Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We can use the scientific method to test whether a person exists. Why can't we do the same for God?
When we ask for evidence for something that's within creation we all know the kinds of things we're looking for. We're looking for tangible, physical evidence. Different claims require different sorts of evidence.
"I am your father." What evidence is required of this claim? DNA testing, photographs, common memories, etc...
"It rained this afternoon." What evidence is required here? Wet cement, video footage or pictures, personal testimony, etc...
But God is the creator. If He exists he is in an entirely different category from everything else. He alone is creator, everything else is creation. He is unique. What would evidence for the existence of God be like?
Because God does not consist of 'stuff". Rather the 'stuff' science investigates is there subsequent to its creation.
You stlll have no idea how historical evidence is assessed either.
John
NZ
And as a skeptic I realize there are those of other faiths who are able to defend their religious accounts of Jesus. To me they sound just as credible as you.2. As a Christian I am willing only to defend the New Testament accounts of Jesus as being historically true and accurate.
I agree! I believe the other writings and claims about Jesus are equally (in)valid and (in)accurate.That would be valid only if you believed all those writings and claims about Caesar were equally valid and accurate.
I dont think anybody actually believes the Big Bang was an actual explosion.Its absolutely not true.
Look at it this way. To believe that all time and space is the result of a huge explosion 14.5 billion years ago is an extraordinary claim. But the evidence we have says that that is the most likely explanation. There really isn't any "extraordinary" (other than ordinary) evidence or science involved.
If something is more difficult to believe, it is going to be scrutinized a little more closelyI have no doubt that is true for you. But this about what the evidence supports, not what is easiest to believe. If the evidence for each event , using the same standard measurement, is equally good you must either deny both or accept both.
True; they could both be wrong! But if one person claimed he did something that people do all the time, then another person claimed he did something that is impossible for any person to do; which person are you more likely to believe?Truth does not depend in the degree of difficulty
Because you also have to believe Jesus only told the truth! Did he not link his resurrection to Joana in the belly of the whale? (Matthew 12:40). Did he not link his second coming to the story of Noah? Matthew 24:36-39? It is obvious Jesus believed the stories of the Old Testament were actual events; that they were not allegorical. To believe the bible claims of Jesus, you have to believe the Old Testament stories as well.Not at all. You only have to believe that He rose from the dead.
.And as a skeptic I realize there are those of other faiths who are able to defend their religious accounts of Jesus. To me they sound just as credible as you
I don't doubt it. But your credulity does not establish a truth.
Again I don't doubt it. I can't debate what you believe. I can only point out that your belief flies in the face of the evidence.I agree! I believe the other writings and claims about Jesus are equally (in)valid and (in)accurate.
Watch Nova much?I dont think anybody actually believes the Big Bang was an actual explosion.
That's what I'm inviting you to doIf something is more difficult to believe, it is going to be scrutinized a little more closely
Depending on how well they support their claim with credible evidence it could be one or the other, both or neither.True; they could both be wrong! But if one person claimed he did something that people do all the time, then another person claimed he did something that is impossible for any person to do; which person are you more likely to believe?
If God can raise Jesus from the dead why would you think the other things would be two difficult for him? It all starts with the resurrection. If that is true its all true.Because you also have to believe Jesus only told the truth! Did he not link his resurrection to Joana in the belly of the whale? (Matthew 12:40). Did he not link his second coming to the story of Noah? Matthew 24:36-39? It is obvious Jesus believed the stories of the Old Testament were actual events; that they were not allegorical. To believe the bible claims of Jesus, you have to believe the Old Testament stories as well.
Kent, I can't argue with what you believe. Do you have any reason beyond personal incredulity for your position? Incredulity is a perfectly valid reason for not believing,but,if that is the case you should just admit that your atheism is an emotional choice not an intellectual one. And hey, there,s nothing wrong with that.
God Bless
Jax
I believe the closer we get to looking at life in its beginning right down in that quantum world the more we see God.
