How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

Show where it is the universe benefits by the continuation of human life. How does gravity benefit?

We are the ones that are supposed to benefit from gravity.

 

[dmmesdale]

Is it objectively good if life continues forever in hell including the suffering?

Is that a logic argument or another appeal to outrage?

 

[Skreeper]

Is that a logic argument or another appeal to outrage?

It is a question and not an argument.

 

[Chriliman]

Is it objectively good if life continues forever in hell including the suffering?

No, why would you think never ending suffering is a good thing?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The positive case for the existence of Moses has already been made in previous posts which have been ignored. That being since we have multiple independent accounts attesting to the existence of Moses then why were they all wrong and the moderns, far removed from antiquity right in their assertions of mythical Moses? If they assert mythical Moses then the burden shifts to them using standard historical methods, not made up ones selectively applied. You don't make a case by ignoring evidence because you don't like the historicity. That is the methods of history deniers.

You may think the evidence is conclusive, but many others, including experts in the field don't. The evidence is equivocal, and the question, as with the case of Jesus, is not whether there were individuals with that name around at that time, but whether any of those individuals were the significant actors that the myths describe. The burden of proof rests with the claimants.

The same deniers who asserted mythical King David and were proven wrong. If they were wrong about King David then why are they right about mythical Moses?

False logic. Whether anyone else really existed has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of the mythical Moses.

[There does appear to be material evidence of a Davidian dynasty, but whether the biblical account of David is congruent with the activities of the historical David is not yet established].

If the same quality of material evidence is discovered for Moses, it will demonstrate that he was a real and significant figure. Until then it's presumption and guesswork.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Show where the universe benefits by the continuation of human life. How, for example, does gravity benefit?

The proposition was not that the universe benefits, but that human welfare benefits.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Im not confusing anything, I know it would be objectively good if life continued forever sans suffering and death.

That wasn't the proposition that was made. You're moving the goalposts.

 

[dmmesdale]

You may think the evidence is conclusive, but many others, including experts in the field don't.

Then let them make their case to show the ancient historians wrong who stated Moses did exist. Was not Tacitus an expert in his field for his time and place and did he not have sources which did not survive to the present and predated his writings? That makes his sources around 2000+ years closer to the events in question. If your standard is conclusive then conclusively establish the ancients wrong. Otherwise, you are practicing double standards. You have to reasonably (conclusively?) show incompetence or false testimony. It is your side of minimalists who are effectively slinging evidence-free indictments against the ancients.

The evidence is equivocal,

Garbage. The evidence is written and multiple.

and the question, as with the case of Jesus, is not whether there were individuals with that name around at that time, but whether any of those individuals were the significant actors that the myths describe.

They agree Jesus existed and was crucified by Pilate. That is another example where the minimalists were shown to be wrong. Jesus myth

The burden of proof rests with the claimants.

If they claim mythical Moses over and above the written empirical, independent testimony of the ancients then they bear the burden. I don't care what they think. I only care what they can reasonably prove.

False logic.

Garbage. Spare me your useless dismissals

Whether anyone else really existed has no bearing on the existence or otherwise of the mythical Moses.

It goes to credibility. They were wrong on King David and Jesus so why are they right about Moses myth? How many errors are the moderns allowed before their credibility is damaged?

If the same quality of material evidence is discovered for Moses, it will demonstrate that he was a real and significant figure. Until then it's presumption and guesswork.

Since when is written multiple sourced testimony from ancient scholars reduced to presumption and guesswork? It is not presumption hyper-critics ignore actual evidence in favor of their prejudices. It is not presumption they have no case for their mythical Moses or David. All one needs to do is look at all the different accounts to reasonably establish existence.

Do you have one account from antiquity which validates any of the hyper critics assumptions about mythical Moses? Any empirical evidence at all?

