How to prove God exists.

[Skreeper]

Yes it can. There is plenty of objective evidence for the existence of Moses.

Like what?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So what is the first cause of bacteria? Living or exclusively nonliving? Since there are no known ancestors to bacteria and any proposed are imagined absent empirical evidence. Imagined just like God.

 

[dmmesdale]

Like what?

The existence of Moses? The Bible is multiple compiled and that means you have multiple sources attesting to the existence of Moses. You also have Josephus and Philo of Alexandria. The Bible with its multiple compiled and would add the Early Christian Writings are all empirical evidence for the physical existence of Moses. Also you have zero from antiquity which depicts Moses as a myth figure in history.

It is the moderns, thousand of years removed, who are history-deniers who would entertain the idea of mythical Moses. Why, for example, would 1st century scholars (Josephus and Philo) be wrong and the moderns, right? The existence of Moses was taken for granted in the first century. There in part is the positive case for the existence of Moses. All of it compiled is more than enuf to establish historicity. If you believe otherwise then the burden is on you to prove all these ancient sources wrong.

 

[Skreeper]

The existence of Moses? The Bible is multiple compiled and that means you have multiple sources attesting to the existence of Moses. You also have Josephus and Philo of Alexandria. The Bible with its multiple compiled and would add the Early Christian Writings are all empirical evidence for the physical existence of Moses. Also you have zero from antiquity which depicts Moses as a myth figure in history.

It is the moderns, thousand of years removed, who are history-deniers who would entertain the idea of mythical Moses. Why, for example, would 1st century scholars (Josephus and Philo) be wrong and the moderns, right? The existence of Moses was taken for granted in the first century. There in part is the positive case for the existence of Moses. All of it compiled is more than enuf to establish historicity. If you believe otherwise then the burden is on you to prove all these ancient sources wrong.

"The scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical.[8] However, William Dever states that a "Moses-like figure" may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-13th century BC.[9] Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure."

Moses - Wikipedia

That didn't take me very long.

 

[dmmesdale]

The only thing that is subjective is the foundation which is well-being but let me explain this whole concept to you: We live in a physical universe that has physical rules that dictate the consequences of our actions and these consequences determine our well-being. So with this in mind we have now established that there are non subjective facts about reality that determine whether or not something is contributing or contracting from our well-being.

Independent from anybody's opinion it is objectively bad if our planet cannot sustain life any longer.

The universe would operate fine without us as it has in the past. The universe and its laws are not affected one bit by our absence. The universe has no investment in our well-being. Including our planet. Thre is no objective basis for any of your proposals. They are all subjective fiction relative to objective reality. Life here is really meaningless and any meaning assigned is subjective or group fiction. Perhaps you should keep your subjective fictions to your little groups and not try to hoodwink others who know better.

 

[dmmesdale]

"The scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical.[8] However, William Dever states that a "Moses-like figure" may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-13th century BC.[9] Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure."

Moses - Wikipedia

That didn't take me very long.

Yes i know about bandwagon appeals but you need to show why the ancients were wrong and the moderns, thousands of years removed, are right. The burden is on you, not me and bandwagon appeals are not enuf. Otherwise your case can be dismissed as just another history denier.

 

[Skreeper]

The universe would operate fine without us as it has in the past.

I agree.

The universe and its laws are not affected one bit by our absence.

Again, I agree.

The universe has no investment in our well-being.

True, but we are part of this universe and we humans care about our well-being. Do you not care about our well-being?

Thre is no objective basis for any of your proposals.

There is only one subjective part which is the agreement that we humans care about our well-being. After that we can make objective assessments whether or not something contributes or contracts from our well-being. I am not offering a subjective opinion when I say that making our planet unlivable is bad for us.

Life here is really meaningless and any meaning assigned is subjective or group fiction.

Yes, we give our lives meaning. I am sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

Perhaps you should keep your subjective fictions to your little groups and not try to hoodwink others who know better.

Maybe you should follow your own advise.

 

[Skreeper]

Yes i know about bandwagon appeals but you need to show why the ancients were wrong and the moderns, thousands of years removed, are right. The burden is on you, not me and bandwagon appeals are not enuf. Otherwise your case can be dismissed as just another history denier.

It is not my job since I am not a historian or scholar. I merely told you what the scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of Moses is. If you disagree with the majority of scholars, take it up with them.

 

[Chriliman]

The only thing that is subjective is the foundation which is well-being but let me explain this whole concept to you: We live in a physical universe that has physical rules that dictate the consequences of our actions and these consequences determine our well-being. So with this in mind we have now established that there are non subjective facts about reality that determine whether or not something is contributing or contracting from our well-being.

Independent from anybody's opinion it is objectively bad if our planet cannot sustain life any longer.

Right. Hence, it's objectively good if life can be sustained forever, enter God.

 

[dmmesdale]

It is not my job since I am not a historian or scholar. I merely told you what the scholarly consensus concerning the historicity of Moses is. If you disagree with the majority of scholars, take it up with them.

Well, i just went over your wiki source and there is a whole bunch of extra-biblical sources attesting to the existence of Moses. For example

In Tacitus
The Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–120 CE) refers to Moses by noting that the Jewish religion was monotheistic and without a clear image. His primary work, wherein he describes Jewish philosophy, is his Histories (c. 100), where, according to Arthur Murphy, as a result of the Jewish worship of one God, "pagan mythology fell into contempt."[61] Tacitus states that, despite various opinions current in his day regarding the Jews' ethnicity, most of his sources are in agreement that there was an Exodus from Egypt. By his account, the Pharaoh Bocchoris, suffering from a plague, banished the Jews in response to an oracle of the god Zeus-Amun.

