincere, honest, and open mind, free of any conditions/stipulations ...'listen' to him, 'observe' Him...you will be given all the evidence your heart desires.
I've read it. And my "heart" does not require anything but a good AV node signal and properly functioning valves. My mind, though, would like some reason an logic.

Photizo

10-26-07, 07:28 PM

My mind, though, would like some reason an logic.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

Then, last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise.

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Logic, for you--compliments of God Himself.

superluminal

10-26-07, 07:40 PM

Ask and ye shall receive:

[Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures
Useless for obvious reasons that even you should be able to discern.

and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
Uh Huh...

and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
According to...?

Then, last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
This dude says so? Not nearly good enough.

Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
Because someone says so?

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise.
I agree. It's all empty and false. Notice the big IF at the beginning.

For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Yep. Futile.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. Totally agreed.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
So certain are we now?

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Exactly. MAN invented this childrens bedtime tale.

Logic, for you--compliments of God Himself.
You really have no interest in logic, do you. Oh well.

Cris

10-26-07, 07:48 PM

photo,

Logic, for you--compliments of God Himself.Logic kinda depends on facts to be valid. I didn't see any facts among your assertions.

How about trying again with at least one fact that we might be able to agree with?

Photizo

10-26-07, 09:48 PM

Photizo,

Did it years ago. It didn't work. Now what?

"The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."

superluminal

10-26-07, 09:51 PM

"The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."
Ha! That's actually funny! I didn't think you had it in you.

TruthSeeker

10-27-07, 12:57 AM

This is nonsense:
You are nonsense.

In order to communicate with us or make Himself known it stands to reason that He would utilize a means consistent with how He made us...a means by which we could understand and comprehend Him...this would include both the Spoken and Written WORD. The Word of God both Written and Incarnate--The LOGOS (Word, Logic) of God: Jesus Christ.
You really think you can communicate with God? You think you can understand someone who has all the knowledge in the universe, while you don't have any knowledge at all? :rolleyes:

Photizo

10-27-07, 08:17 AM

You really think you can communicate with God? You think you can understand someone who has all the knowledge in the universe, while you don't have any knowledge at all? :rolleyes:

A baby can communicate with it's parents despite any knowledge gap...anyway, I don't just think...I KNOW I can communicate with Him.

He has communicated with mankind through directly through Jesus Christ and, since the Acension, the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is a human being like the rest of us, and He informed us that communication is not just possible with God, but necessary.

We naturally want to communicate with others...case in point these fora...being made in God's Image, one infers God is similar, desiring to communicate with us also. In light of that, one then seeks to discern/discover instances of His communication...along with what He has said and continues to say.

From the book of Hebrews:

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. But now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son.

TruthSeeker

10-27-07, 02:13 PM

A baby can communicate with it's parents despite any knowledge gap...
Yeah... with crying and screaming. I don't call that communication. Ever had a baby or taken care of one? My son is nearly 2 years old and I still have a hard time understanding him. Most of the time he just babbles. Babies are even harder to understand.

anyway, I don't just think...I KNOW I can communicate with Him.
Oh..... yeah, well, how?

He has communicated with mankind through directly through Jesus Christ and, since the Acension, the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is a human being like the rest of us, and He informed us that communication is not just possible with God, but necessary.

We naturally want to communicate with others...case in point these fora...being made in God's Image, one infers God is similar, desiring to communicate with us also. In light of that, one then seeks to discern/discover instances of His communication...along with what He has said and continues to say.
Why did Jesus speak in parables?
Hoe can someone put an ocean in a bucket of water?
What is the language of the angels?

From the book of Hebrews:

Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. But now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son.
How do you know the Bible is right?

Photizo

10-27-07, 02:50 PM

Yeah... with crying and screaming. I don't call that communication. Ever had a baby or taken care of one? My son is nearly 2 years old and I still have a hard time understanding him. Most of the time he just babbles. Babies are even harder to understand.

I'm the Father of seven children...you learn to distinguish between types of cries. One kind of sound from one type of cry means one thing and another means something else.

How do you know the Bible is right?

I've explained "how" at least twice before...I'm not going to explain that again.

Read the Bible with an honest, open mind and experience "how" yourself.