If God is really the creator of everything then this is where we should see Him. Creation would have to be something that goes beyond this physical world. You wont be able to put an explanation on it. Thats because its beyond our reality and this is exactly what scientists are seeing.
The bible says we can't know the mind of God and it goes beyond our understanding. So maybe all scientists are doing now that they have reached this point of looking at the small particles that are almost coming from nothing like the higgs boson are actually looking at what God is. It really is literally the God particle. When I look at the moon and stars and the beauty of life I see God. There is no explanation for this. It didn't come from nothing or create itself from some naturalistic process.
The problem with Jesus is he never wrote anything down. The only thing we know about Jesus is what other people claimed he said, but how do you know the people you choose to believe are telling the truth? How do you know they are telling you what Jesus actually said instead of what they wanted Jesus to say? It seems to me if God is all knowing and all wise and he was going to send his son to earth for 30+ years, he should have had his son write the message instead of have various people write what they claimed was the message; then many years later have a bunch of other men vote on which messages are legitimate and which messages are not!(The cannon) This gives the bible the appearance of human tampering. If Jesus wrote the Bible, nobody would dare tamper with it.If God can raise Jesus from the dead why would you think the other things would be two difficult for him? It all starts with the resurrection. If that is true its all true.
Kent, I can't argue with what you believe. Do you have any reason beyond personal incredulity for your position? Incredulity is a perfectly valid reason for not believing,but,if that is the case you should just admit that your atheism is an emotional choice not an intellectual one. And hey, there,s nothing wrong with that.
God Bless
Jax
The same is true of almost any all ancient historical figures. There are very few autographs. All we have are copies that tell us what they think he said. At much greater distances from the events than what the gospels are.The only thing we know about Jesus is what other people claimed he said,
That's where Textual criticism and analysis comes inbut how do you know the people you choose to believe are telling the truth? How do you know they are telling you what Jesus actually said instead of what they wanted Jesus to say?
I can't pretend to know Gods reasoning. But the question remains "is it true? not "who wrote it"It seems to me if God is all knowing and all wise and he was going to send his son to earth for 30+ years, he should have had his son write the message instead of have various people write what they claimed was the message;
Thats not quite what happened, but it is an entirely different subject.then many years later have a bunch of other men vote on which messages are legitimate and which messages are not!(The cannon)
Do you have any evdidence that it has been tampered with?This gives the bible the appearance of human tampering. If Jesus wrote the Bible, nobody would dare tamper with it.
That is true. We are created in Gods image so we share some of his characteristics, but our image has been marred by the fall. Our emotions are often expressed in imperfect ways. Not so with God.Also you have to believe the God of the Old Testament is all wise, good, all knowing and perfect; yet he exhibits petty human qualities like Jealousy, anger, regret, and changing his mind.
;When I look at stories like the story of Job, Adam and Eve, Noah, or many of the others he doesnt seem to be as perfect as he is claimed to be
What you see are people writing about what and how things really happened. They had no desire to put a positive spin on things.thus I see more evidence indicating the God of the Old Testament is not real, than the amount of evidence indicating that he is!
Thats true. Jesus said "when you have seen me you have seen the Father"And you cannot believe the God of the New Testament (Jesus) without believing the God of the Old Testament (the Father).
YesYou say it all starts with the resurrection?
By examining the evidence for it in the same way we examine any other historical claim.How do you know this claim was not a conspiracy by those who claimed he resurrected?
He didf Jesus were going to rise from the dead, this would have been the perfect opportunity to show the entire world that he was who he said he was!
He didHe could have shown the kings and all the non-believers who he was,
When he started his ministry there was no "choir" of already committed believers . It was his preaching that created the choir. And 2000 years later it still is.instead he chose to preach to the Choir if you will; show those who already believed.
Not to be picky but there is no Roman Empire today.It was said that the Romans crucified many people and kept detailed records their various executions even to today!
How many records will there be left of our execututions in 2000 years? Jesus was a minor insurrectionist in a backwater part of their empire. There was no reason they would have paid special attention to it. Even when the Apostles began to preach the resurrection Rome regarded just as a spat among the Jews. Only when Paul appealed to Caesar did they begin to take notice of Jesus.Yet there is no record of Jesus Crucifixion.
