|
God
Dec 12, 2005 23:41:29 GMT -4
Post by snakeriverrufus on Dec 12, 2005 23:41:29 GMT -4
posted by PW can show you over 1000 hand written documents about the God's existance, and that's just the Hostorical story of the Gospels, it doesn't include copies of history books of the OT, how many do you have for Julius Ceasar? I can show you a large number of paintings and other artefacts that are said to depict God, his messangers and his prophets. If you are going to use this same sort of evidence for Ceasar, why is it not evidence of God?
And not a bit of that is evidence, Paintings 'said to' and religous ideas.
|
|
|
God
Dec 13, 2005 9:55:35 GMT -4
Post by ouloncollouphid on Dec 13, 2005 9:55:35 GMT -4
I can show you over 1000 hand written documents about the God's existance, and that's just the Hostorical story of the Gospels, it doesn't include copies of history books of the OT, how many do you have for Julius Ceasar? I can show you a large number of paintings and other artefacts that are said to depict God, his messangers and his prophets. If you are going to use this same sort of evidence for Ceasar, why is it not evidence of God? Using that 'logic' then Sherlock Holmes and Noddy were real people. Let's try and keep the discussion sensible, eh?
|
|
|
God
Dec 13, 2005 10:17:16 GMT -4
Post by echnaton on Dec 13, 2005 10:17:16 GMT -4
Funny how none of them had past lives as complete nobodies though... I once used to believe that I was my own Grandpa. Does that count?
|
|
|
God
Dec 13, 2005 11:16:54 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 13, 2005 11:16:54 GMT -4
Using that 'logic' then Sherlock Holmes and Noddy were real people. Let's try and keep the discussion sensible, eh? No, because no one is claiming that Sherlock Holmes, or Noddy were historical figures. However by using your logic we can ignore documents if they say something we don't agree with. Under what basis do you refuse to accept the Gospel as detailing events that happened? If only because they contain events that would require a god and you don't believe in a god's existance, then all you do is basis the results by deliberately excluding anything that disagrees with you. In the same way I can say that, for this example, that I don't believe in Julius Ceaser so anything that mentions him must be fictional and can be discarded. Once done I can turn around and claim there is no evidence of his existance.
|
|
|
God
Dec 13, 2005 11:25:04 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 13, 2005 11:25:04 GMT -4
And not a bit of that is evidence, Paintings 'said to' and religous ideas. I'd agree that painting and artworks aren't evidence, but by the same coin, busts of Ceaser and images on coins aren't evidence either. Unless you can prove that these things are a depiction of a real peple then they are in the same boat as Micheal Angelo's David. As to the 'religous ideas' I'm assuming you mean the Gospel. The Gospel of Luke is written as a Historical document to detail the events that occured (as is Acts, strangely written by the same person and really could be called the Second book of Luke.) These documents were written within 50 years of the events detailed and have lasted for nearly 2000 years, as such you'd have to show exactly why you won't accept them as accurate depictions of the time. They are still accepted as such by most Historians.Why are they all wrong? Why accept what they say with Ceaser and not the Gospel?