Cris

10-27-07, 04:20 PM

photizo,

"The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."Claiming to be a direct messenger of a god is somewhat arrogant isnt it?

But you avoided the question again. if one does study the bible in an open and sincere manner and cannot overcome the considerable inconsistencies and unsuported claims, then what can be said of your claim that reading the bible with oopenness will reveal all the truths needed. It does not.

The only way one can believe what the bible says is true is to dismiss any sense of rationality and reason. The bible was written by men in times when myth making was the norm and religious superstitions and ignorance was rife. It should be no surprise to any reasoned person that the bible simply reflects those fantasies.

Cris

10-27-07, 04:22 PM

Photizo,

Read the Bible with an honest, open mind and experience "how" yourself.And suspend all sense of reason at the same time.

TruthSeeker

10-27-07, 04:41 PM

I'm the Father of seven children...you learn to distinguish between types of cries. One kind of sound from one type of cry means one thing and another means something else.
So you are saying that your babies understand you and you have a high level of communication with your babies? :rolleyes:

I've explained "how" at least twice before...I'm not going to explain that again.

Read the Bible with an honest, open mind and experience "how" yourself.
So the Bible is right because the Bible says so?

I might as well says that the Holy Book of the Pastafarians is right, because the Holy Book of the Pastafarians said so! Now what? :rolleyes:

Photizo

10-27-07, 05:32 PM

... if one does study the bible in an open and sincere manner and cannot overcome the considerable inconsistencies and unsuported claims, then what can be said of your claim that reading the bible with oopenness will reveal all the truths needed. It does not.

Yes it does.

What can be said of your comments is that you are approaching the Bible with that very arrogance you accuse me of. Arrogance and double mindedness do not yield results with God:

For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: "I dwell in the high and holy place, With him who has a contrite and humble spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, And to revive the heart of the contrite ones..."But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word...he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

You don't tremble at His Word...you degrade it...disrespect it...place yourself above it. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with Him and so He will remain at a distance. You must do the changing/adapting/adopting... not Him.

The only way one can believe what the bible says is true is to dismiss any sense of rationality and reason. The bible was written by men in times when myth making was the norm and religious superstitions and ignorance was rife. It should be no surprise to any reasoned person that the bible simply reflects those fantasies.

You call that an open mind? I certainly don't. As long as you maintain that mindset you cut yourself off from any possibility of recognising It for what It Is in Truth--The Word of God. As such, you are then prevented from recognising Him for Who He is--Your Lord and Savior. The Bible is full of rationality and reason--and I shared some of it with you yesterday. You dismissed it out of hand.

Paul was testifying to you of what he had seen and heard. You were essentially calling him a liar, and, by virtue of his writing being inspired by God, you call God a liar also. Deny it all you want... it changes nothing.

My last words to you:

God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore submit to God...Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.

Photizo

10-27-07, 05:32 PM

I might as well says that the Holy Book of the Pastafarians is right, because the Holy Book of the Pastafarians said so!

Agreed.

superluminal

10-27-07, 06:37 PM

Agreed.
So, you finally see that your position is no more or less tenable than that of anyone making any random claim?

Photizo

10-27-07, 08:04 PM

So, you finally see that your position is no more or less tenable than that of anyone making any random claim?

No. I meant my reply in the sense that he might as well say "that the Holy Book of the Pastafarians is right, because the Holy Book of the Pastafarians said so!" In other words, to him it's all the same, so...whatever.

I understand what he meant by the comment. Of course, it's not the same, all the while he thinks he's being consistent and logical he's actually comparing apples to oranges so to speak and thereby caught up in a logical fallacy...He can't see it however...He will not/cannot accept the premise that the Word of God is supernatural.

The Word of God is qualitatively/essentially distinct and different from any merely human text.

In the same way the Word of God Incarnate is unique among men, the Word of God written is unique among books.

TruthSeeker

10-27-07, 08:53 PM

No. You see... you are the one who is committing the fallacy. It's circular reasoning.

TruthSeeker

10-27-07, 08:57 PM

He can't see it however...He will not/cannot accept the premise that the Word of God is supernatural.
What is "supernatural"?