If it wasn't covered how do you know about it?It is said darkness covered the land for 3 hrs; it seems to me if such an event took place during a particular execution; it would have been covered.
In point of fact you have never really asked to see the evidence for the truth of it, even though I claim that it is there. Wouldn't that be the simplest way to resolve this questionAll this plus more gives me reason to believe that there is more evidence in the falsehood of these religious claims than evidence of truth.
I don't know too much about Alexander the Great; maybe if I did I would have my doubts about him as well. You will have to take that up with someone who knows more about Alexander the Great.Neither did Alexanser the Great
The same is true of almost any all ancient historical figures. There are very few autographs. All we have are copies that tell us what they think he said. At much greater distances from the events than what the gospels are.
No my question is why didn't he write it? (remember I am giving you my reasons not somebody elses)I can't pretend to know Gods reasoning. But the question remains "is it true? not "who wrote it"
No that's part of the subject. Are you saying the Catholic Church didn't decide which books were to be considered authentic enough to be considered a part of the bible?Thats not quite what happened, but it is an entirely different subject.
It was written by imperfect humans. Imperfect Humans decided which books were considered good and which books were badDo you have any evdidence that it has been tampered with?
I consider Jealousy, anger, regret, and changing your mind as a sign of imperfection. Do you?That is true. We are created in Gods image so we share some of his characteristics, but our image has been marred by the fall. Our emotions are often expressed in imperfect ways. Not so with God.
Yes! Because he didn't act in a way that makes sense to me. (remember I am giving reasons for my disbelief)Because he didn't act the way you thought he should?
Seems to me, if all of God's actions were perfect, nobody would have to put a positive spin on anything, everything he did would appear perfect.What you see are people writing about what and how things really happened. They had no desire to put a positive spin on things.
No, according to the Bible, when Jesus rose from the grave he only showed himself to people who already believed.He did
I am talking aboutthe records from the Roman Empire.Not to be picky but there is no Roman Empire today.
That is a claim of the BibleIf it wasn't covered how do you know about it?
If you have evidence that you haven't already presented, I would be happy to see what you've gotIn point of fact you have never really asked to see the evidence for the truth of it, even though I claim that it is there. Wouldn't that be the simplest way to resolve this question
You mean like not to praise yourself but let others do it. There is a difference in me going around claiming I'm a good man and another if others make that claim. Now according to Jesus there will be someone who does glorify himself and the world will accept him..
No my question is why didn't he write it? (remember I am giving you my reasons not somebody elses)
The bible says that God is seen in all His creation.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So some can look at the universe and the DNA of humans and nature and think there must be an explanation for this. We ask ourselves the big questions like who are we, where did we come from and where did all the visible world we see come from. Because we live in this reality which is physical we will want physical evidence. We wont believe anything unless we can see it and test it.
Yet when we get right down to the micro level its almost just as hard to test and understand. I believe the closer we get to looking at life in its beginning right down in that quantum world the more we see God. If God is really the creator of everything then this is where we should see Him. Creation would have to be something that goes beyond this physical world. You wont be able to put an explanation on it. Thats because its beyond our reality and this is exactly what scientists are seeing.
The bible says we can't know the mind of God and it goes beyond our understanding. So maybe all scientists are doing now that they have reached this point of looking at the small particles that are almost coming from nothing like the higgs boson are actually looking at what God is.
It really is literally the God particle. When I look at the moon and stars and the beauty of life I see God. There is no explanation for this. It didn't come from nothing or create itself from some naturalistic process.
Well thats going to be a bit hard isn't it. But would you pose the same demand on scientists that propose theories like worm holes and multi universes. It seems people are happy enough to accept those but when it mentions God they suddenly up the ante.We understand that you believe this. The problem is that you can't demonstrate it.