|
|
|
God
Dec 13, 2005 11:36:06 GMT -4
Post by ouloncollouphid on Dec 13, 2005 11:36:06 GMT -4
No, because no one is claiming that Sherlock Holmes, or Noddy were historical figures. However by using your logic we can ignore documents if they say something we don't agree with. Under what basis do you refuse to accept the Gospel as detailing events that happened? If only because they contain events that would require a god and you don't believe in a god's existance, then all you do is basis the results by deliberately excluding anything that disagrees with you. In the same way I can say that, for this example, that I don't believe in Julius Ceaser so anything that mentions him must be fictional and can be discarded. Once done I can turn around and claim there is no evidence of his existance. I'm not quite sure whether you are pulling my leg or not, but let's run with it anyway. The difference is quite simply that Roman history (republic and empire) is well documented by many contemporaneous and varied sources. Much is understood about the historical contexts of those records, which makes most of them quite reliable. So we have a very good idea of the political chronology of Rome. Presenting the Bible as evidence of God's existence is very weak. It is massively self-contradictory and was, in any case, written many years after the events it is supposed to be representing. To insist, in a rational discussion, that it amounts to 'evidence' is rather bizarre. I would be interested to know which chapters provide the most compelling case for the existence of the supreme creator.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
God
Dec 13, 2005 12:48:21 GMT -4
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 13, 2005 12:48:21 GMT -4
The Gospel of Luke is written as a Historical document to detail the events that occured (as is Acts, strangely written by the same person and really could be called the Second book of Luke.) These documents were written within 50 years of the events detailed and have lasted for nearly 2000 years, as such you'd have to show exactly why you won't accept them as accurate depictions of the time. They are still accepted as such by most Historians.Why are they all wrong? Why accept what they say with Ceaser and not the Gospel? This simply isn't true historians don't accept the book of Luke or any other religious text as a historical document in the sense that it accurately depicts event that actually happened. I doubt that even religious Christian historians or theologians think of them this way. Kant who I imagine was more well versed in the subject that you said "The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven" PW if your assertion is true I'm sure you can cite various contemporary historians who cite Luke or any other part of the Bible as a historical document. You also ingore that no one disputes Cesear's existence. Your argument that Bible has lasted 2000 while true proves nothing, the holy books of various other religions are of similar if not greater 'vintage'. Hindu sacred texts date back at least to 1000 BC.
|
|
lonewulf
Earth
Humanistic Cyborg
Posts: 244
|
God
Dec 30, 2005 0:28:41 GMT -4
Post by lonewulf on Dec 30, 2005 0:28:41 GMT -4
Oh, really? I guess I better convert to Hindu real quick...
Done!
Just kidding. But seriously, why should we go for the bible anymore than we should go for, say, any other religion? The Greek religions were just as old, and their tales have been passed down. Should I go erect a shrine to Zeus now?
Bah, deleted the last line of this post. It was unnecessarily inciteful. Gotta keep that stuff under control.
|
|
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 3:03:52 GMT -4
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 6, 2006 3:03:52 GMT -4
Special emphasis on verses 19-21. Some of us may not know who God is, but we all know in our hearts that there is a God.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 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:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
|
|
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 4:30:18 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Jan 6, 2006 4:30:18 GMT -4
Some of us may not know who God is, but we all know in our hearts that there is a God. How do you know what I know in my heart?
|
|
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 7:10:56 GMT -4
Post by Data Cable on Jan 6, 2006 7:10:56 GMT -4
Some of us may not know who God is, but we all know in our hearts that there is a God. Anatomical discrepancies notwithstanding, whatever group you claim to belong to ("we") does not include me. I posses no such knowledge.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 7:28:30 GMT -4
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 6, 2006 7:28:30 GMT -4
It might be nice to have someone to blame personally for creating DH and her ilk, but life, the universe and everything's just not like that.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 9:01:37 GMT -4
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 6, 2006 9:01:37 GMT -4
Some of us may not know who God is, but we all know in our hearts that there is a God. Anatomical discrepancies notwithstanding, whatever group you claim to belong to ("we") does not include me. I posses no such knowledge. Ditto above, if 'we' only includes you and your fellow believers there is nothing wrong with your opinion. If however by 'we' you mean all of us that is very presumptuous on your part. I don't see how quoting the Bible proves that God exists. I suggest you do some reading St. Augustine and C.S. Lewis wrote proofs of God's existence that are far more intellectually sound than the ones you and phantomwolf put forward.
|
|
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 10:19:39 GMT -4
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 6, 2006 10:19:39 GMT -4
Some of us may not know who God is, but we all know in our hearts that there is a God. Anatomical discrepancies notwithstanding, whatever group you claim to belong to ("we") does not include me. I posses no such knowledge. Count me out also! Can DH please answer the question by Lonewolf: And DH, please don't answer this by quoting more verses from your holy book because that would produce what rational people call a " circular argument".
|
|
|
God
Jan 6, 2006 17:21:10 GMT -4
Post by Tanalia on Jan 6, 2006 17:21:10 GMT -4
One of my favorite quotes on the subject:
We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F. Roberts
|
|