The Word of God is qualitatively/essentially distinct and different from any merely human text.
No, it isn't. It was written by humans.

In the same way the Word of God Incarnate is unique among men, the Word of God written is unique among books.
That's a gross misunderstanding of the word of God. When the Bible says Jesus is the incarnation of the word of God, it means in a figurative manner. That is, Jesus follows God to such a degree that he is the living proof of God's wisdom and power.

Photizo

10-28-07, 10:11 AM

That's a gross misunderstanding of the word of God. When the Bible says Jesus is the incarnation of the word of God, it means in a figurative manner. That is, Jesus follows God to such a degree that he is the living proof of God's wisdom and power.

The Word of God is the Word of God--Written... Incarnate... they are synonomous.

Cris

10-28-07, 11:23 AM

Photizo,

You didn't read what I said. I was a devout Christain and approached the bible with appropriate humility and sincerity at the time of studying, but that was nearly 40 years ago now. My views now are different. You've made the error of assuming that my perspective now is the same one that I had when I was a Christian.

So in light of your error you haven't answered my question. Even in humility I found I could not submit to the message of Christianity since my sense of reason could not be stiffled. The more I studied the more I became convinced of the invalidity of Christianity, and that perspective has only strenghened over this past 40 years. Since your assertion that reading the bible appropriately would reveal truth and it hasn't, it would seem that you will need to convince me of your convinctions through means other than the bible, e.g. through logical reasoning perhaps.

The Bible is full of rationality and reason--and I shared some of it with you yesterday. You dismissed it out of hand.You will need to do more than simply make assertions. Perhaps you could begin by demonstrating that the central character of your mythology actually existed. As far as I can tell there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and without that your religioun has no foundation.

God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore submit to God...Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.Like I said, I did that and it didn't work, now what?

Also be careful when accusing others of not being open minded since you should be aware that you are closed minded to everything except God did it.

TruthSeeker

10-28-07, 12:06 PM

How would you go about finding evidence for the existence of Jesus, Cris?

Cris

10-28-07, 02:42 PM

TS,

How would you go about finding evidence for the existence of Jesus, Cris?I'm afraid I'm no expert on such historical research so I'm not sure. Unless new documents or artifacts are discovered I suspect we may never find anything. The nearest proof was the one vague indirect quote from Josephus and that seems almost certainly a fraud.

I found the Q research very revealing and while that didn't conclude that he didn't exist it did show that pretty much everything written about him was of a mythical quality. Certainly the long spoken dialogues attributable to him were developed by others. The fictional nature of the gospels is evident when passages describe Jesus as being alone and then state what he said. This is something we expect from a fiction writer but is something impossible to know in real life.

I also found that Paul's absence of support for the gospel stories fundamentally revealing. The premise here is that paul always assumed a savior would be a spiritual entity and the idea of a man-god would be blasphemy. But I think both Doherty and Aharya S point this out in their analyses.

Perhaps it is unfair to expose Photizo to this stance near the beginning of his debating attempts. At this point we can see he has bought the whole Christian indoctrination package and that will take some time to dislodge assuming he has any ability to reason.

Photizo

10-28-07, 03:13 PM

You didn't read what I said.

Maybe not, but I read what you wrote...none of what you wrote in your follow up post could be properly inferred from the previous post.

I was a devout Christain and approached the bible with appropriate humility and sincerity at the time of studying, but that was nearly 40 years ago now. My views now are different. You've made the error of assuming that my perspective now is the same one that I had when I was a Christian.

I assumed nothing of the sort, nor did I have reason to do so. My comments to you are based upon the contemporary evidence put forth by you yourself.

So in light of your error you haven't answered my question. Even in humility I found I could not submit to the message of Christianity since my sense of reason could not be stiffled. The more I studied the more I became convinced of the invalidity of Christianity, and that perspective has only strenghened over this past 40 years. Since your assertion that reading the bible appropriately would reveal truth and it hasn't, it would seem that you will need to convince me of your convinctions through means other than the bible, e.g. through logical reasoning perhaps.

I've committed no "error" and I did answer your question. I stand by my comment...your ah, 'fatal error' notwithstanding.