The quantum world. This is the micro world where they are saying things come into existence. So this is the point at which the qualities of God can be seen more clearly. If God is the creator and He made something from nothing then maybe this quantum world is closely associated with that. Well it has to be or is very close to it.What, exactly, are scientists seeing that has led you to this conclusion?
You may say its ignorance but I see it as something that makes sense to me. The naturalistic explanation will only work with our reality. But our reality may not be what everything is made up of. What we see and how we see it working may not be what makes up everything.You start with an argument from ignorance, and then make a blanket statement that naturalistic processes aren't involved with no evidence to back it up. Sorry, but that isn't very convincing.
Well thats going to be a bit hard isn't it. But would you pose the same demand on scientists that propose theories like worm holes and multi universes. It seems people are happy enough to accept those but when it mentions God they suddenly up the ante.
The quantum world. This is the micro world where they are saying things come into existence. So this is the point at which the qualities of God can be seen more clearly. If God is the creator and He made something from nothing then maybe this quantum world is closely associated with that. Well it has to be or is very close to it.
If you look at the quantum world you will see what is happening. Its very much like how God is described in the bible. If God made this then this is a part of God. This is the invisible quality of God.
Quantum physics is suppose to be in everything and it is what everything is made from. It can act in more than one way and be in more than one form at the same time. It can have an effect on something billions of miles away instantaneously. It can pop in and out of existence and it can make something pop in and out of existence. All these things are what the bible explains God as.
Yet all these things are contradicting what is our reality and we dont know how to explain it and never will. Scientists are even going to the lengths of what some would say religious people would do. That is use far fetched explanations to explain what they are seeing because there is not logical explanation that can describe it from a naturalistic point of view.
Enter quantum weirdness
Quantum mechanics breaks with this tradition. We cant ever know the exact location and exact velocity of even a single particle. We cant predict with total certainty the outcome of even the simplest of experiments, let alone the evolution of the entire cosmos. Quantum mechanics shows that the best we can ever do is predict the probability that an experiment will turn out this way or that. And as quantum mechanics has been verified through decades of fantastically accurate experiments, the Newtonian cosmic clock, even with its Einsteinian updating, is an untenable metaphor; it is demonstrably not how the world works.
NOVA | Spooky Action at a Distance
The study of consciousness has gained a huge amount of attention over the past decade as we begin to not only realize more about the true nature of our world, but as the growing desire to truly discover ourselves becomes something we cant ignore any longer. Quantum physics may have just proven that there is an afterlife.
Did Quantum Physics Just Prove The Existence of An Afterlife? | Collective-Evolution
Well according to what I have read and understood it is. It contradicts our reality. The laws of physics that apply to our reality dont apply to quantum reality. It doesn't work the same way or it cant be tested the same way. That is why it is invoking these far fetched hypothesis like holograms theories and multi universes. From what I have seen of the subject anyone would thing they were looking at a magical world where almost anything can happen.But the quantum world isn't beyond our reality at all. It is our reality, just at a different scale. There is a theory that describes how matter and energy behave at this scale; it's called quantum mechanics.
Then you either dont understand all the qualities of God or you havnt read the bible properly. This is what happens in the quantum world.If that is what God is then he is nothing like the God of the Bible or the God of most religions. I'm assuming therefore that you will promptly abandon your theology and eagerly pursue the God newly revealed by science, no?
No they have theorized that this is how they were formed. They have not proved this. But even if this is the case this is only the reality that we see. This is not how things came into existence in the beginning. The moon sits in a perfect spot next to our earth and floating in a dark space that makes up most of our universe. That dark space also adds some influence to how that moon can sit in its perfect position and not fly off or smash into us. Its more than just gravity. Even so do we really understand how gravity works in the scheme of things. That dark empty space isn't empty and has an effect on everything in the universe. But it is all so finely balanced and working together like some big clock. This cannot have happened through a naturalistic process out of chaos. Things just didn't happen to fall into place in such a finely tuned universe.But natural processes are able to explain the formation of the moon and stars. This is yet another argument from ignorance, but it doesn't even work because we aren't ignorant on such matters.