Empirical evidence is dismissed or ignored in favor of minimalists opinion absent evidence? Really? Why deal with reality when fictions and revisionisms will do? This below is called evidence.
From wiki
In addition to the Judeo-Roman or Judeo-Hellenic historians Artapanus, Eupolemus, Josephus, and Philo, a few non-Jewish historians including Hecataeus of Abdera (quoted by Diodorus Siculus), Alexander Polyhistor, Manetho, Apion, Chaeremon of Alexandria, Tacitus and Porphyry also make reference to him. The extent to which any of these accounts rely on earlier sources is unknown.[49] Moses also appears in other religious texts such as the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), Midrash (200–1200 CE),[50] and the Quran (c. 610–53).[citation needed]

The figure of Osarseph in Hellenistic historiography is a renegade Egyptian priest who leads an army of lepers against the pharaoh and is finally expelled from Egypt, changing his name to Moses.[citation needed]

In Hecataeus
The earliest existing reference to Moses in Greek literature occurs in the Egyptian history of Hecataeus of Abdera (4th century BCE). All that remains of his description of Moses are two references made by Diodorus Siculus, wherein, writes historian Arthur Droge, "he describes Moses as a wise and courageous leader who left Egypt and colonized Judaea."[51] Among the many accomplishments described by Hecataeus, Moses had founded cities, established a temple and religious cult, and issued laws:


---------------------------------

Prove all these ancient sources wrong and the moderns right. Otherwise the historicity of Moses is reasonably established and hyper critics dismissed as history deniers.

 

[dmmesdale]

That wasn't the proposition that was made. You're moving the goalposts.

Moving the goalposts? What a laff. Talk about double standards. Do as we say and not as we do? When it comes to historicity that is all the moderns do.

 

[Chriliman]

That wasn't the proposition that was made. You're moving the goalposts.

The proposition was that it would be objectively bad if the earth could no longer sustain life(everything on earth dies). I agree and am proposing in addition that life that is free from suffering and death is an objectively good thing.

Not moving any goal posts, just stating the truth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The proposition was that it would be objectively bad if the earth could no longer sustain life(everything on earth dies). I agree and am proposing in addition that life that is free from suffering and death is an objectively good thing.

The proposition was that it would be objectively good for the welfare of humanity if life were to continue on Earth.

I have no objection to the proposition you've constructed, but it's not the original.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If your standard is conclusive then conclusively establish the ancients wrong. Otherwise, you are practicing double standards.

My standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I would hope historians have similar standards for accepting claims of historicity.

You have to reasonably (conclusively?) show incompetence or false testimony. It is your side of minimalists who are effectively slinging evidence-free indictments against the ancients.

No, not really. I doubt many people dispute that the writings are authentic - but it seems they're not considered reliable enough, or sufficient, to say, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Moses described in the bible existed. There's convincing evidence for the existence of various other significant figures of the time - maybe some equally good evidence will emerge for Moses - a tablet would be nice

The evidence is written and multiple.

That's also characteristic of myths and legends...

They agree Jesus existed and was crucified by Pilate. That is another example where the minimalists were shown to be wrong.

Crucifixion by the Romans was fairly commonplace at that time. That someone called Jesus may have been crucified is not, in itself, of particular note.

They were wrong on King David and Jesus so why are they right about Moses myth?

They remain to be convinced until they feel the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. The academic approach is not one of accepting all historical claims until they're disproven, but one of not accepting them until the evidence is considered to be beyond reasonable doubt. Scepticism isn't an error per-se.

How many errors are the moderns allowed before their credibility is damaged?

If you consider scepticism an error, then any number is reasonable. I would expect them to be sceptical of claims of historicity until they find the evidence convincing.

Since when is written multiple sourced testimony from ancient scholars reduced to presumption and guesswork?

I guess you should ask the experts who are sceptical. It really makes no difference to me.

Do you have one account from antiquity which validates any of the hyper critics assumptions about mythical Moses? Any empirical evidence at all?

Skepticism of historicity doesn't need validation, it needs convincing evidence.