You will need to do more than simply make assertions. Perhaps you could begin by demonstrating that the central character of your mythology actually existed. As far as I can tell there is no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and without that your religioun has no foundation.

As far as you can tell? Hmmmm...A tacit--or more likely inadvertant--admission of your 'weakness'... Finite human beings with their pathetically limited knowledge--> 'teachings', agendas, etc. are not suitable objects for one's faith in what is 'true'... Hence my faith and trust in the testimonies concerning Christ recorded in the Word of God in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The only agenda God has is your welfare/salvation:

what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us...not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Like I said, I did that and it didn't work, now what?

You didn't do it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Like I said, all you've done by turning away is commit a fatal error....i.e. like Essau, you've sold your birthright for a mess of pottage...He is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek Him.

diligent

Main Entry: dil·i·gent
Pronunciation: \ˈdi-lə-jənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin diligent-, diligens, from present participle of diligere to esteem, love, from di- (from dis- apart) + legere to select — more at legend
Date: 14th century
: characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort : painstaking <a diligent worker>
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diligent

Also be careful when accusing others of not being open minded since you should be aware that you are closed minded to everything except God did it.

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em...

Cris

10-29-07, 02:00 PM

Photizo,

As far as you can tell? Hmmmm...A tacit--or more likely inadvertant--admission of your 'weakness'... Finite human beings with their pathetically limited knowledge--> 'teachings', agendas, etc. are not suitable objects for one's faith in what is 'true'... Yet it remains a fact that the Jesus character has no independent historical evidence for his existence. We only have the hearsay statements from times when myth making was rife and that whoever controlled the religions of the day also had the political power.

Hence my faith and trust in the testimonies concerning Christ You use the term faith as if you are proud of it. Faith simply means belief that something is true in the absence of evidence or proof. It is an essentially irrational position.

recorded in the Word of God in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. The bible was written by a large number of authors who are mostly unknown, but they were humans not gods. The stories reflect the myths, superstitions and political motivations of the ignorant times in which they were written. Ascribing them to the desires of a deity is unsupported, and continuing to assert it so does not raise any credibility for whatever else you say.

The only agenda God has is your welfare/salvation:There is nothing to indicate that a super deity has any effect on the lives of any person alive. People suffer and die whether they believe in gods or not. And salvation from what?

what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us...not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.Please stop preaching, you instantly lose respect for such an approach in a debate. Support your assertions or stop making them.

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Like I said, I did that and it didn't work, now what? ”

You didn't do it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Like I said, all you've done by turning away is commit a fatal error....i.e. like Essau, you've sold your birthright for a mess of pottage...He is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek Him.No, it didn’t work and there were increasing signs that it would never work. The more I read and studied the clearer it became that the bible was simple nonsense. The diligence you define is that of someone who becomes even more convinced that they MUST believe and tries even harder to ignore and neglect whatever sense of reason they might have had.

If the bible is studied objectively and with reasoned thought and with a truly open mind, then the bible does not offer anything that a rational person could accept. When it is studied alongside knowledge of history and an understanding of the times in which the texts were written, and with an understanding of the political needs in those ancient times, then the full tapestry of why the bible exists and the indoctrination and dogma designed to control the masses, becomes very clear.

Photizo

10-29-07, 05:24 PM

Yet it remains a fact that the Jesus character has no independent historical evidence for his existence.

The independent historical evidence though sketchy is available to those without an agenda. That said, I'm of the opinion that independent historical evidence is not necessary, being generally in agreement with the contents of this paper found here:
( http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/indconf.html ) The testimony of the Gospel/Epistle accounts are sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus. The Church Fathers also provide testimony to His existence. Furthermore, reasons to trust the authenticity and reliability of the NT documents abound of which a few can be found here: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/history.html

We only have the hearsay statements from times when myth making was rife and that whoever controlled the religions of the day also had the political power.

Given the proclivities of mankind, "myth making" never goes out of style and is as rife now as it was back then...furthermore, the same individual who controlled both the religions and the political powers then is in control of the same today, FYI...

"Hearsay is "second-hand" information. It occurs when a witness testifies NOT about something they personally saw or heard, but testifies about something someone else told them or said they saw." Source: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htm Based upon this fact, the majority of testimony concerning Christ found in the NT is certainly not hearsay.

