 |
| |
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
As a comment on the above statement: science deals in the realm of the natural, repeatable; that which is governed by laws. Now, unless a god is contained within this physical, natural universe (the Greek gods, for example), science has nothing to say on the subject. No field of science looks for gods. No field of science attempts to look beyond this physical existence and no field of science could, for we would have to be able to make objective measurements outside this physical universe, and unless there have been some changes lately, that cannot be done.
If you want to find evidence of a god, specifically the God of the Bible, I suggest that you look at Jesus. Now, every atheist reading this just rolled his/her eyes. Consider that the following are undeniable, historical FACTS:
1. the man Jesus existed, born ~6 B.C., died ~32 A.D.
2. He claimed to be the Yahweh of the Torah
3. He was crucified, and buried
4. Three days later, His tomb was empty, though guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers.
5. His disciples proclaimed His resurrection, even under torture and threat of death.
Now, while there are various explanations for these facts (one is that Jesus had an unknown twin brother, who stole His body and impersonated Him after His death - I bet his name was Lore), the most reasonable is that Jesus did rise from the dead. How reasonable is this? One of the world's leading Jewish theologians, Pinchas Lapide, agrees with this conclusion.
I think that we are already in the realm of "Off Topic", so I am going to stop here. If you want to talk with me more about it, my email is found on my home page, (which now works!).
[This message has been edited by CormacMacArt (edited January 13, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
"However, they also need to show that their god does exist before making such statements. The burden is with them."
As CormacMacArt has already stated, proving the existence of something that is outside the natural universe is impossible using science.
The "proof" of God's existence is a paradox. The unbeliever says, "Show me that God exists, then I will believe", but God says, "Believe in Me, and I will show Myself to you". *That* is what faith is all about.
Sorry, you can't always have things your own way. Just because you insist on being shown proof does not in any way obligate God to show you unless you meet His condition of faith.
John-SJ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
2. Only a gentile, reading the Gospels in english would see any "contradictions"
3. There is more evidence for this than for the EXISTANCE of Julius Ceasar
4. The testimony of an enemy is of the greatest reliability - the first century enemies of Christianity accused the disciples of stealing the body - testifying that the tomb was actually empty.
Please - create an off-topic thread or email me.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-12-2000 09:45 AM
As a comment on the above statement: science deals in the realm of the natural, repeatable; that which is governed by laws. Now, unless a god is contained within this physical, natural universe (the Greek gods, for example), science has nothing to say on the subject. No field of science looks for gods. No field of science attempts to look beyond this physical existence and no field of science could, for we would have to be able to make objective measurements outside this physical universe, and unless there have been some changes lately, that cannot be done. |
I am not sure you are correct. Science might not be used to show the existence of the Judeo-Christianity god but it can be surely used to debuke the so called "evidence" and "facts" put forwarded by apologists, as you so kindly presented us.
quote:
Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-12-2000 09:45 AM
If you want to find evidence of a god, specifically the God of the Bible, I suggest that you look at Jesus. Now, every atheist reading this just rolled his/her eyes. Consider that the following are undeniable, historical FACTS:
1. the man Jesus existed, born ~6 B.C., died ~32 A.D.
2. He claimed to be the Yahweh of the Torah
3. He was crucified, and buried
4. Three days later, His tomb was empty, though guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers.
5. His disciples proclaimed His resurrection, even under torture and threat of death. |
None of these "facts" are supported by extrabiblical evidence.
1. Is Jesus a historical figure? G.A. Wells thinks no and M. Martin supports his opinion. The only evidence of any weight could be found only in Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, but the authenticity of that lone paragraph in Book 18 has been seriously questioned due to a number of factors: writing style, location of the paragraph, its non-existence in very early manuscripts, etc.
2. No extrabiblical evidence of this at all.
3. Not only there is no extrabiblical evidence of this but this is contradictory to Roman or Jewish laws of the time. Blasphemy was punished by death by stoning under Jewish law. It has nothing to do with the Romans.
4. This is easily the least reliable "fact." Even the gospels are contradictory on this point.
5. So? Other religions have their own martyrs. Does that make them real?
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CormacMacArt
|
|
Urban Ranger - Can you answer two questions for me?
1. What is G.A. Wells field of expertise?
2. Why did you ask about a "Buddhist biologist", in your "rebuttal" and not a "Hindu Physicist" (since I did not mention Buddhists)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mergle
|
|
UrbanRanger:
My girlfriend likes chocolate. I dislike chocolate. Thus we are both biased regarding chocolate.
Similarly, if you believe in God, your world view is shaped (biased) accordingly. If you believe there is no God, your world-view is shaped (biased) accordingly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
John-SJ
|
|
Silicon Valley, USA
Aug 1999
time: 21:14
|
|
Urban Ranger:
"Your statement is also begging the question by simply assuming what needs to be proved true. Since proof of your god is required, you cannot just say that it is the case so. It is a logical fallacy.
Of course you could say, "To hell with logic."
But then you are simply stating that you have no recourse of proving your own correctness.
But why should I be surprised?"
I have never said that I could prove the existence of God, or my own correctness.
Can you *prove* the Big Bang? I thought not, but then, why should *I* be surprised!?! 
"Why is rejecting the Judeo-Christianity god a bias? Does it mean it is not a bias to accept this god? If so why? If it is also a bias to accept this god, how could both rejecting or accepting this being be biases?"
Either you are just playing with words or you don't know what "bias" is. So, here's a definition from the "Hypertext Webster":
Bias: A leaning of the mind; propensity or prepossession toward an object or view, not leaving the mind indifferent; bent; inclination.
When you actually know what the word means, your question just sort of answers itself, doesn't it?
John-SJ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lock
|
|
Cincinnati
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
COME ON!
Lots of you, as is classic with this argument, are arguing a counterpoint to a point that no one here has made.
You are making gross blanket statements that you believe shows your undeniable logic. This is so foolish. Every person has their own version of the truth, which they believe is undeniable. I myself am somewhere in between but that is irrelavent.
I.E. "All atheists are immoral lazy scumbags who think they can solve the mysteries of the universe with a 30-second thought."
"All creationist/religous people are old ignorant hypocritical fools who believe in the ideals of a child and cannot think for themselves.
3. Both sides sound like idiotic "belief bigots". WE are like two factions both arguing that the world is flat.
They are simply systems of belief. This is proven by the fact that both sides believe that thier verson ot the truth is the only truth and hate being called a system of belief.
Most people accept science as fact in the modern times as they used to except religion in ancient times. How?
Somebody else tells you it is true. 99% of us have not directly observed most of the evidence that a lot of our more advance theories state.
How many of us have looked through a mountain-top telesope lately and did the advanced mathematical theorems that are supposed to prove Redshift and X-Ray divergence? How many of us have powered up our electron microscopes and viewed the inside of a water molecules?
We all have faith, most of us in modern times believe in science, so anytime someone tells us that apples cure cancer we all buy more. We have FAITH that the researchers have not doctored or over-exagerated some findings on apples because the company that funded their resarch was APPLES INC.
People forget how many theories scientists of all fields have had that turned out to be completely wrong but were considered undeniable fact at the time.
And we all know how the churches of the world enforced beliefs they later denied.
Hmm? So chill out. Be humble & wise and understand that none of us can claim to know the "answer to the universe" as it where.
[This message has been edited by Lock (edited February 03, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2000 23:10
|