Empirical evidence is dismissed or ignored in favor of minimalists opinion absent evidence? Really? Why deal with reality when fictions and revisionisms will do?

I don't know about the fictions and revisionisms you mention, I'm only aware of the scepticism.

This below is called evidence.

Not sufficiently convincing, it would seem.

 

[Chriliman]

The proposition was that it would be objectively good for the welfare of humanity if life were to continue on Earth.

I have no objection to the proposition you've constructed, but it's not the original.

I see. You were assuming death would continue and therefore suffering would continue, but I'm proposing it's objectively better if life continues without death and suffering, which is where God would come in, hence my original statement 'enter God'.

I can see why you misunderstood, I should have been more clear.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I see. You were assuming death would continue and therefore suffering would continue...

Nope, I wasn't assuming that at all. The original proposition didn't mention individual death or suffering, only the continuation of life on Earth.

I'm proposing it's objectively better if life continues without death and suffering...

I can see why it might be subjectively better, but why is it objectively better?

I can see why you misunderstood, I should have been more clear.

Lol, nice one...

 

[Chriliman]

Nope, I wasn't assuming that at all. The original proposition didn't mention individual death or suffering, only the continuation of life on Earth.

I can see why it might be subjectively better, but why is it objectively better?

Lol, nice one...

If life continues as it's known on earth now, death and suffering would continue as well. You disagree?

To answer your question: it would be objectively good because it would always be known as good for as long as conscious beings live to experience life without death and suffering, which would be forever.

 

[PsychoSarah]

News to me. Have they collected their origin of life prize? If it is in state of the art labs then it is no more natural then cars being produced in state of the art factories. Whatever they do in the lab via intelligent agents does not demonstrate nature alone can do it. Anymore than building cars in factories means nature can make cars.
You are describing a hopeful monster that does not exist.

1. abiogenesis experiments imitate conditions likely to have existed on the Earth billions of years ago. Nothing is introduced to them that cannot naturally occur. The conditions to produce a car, however, are entirely unnatural and require our input to exist. It would entirely defeat the purpose of an abiogenesis experiment if the experimental conditions could not exist on this planet or were unlikely.
2. Just look up the work of Jack Szostak (his work in abiogenesis specifically).
3. "Hopeful monster that doesn't exist?" No, it has formed in an ongoing abiogenesis experiment (the conditions will be maintained as long as possible, to see how the life will develop over time). You are free to investigate for yourself, if you want, or even politely ask me for a source. I do not appreciate the implication that the progress of the experiment I mentioned was a complete fabrication.

It is reliable in spite of what you subjectively believe. It is legit and contains much historicity. You have cities countries people in history. You have accounts. To flat out throw it all out means you are not open in the first place. Not open to the Bible, apologetics, Don't want this and don't want that. No watchmaker analogy and on it goes. So what in the ---- are you doing here on a Christian site?

1. I never suggested that everything in the bible was complete garbage or inaccurate. Even intentional works of fiction usually have some basis in reality, such as real places and events. Most religious texts, likewise, have truths within them, whether they were intended as historical texts or not.
2. The watchmaker analogy has always been flawed and was entirely defeated decades ago. You shouldn't want people that share your views using that argument, or to use it yourself.
3. I'm on this site for two reasons. I hope to convert and be exposed to arguments for the existence of deities and an afterlife which I will find convincing. Secondly, it's helped to improve my patience greatly. You're simply wrong about my degree of openness to conversion.

That is debatable.

Then feel free to debate that our understanding of the world was better at some point in the past than it is now, given that even for those that view the bible as flawless, the bible still exists, and thus is part of our collective knowledge. However, make a separate thread for it, as I'd rather not derail this one.

So? It doesn't and i will challenge you to show you know more about the Bible than i do.[/QUOTE]
A silly thing to attempt to do when either of us could look up any trivia we don't know before we respond, and that there isn't universal agreement on the meaning of many of the passages. I bet our biblical interpretations are so different that if we summarized them, it'd almost sound like we were talking about entirely different texts.