You use the term faith as if you are proud of it. Faith simply means belief that something is true in the absence of evidence or proof. It is an essentially irrational position.

One arrives at faith through an honest, realistic appraisal of their abilities...in other words, the magnitude/complexity encountered without dwarfs/shames that which is encountered within. Faith is a gift...given to anyone humble enough to receive it.

The bible was written by a large number of authors

Agreed. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. My undergrad work is in theology...Had it not been for my family responsiblilities, I would have earned both an M.Div. in church history and a Th.M in Patristics...as far as the rest of your comments--> "...who are mostly unknown, but they were humans not gods." Agreed, the authors are mostly unknown in this day and age, and of course no one in their right mind believes they were gods.
This nonsense--> "The stories reflect the myths, superstitions and political motivations of the ignorant times in which they were written. Ascribing them to the desires of a deity is unsupported" is patently false according to what the Apostle Peter declares under inspiration of the Holy Ghost: (2 Peter 1:16-21). Lastly,--> "...continuing to assert it so does not raise any credibility for whatever else you say." LOL! Whether you--or anyone--find me credible doesn't concern me in the least. Especially in light of your viewpoint concerning the Word of God.

If the bible is studied objectively and with reasoned thought and with a truly open mind, then the bible does not offer anything that a rational person could accept. When it is studied alongside knowledge of history and an understanding of the times in which the texts were written, and with an understanding of the political needs in those ancient times, then the full tapestry of why the bible exists and the indoctrination and dogma designed to control the masses, becomes very clear.

I respectfully disagree as my experience has been precisely the opposite. As a member here ( http://www.epiqsociety.org/ ) I assure you, I am quite the rational person, having indeed studied the Bible "alongside knowledge of history and an understanding of the times in which the texts were written, and with an understanding of the political needs in those ancient times"--and that for many years. Not once have I ever seen a single shred of your "tapestry".

Cris

10-29-07, 08:04 PM

Photizo,

The independent historical evidence though sketchy is available to those without an agenda.Sketchy is perhaps a stretch.

That said, I'm of the opinion that independent historical evidence is not necessary, being generally in agreement with the contents of this paper found here:
( http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html )And as I said earlier the Q research did not conclude that a teacher of some form, perhaps called Jesus, existed at the times needed. What cannot be shown is whether the extraordinary claims for such a person are in anyway true and a deeper study of the gospels shows their inherent mythical quality.

The testimony of the Gospel/Epistle accounts are sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus. Why? These are not direct witness accounts but are all hearsay all having being written down decades after the alleged Jesus would have died. Even today with modern recording devices we often have doubt about exactly was said or meant from a few decades ago, mainly due to significant editing. We also know that the early Church fathers were extremely “versatile” with the texts they selected and edited for final inclusion in the NT.

Paul for example never met the alleged Jesus, so hardly an eye-witness. But Paul was essentially the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. The concept of a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life came from Paul based on his beliefs of the various mystery religions that existed at that time i.e. the violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. This is where the mythology of Christianity began, i.e. simple plagiarism.

The Church Fathers also provide testimony to His existence.You must be joking. These were the editors who decided what the religion was to be, and that occurred centuries after the Jesus lifetime. Not eye-witnesses and of course they would agree with what they had edited and created – doh!

Furthermore, reasons to trust the authenticity and reliability of the NT documents abound of which a few can be found here:
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/kking/history.htmlLOL, Hardly authoritative. These are somewhat naïve quotes targeted at beginners. It took about 10 seconds to see the first factual error – “The apostle Matthew wrote the first of the NT gospels, followed by Mark (Peter's interpreter).” The facts - Mark came first during the 2nd century CE, and Mathew about a decade later which was essentially an imaginative enhanced version of Mark. John and Luke came shortly thereafter and similarly heavily adapted mark – the many authors for all the gospels are unknown and almost certainly were a plethora of myth makers turning an increasingly popular folk tale of hero worship into a religion.

Based upon this fact, the majority of testimony concerning Christ found in the NT is certainly not hearsay.How so when the first gospel was written decades after the alleged Jesus was meant to have died and that life