Well according to what I have read and understood it is. It contradicts our reality.
The laws of physics that apply to our reality dont apply to quantum reality. It doesn't work the same way or it cant be tested the same way. That is why it is invoking these far fetched hypothesis like holograms theories and multi universes. From what I have seen of the subject anyone would thing they were looking at a magical world where almost anything can happen.
Then you either dont understand all the qualities of God or you havnt read the bible properly. This is what happens in the quantum world.
Particles can be in more than one place at once. What happens is that our observation causes its properties to manifest. Quantum objects have the property of disappearing from one place and reappearing in another without crossing the intervening distance. So its instantaneous like it is everywhere at the same time. So a particle on one side of the universe can effect another on the other side of the universe instantaneously like there is this invisible connection between them. Particles are waves and particles at the same time. But will become a particle when we observe them. So they can be more than one form at the same time. They can pop in and out of existence.
Now God is described in the bible as being in more than one place at a time. He is everywhere and in all things at the same time. He can be two different forms at the same time. He can effect something at a distances and everything is connected to Him. His invisible qualities are what has made the world so that what is seen was made by what is not seen. God can make things appear and disappear in and out of existence. This is seen with the miracles of Jesus. Jesus actually dematerialized and walked through a wall and then re materialized when He appeared to His disciples after He rose from the dead. So as you can see what is described in the quantum world is how God is described in the bible.
No they have theorized that this is how they were formed. They have not proved this. But even if this is the case this is only the reality that we see. This is not how things came into existence in the beginning. The moon sits in a perfect spot next to our earth and floating in in a dark space that makes up most of our universe. That dark space also adds some influence to how that moon can sit it its perfect position and not fly off or smash into us. Its more than just gravity. That dark empty space isn't empty and has an effect on everything in the universe. But it is all so finely balanced and working together like some big clock. This cannot have happened through a naturalistic process out of chaos. Things just didn't happen to fall into such a finely tuned universe.
What does that even mean. Our common sense understanding of reality is exactly what I said. So if it contradicts it which is more what causes things to be the one we see or the one we dont. Which set of physics shall we go by to determine how things work in this world.No, as I've told you before, it contradicts our common-sense understanding of reality at the scale we are most familiar with.
And the quantum level is in everything. What we see is made up of that quantum level. So its in everything. What we see is just the visible result of that quantum level.No, quantum mechanics describes how matter and energy behave at the quantum level.
Of course and I'm not saying that quantum physics itself is some far fetched theory. I am saying what it is indicating is pointing to something beyond our reality.Quantum mechanics isn't some far fetched hypothesis. In fact, according to the source you referenced earlier, "quantum mechanics has been verified through decades of fantastically accurate experiments."
The bible can give us some indications of who God is. That is what the bible is for. We can read about His qualities but that doesn't mean we can comprehend what it means. I can read about genetics and get some understanding and appreciation of what its about. But i cant comprehend its overall ability. The qualities of God are what God is made up of.I don't understand the qualities of God? You're the one claiming that God is beyond our understanding. If that's the case, then of course I don't understand the qualities of God, and neither do you!
Well they sure act like they are. But they are not just particles like you are trying to make out. They are different to the particles you are thinking of. They can also act like waves. They can also be in many positions at the same time. Yes they are particles with magical abilities. Take a look at some of the theories scientists are promoting like multi universes. According to that we can have billions of copies of ourselves in other dimensions all doing something different. Or we can be a hologram of ourselves like a projection and fade in and out of reality. That is what scientists are coming up with and it sounds pretty super natural to me. Something we would see in a science fiction movie.Yes, particles, steve. Physical particles, not all-powerful, all-knowing, supernatural, disembodied agents, particles.