The United States Constitution or any meaningful writing does not explain more about cells then you could. So what. They still have value. So i don't know wht your point is.

My point is that no given text is going to describe everything there is to know about the world, is going to account for every novel moral choice possible... so why not seek out to learn more, beyond the books we have?

They don't have to be decimal exact for making bowl covers. (?) The bowl covers were in the context of the construction plans of the Solomon Temple.

Using 3 in place of 3.14 will mess up construction of various items. It mean's the measurements will be off by about 4.7% (rounding up that decimal place). Hence why 2 decimal places are a general minimum needed to effectively utilize pi. Unless those bowl covers were very small, they'd be noticeably ovals rather than circles (at best). The larger the circular construct, the worse the impact of not having the decimal places. And what about the "circular" sea described in Kings 7:23-26? This cylinder's circular side is supposed to have a diameter of 10 cubits ( about 15 feet, more like a pond, in my opinion). With that diameter, the circumference of the circular side should be 31.42 cubits (31 if we want to go in line with your claim that the absence of decimals doesn't really matter). Yet, the bible claims that the circumference of this side is 30 cubits, not 31. That's wrong by 1.42 cubits (2.13 feet). If you are going to argue that circular doesn't mean "circle", the diameter would be an invalid thing to mention for an oval, as an oval's diameter would heavily vary depending on where on the oval you put the line.

Right, not in the Bible and neither is the usage of urine and dung as medicines.

The bible does have that weird thing about using bird blood to get rid of leprosy by sprinkling it around the afflicted's house (some people say that leprosy could refer to things like mildew as well, but I don't think sprinkling the blood of one bird sparsely around a house would fix that. Feel free to experiment with that if your want to, though). The basic quarantine advice in it (that sick people must keep their distance from the healthy until their illness has passed) is most certainly interesting and useful... for diseases that are mostly infectious when symptoms are present.

God means something to me and nothing to you.

Hahahahahaha, why does not believing something exists make it lack any meaning to me at all? Did the story books you read as a child have no significance to you just because you knew the events within them were fictional? I live in an area with a lot of Christians. My mom converted relatively recently (within the 4 years of me being a member of this site). Ideas you personally don't hold much stock in can nevertheless influence your life.

There are no objective reasons since life is objectively meaningless in an atheistic universe.

XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD since when is it objectively meaningful in Christianity? This life is just a temporary trial you endure before you die and go to the much better afterlife. Even if the bible was a good representation of the stance of a god, it would still be a subjective view of life, with the subject being god.

Subjectivity isn't the end of the world when it comes to philosophical topics. In fact, I'd go so far as to say philosophy and morality are entirely subjective in practice.

From my perspective, life is an experience... no, THE experience. It is the summation of all the possibilities life could throw at us, and how we respond to it, how it changes who we are. Will we get an equally/more important experience after we die? I have no idea, but I sure hope so. But, whether or not I end up converting, I have no intention of wasting this short life that I have to nihilism. My actions and my very being do not have to be everlasting for me to enjoy this short ride.

Is that a subjective opinion? Absolutely, and quite frankly, that's just fine for me. Enjoy whatever subjective opinion makes you value life.

Any meaning or purpose assigned is either group or individual fiction relative to objective reality.

Yup, and I see no problem with that, as long as we don't kill each other over it.

Nothing logical about filling your head with fictions relative to objective reality and then acting on them. The end result is the same. Extinction, futility. ''Life is a tale, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.'' There is your objective reality and you should adapt to what is and not what you would like it to be.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *breathes* hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Why should I pick a depressing subjective view on life that gets me nowhere over the one I already have? Species go extinct with time, stars age, the universe achieves entropy... I'm well aware. So... what makes you think that my perspective on life hasn't adapted to that? Too positive for your liking? Besides, if you consider the fact that, as per the bible, the world isn't going to last forever, the only actions that "matter" in this life are conversion and worship. I highly doubt that's all you do beyond the basic functions like eating to keep yourself alive. It genuinely doesn't bother me if my actions in life will matter a million years after my death or not. The vast majority of us are but footnotes in the story of human history alone, much less the story of the entire universe. I'm fully capable of enjoying activities that I am aware aren't even productive within the context of my own life, so I'm not sure why you'd think a lack of a lasting impact on the world (or the next?) would lessen an experience to me.