A motley crowd was thus collected and abandoned in the desert. While all the other outcasts lay idly lamenting, one of them, named Moses, advised them not to look for help to gods or men, since both had deserted them, but to trust rather in themselves, and accept as divine the guidance of the first being, by whose aid they should get out of their presence.
--------------------------------------
The moderns have not really made a convincing case using standard historical methods. Tacitus was a 1st century Roman, not Jewish historian. You know what, the existence of Moses was history to Tacitus.

These moderns can state their opinion but they would have a heck of a time defending it in an open debate. I suspect they would get their behinds handed to them. If their case is so strong for mythical Moses then they should welcome debate. Doubtful that is the case.

That is all testimony or empirical evidence from multiple sources compiled for the existence of Moses. That is all a positive case for the existence of Moses. So i don't know why the moderns would be right and all the ancient scholars wrong?

 

[Skreeper]

Right. Hence, it's objectively good if life can be sustained forever, enter God.

I do not believe that this life sustaining God exists.

 

[Chriliman]

I do not believe that this life sustaining God exists.

Ok, but do you at least agree that stoping death and sustaining life forever is an objectively good thing?

Or do you think it's better that all life eventually cease to exist forever?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ok, but do you at least agree that stoping death and sustaining life forever is an objectively good thing?

No.

Or do you think it's better that all life eventually cease to exist forever?

It is not a given that all life will cease forever.

However, it is neither good nor bad that this should happen.

 

[Skreeper]

Ok, but do you at least agree that stoping death and sustaining life forever is an objectively good thing?

No, there are instances where death is preferable to life.

 

[Chriliman]

No, there are instances where death is preferable to life.

So it's objectively better that everything eventually die and life cease to exist forever, rather than to stop death so meaningful life can be sustained forever?

Are you sure about that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What would it even mean to say something is objectively better or worse?

Doesn't better imply subjectivity/preference?

 

[Skreeper]

So it's objectively better that everything eventually die and life cease to exist forever, rather than to stop death so meaningful life can be sustained forever?

No, and I have no idea how you got that from my answer. Maybe you need to read it again.

 

[Chriliman]

No, and I have no idea how you got that from my answer. Maybe you need to read it again.

Sorry, I thought we were specifically talking about objectivity - things always being bad or good, like your earlier example of it being objectively bad if the earth could no longer sustain life.

If this is indeed what we're talking about, then I'm proposing that it would always be good to have life(experience of goodness) opposed to death(no experience of goodness).

You seem to disagree because you think in some instances, no experience of goodness(death) would be preferred over experience of goodness(life).

If I've misunderstood, please clarify. I've tried to make my stance as clear as possible by providing clear meaning behind what I'm saying.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So what is the first cause of bacteria? Living or exclusively nonliving? Since there are no known ancestors to bacteria and any proposed are imagined absent empirical evidence. Imagined just like God.

Abiogenesis experiments recently had life arise from non-life through natural processes. I made a thread about it in the creationism vs evolution debate section. The first life wasn't a bacterium or any other modern cell type. It didn't even use DNA as it's genetic material, but RNA instead (which is heavily utilized in modern cells, by the way). I'll link you to the thread if you can't find it.

Why not? It is indicative of what they believed about the first cause of life and the universe. Why should we believe you over say, Moses or Jesus?

I say not to use it when debating with people that don't view the bible as a reliable source for information. That, or if you are going to use it, at least make a decent argument for the bible being a legitimate source of information first.

Furthermore, I am not demanding that you believe me over anyone else. That would be super arrogant. However, the collective understanding of the world has never been as great as it is right now. Moses and Jesus never give any indication that they knew cells existed. I challenge you to demonstrate that the bible explains more about cells than I could.

You got something against ancient writings or religion? Are they assumed to be wrong about everything they write?

No, and no. I actually quite enjoy reading religious texts. However, most religious texts do present concepts and ideas that are demonstrably wrong. For example, the bible implies that pi equals 3... it's missing some very pertinent decimals there. As an example from religious stories that aren't in the bible, many of the Greek legends outright state that people can have more than one biological father as long as a woman has sex with more than one man on the same day.

There is no objective or rational basis to protect the planet or stop extinction which is going to happen anyway.

So when the Christian god commands our species to hold dominion over the planet and take care of it, that means nothing to you? There are plenty of perfectly logical reasons to not want this planet to become a garbage pile. It'd mean the extinction of our species, for one, along with many if not all others.

It is subjective fiction incompatible with objective reality to assert we somehow are obligated to protect the planet or slow down extinction.

I suppose, as long as we ourselves aren't causing the extinction events... oh wait, lots of species have gone extinct because of our activities. And it can negatively impact our own lives to lose those species, so if the internal desire not to kill off species when you can avoid it isn't enough or doesn't apply to you, that selfish motivation is always there.

If you insist on imposing your subjective fictions on the rest of us then you really have no basis to demand others do not reference Genesis even if you assert it is fiction since they are not doing anything you don't do. All you demonstrate is double standards.

All I was suggesting was that utilizing Genesis in an argument against a non-Christian is going to be ineffective (unless they are Jewish or Muslim, I suppose). I wouldn't bring up Hindu gods like Vishnu to try to convince you of the value of preserving this planet, since I know you don't view the Vedas as a reliable source of morality or information in general. Neither do I, for that matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Even if every nuke and other weapon we have built thus far detonated, some life on this planet would survive. I don't think the bacteria that live around deep sea vents would even notice. Additionally, humans aren't the only species with multiple ecological niches. In fact, most invasive species aren't in the same niche in the environments they are native to as they are in the environments they have invaded.

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.

If our species doesn't go extinct before that happens, sure.

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.

That's fair.