Right a lot of species are going extinct. The planet is dying out. We are dying? So why not be contented as cows in the fields since we have it better than most who have ever lived. Why are you not as contented as an Ox at the wheel going round and round without a care in the world? Why do you clutter your head with subjective fictions?

You say that like subjective opinions are avoidable; as if you don't have them. Also, I care about more than just myself. Most humans care more than just about themselves. As for the big "why" of my life, I want to go into medical research. My hope is to contribute to extending and IMPROVING the experience that is life both for myself and other people. Since I have shaky hands and poor bedside manner, I've found this to be the most productive path for my life towards that goal.

Additionally, I have persistent anxiety, so a state of calm, contentedness is not an emotional state I have ever experienced for a notable amount of time.

I may have had other reasons which had little to do with your assumptions.

Feel free to expand on them, if you like. Not exactly sure what "assumptions" in particular you are referring to. That you know who Foghorn Leghorn is, because you use his image as your avatar?

 

[Kylie]

No Joke intended Psycho Sarah.
It is the accepted opinion that we are the dominant species on planet Earth. We aren't restricted to one ecological niche and have the obliteration of all life on Earth within out power. Any intelligent creature from another worlds visiting us will not be officially greeted by a bacterial ambassador or by an envoy chimp. They will be greeted by us.

About bringing up the Bible, I usually do so whenever someone else introduces it into the discussion in a direct or roundabout way. I definitely don't use it with atheists because I am well aware that they usually find it to be totally irrelevant. So I am sure that if I did introduce it wasn't with the purpose of convincing atheists concerning the validity of its viewpoint.

We are the dominant species on Earth? That's a joke. Get rid of every human and the world will get along just fine.

Get rid of all the bacteria and most life will vanish as well. Life needs bacteria. It does not need us.

 

[dmmesdale]

My standard is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I would hope historians have similar standards for accepting claims of historicity.

That is a high court standard and when it comes to Moses your standard is myth until proven otherwise, guilty until proven innocent, or beyond all possible doubt. That being even if God is seen they would not believe their own eyes because it is possible some Martians set the whole thing up to trick them. We know atheists hyper-skeptics would like to think they are reasonable and scientific but those of us who debate them know they are anything but. It is a thin veneer. A con game.

No, not really. I doubt many people dispute that the writings are authentic

Why not if the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt? In that way we can wipe out most of ancient history.

That's also characteristic of myths and legends...

Right can't draw the distinction between a historical and a myth figure.

Crucifixion by the Romans was fairly commonplace at that time. That someone called Jesus may have been crucified is not, in itself, of particular note.

That is called diluting or minimizing. The assertion by experts is Jesus existed and was crucified by Pilate. Also baptized by John the Baptist. Bart Ehrman compares Jesus mythers to Holocaust deniers.
Did Jesus Exist? | HuffPost
In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?
-----------------------

They remain to be convinced until they feel the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. The academic approach is not one of accepting all historical claims until they're disproven,

Right ancient historians are guilty or incompetent until proven otherwise.

but one of not accepting them until the evidence is considered to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Have you shown that to be true beyond a reasonable doubt? Lets trash all the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus because none of it is shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt and Tacitus probably wrote about myth figures. (Zeus?) (Common practice for ancient historians) and if absent critics can claim anachronism. So he did not know what he was doing.

Scepticism isn't an error per-se.

In history they accept a lot of things based on blind faith absent one shred of evidence. For example, most accept early humans wandered around for 190,000 years without domesticating animals or using seed. So the skepticism is selective and not consistent.

 

[dmmesdale]

1. abiogenesis experiments

In state of the art labs designed by experts.

imitate conditions likely to have existed on the Earth billions of years ago.

Likely is code for guess.

Nothing is introduced to them that cannot naturally occur.

So what do they (intelligent agents) introduce? RNA? Cells? That means they already start with really complicated things, not raw chemicals alone.

The conditions to produce a car, however, are entirely unnatural and require our input to exist.

Right cars require intelligent agents and a state of the art factory. If cars are unnatural then so is bio life here because both require the intervention of a living intelligent source. That is following the evidence based on everything we know about life. Not Ad Hoc rescues or making things up.

It would entirely defeat the purpose of an abiogenesis experiment if the experimental conditions could not exist on this planet or were unlikely.

More guesswork and starting with their conclusion. Life somehow arose thru natural nonintelligent processes. That is their start. They can then retrofit their starting assumptions around their scenarios, read, guesses. They do not follow the evidence, they fit the evidence into their senarios. If they are looking for the first cause of bio life they are looking for a living cause. We die and they may die but they can duplcate. Cars or Xerox machines do not naturally duplicate and neither do cells. it is too complicated a process to happen naturally. If you think cells can naturally duplicate then you really do not know what you are looking at in the first place.

2. Just look up the work of Jack Szostak (his work in abiogenesis specifically).

Maybe later when i have more time.

3. "Hopeful monster that doesn't exist?"

No known ancestors to bacteria and when they try to break bacteria down the organism dies. You do not get simpler life, you get death. From chemicals to bacteria is far more complicated than bacteria to humans. Ancestors to bacteria are all imaginary as is the magical primordial soup etc. It is all conjecture.

I do not appreciate the implication that the progress of the experiment I mentioned was a complete fabrication.

It is an overstatement. They are no where near and they say so. They may over exaggerate their results for funding purposes. No different in principal than a Benny Hinn healing service. Both con jobs designed to excite the gullible and true believers. Whip them up into a frenzy. I like that analogy. Benny Hinn and origin of life researchers have a few things in common.

2. The watchmaker analogy has always been flawed and was entirely defeated decades ago.

Garbage. It has always been valid. If you find the Starship Enterprise on the moon then the cause is not the moon but a source extrinsic. Same with bacteria. Natural processes chemical reactions did not produce bacteria which duplicates. The process is way to complicated.

3. I'm on this site for two reasons. I hope to convert and be exposed to arguments for the existence of deities and an afterlife which I will find convincing. Secondly, it's helped to improve my patience greatly. You're simply wrong about my degree of openness to conversion.

Life here is the evidence for God. It would take an intelligent source extrinsic of the universe and timeless and that is God. Absent God, we would not be here. Perhaps it is like advanced math. You either get it or you don't.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *breathes* hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

That shows sarcasm and ridicule and not a degree of openess you claim above. So who you trying to convince? When it comes to God your mind is slamed shut and no amount will ever convince. Also you will cling to your alternative creation myth, no matter how preposterious, inferior and counter to all we know about life and living things. If all life has an exclusive nonliving first cause (blind faith) then the spherical Earth came from a flat Earth and the present has zero to do with the past. So much for Darwin who assumed change in his present retrodicted to change in the deep past. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Skreeper]

If you find the Starship Enterprise on the moon then the cause is not the moon but a source extrinsic.

You already know the Starship Enterprise is a human product, so it is no surprise that you conclude that it was designed by an intelligence.

Natural processes chemical reactions did not produce bacteria which duplicates.

Actually they do, all the time.

The process is way to complicated.

No one is interested in your argument from incredulity.

Life here is the evidence for God.

How does that work exactly?

It would take an intelligent source extrinsic of the universe and timeless and that is God.

Other than an argument from incredulity do you have anything to back up this claim?

Absent God, we would not be here.

I don't see how you could possibly know this.