The particles that are at the point of existence in the quantum world act like this. They also have other attributes like being able to affect each other at a distance instantaneously. They can also pop in and out of existence and be in many places at the same time because of these attributes. So the bible doesn't have to say God is a particle or wave. The quantum world has the attributes of being many things at the same time and so does God. It says that God was in the beginning. That he is in all things and is everywhere. That he can make things from nothing and that everything is held together by Him. I think that just about covers every possible form that existence can be.Where in the Bible is God described as a particle and a wave? Does the Bible describe the diffraction pattern produced by God? Where in the Bible do I find the passage on quantum tunnelling?
No but I,m beginning to think yours is maybe this argument out of ignorance all the time you claim I am doing. I am not just saying God done it and not even try and explain it. I am trying to give it some explanation and that explanation can have just as much possibility as the many far fetched ones that some scientists have come up with which are being accepted as possibilities as well. All based on indirect evidence.Yet another argument from ignorance: "We don't understand fine-tuning or X or Y or Z, so Goddidit." Is that your favourite argument?
But isn't that a bit of a cop out you say that we dont understand the fine tuning of the universe. We do understand there are many constants that hold the universe together. If any of those are changed or were not the way they are and all working together in their right mixes we wouldn't have the same things we have now. We wouldn't have life. This has been a perplexing question for scientists for a long time. But scientists can accept theories that try to address other things that we dont understand like this like multi universes and this is all OK. Its when God is mentioned that it suddenly becomes ignorant.
I think he makes a very good point."You dont know. This is something you should know especially if you want to put meaning behind the word scientist but you dont. Not only that, but think of the most famous living scientists. Like Stephen Hawking. I mean, everyone has heard of him. He has to be an outstanding scientist doing useful things, right? Well, do you have evidence of that? What has Stephen Hawkings science led to? Maybe one day it will help us make a warp drive or something, but if I said, Stephen Hawking is a complete and utter fraud. Everything he says is nonsense, would you have any way to prove me right or wrong? Hawkings stuff is all far out theory built upon more far out theory. What are you going to do? Blow up a black hole and demonstrate that hes wrong?
Fair enough. But what about Plato, Socrates, Homer, Cyrus, Julius Caesar ect. By your criteria you would have to doubt almost all of ancient history.]I don't know too much about Alexander the Great; maybe if I did I would have my doubts about him as well.
I'll ask him next time I see him. However are you telling me that a document claiming to be written by Jesus Christ is really all it wold take to make you a believer?No my question is why didn't he write it? (remember I am giving you my reasons not somebody elses)
No it really isn't but...No that's part of the subject.
Well first of all, there was only one universal church prior to the reformation. So to say Catholic Church as opposed to just the church is a bit of a misnomer. The issue they were deciding was not what books were authentic enough, but what books were authentic at all. It was not an eeny meeny miney mo process. They followed a strict criteria and in the end the books they canonized were essentially the books regarded as authentic by the early church. There is no reason or evidence to believe that there are any authentic but un-canonized works out there.Are you saying the Catholic Church didn't decide which books were to be considered authentic enough to be considered a part of the bible?
Since that is the case for all writings, I don't know why that would be a problem only for the Bible.It was written by imperfect humans.
They decided which books were authentic or not, which is how all of ancient history is decided.Imperfect Humans decided which books were considered good and which books were bad
Not of necessity. Sometimes those emotions are justified and perfectly rational.I consider Jealousy, anger, regret, and changing your mind as a sign of imperfection. Do you?
As I said before I cant argue with what you believe.Yes! Because he didn't act in a way that makes sense to me. (remember I am giving reasons for my disbelief)
I would say it means that God saw no reason to guild the lily insofar as his actions are concerned. Perfect actions do not always have to be pleasant.Seems to me, if all of God's actions were perfect, nobody would have to put a positive spin on anything, everything he did would appear perfect.
In a literal sense thats true. Figuratively he shows himself to people even today.No, according to the Bible, when Jesus rose from the grave he only showed himself to people who already believed.
I know, I was just being pickyI am talking about the records from the Roman Empire.
Which is a historically accurate document.That is a claim of the Bible
I haven't really presented any evidence yet. So far we just been discussing the possibility of there being evidence.If you have evidence that you haven't already presented,
Alright then. However to help keep us focused on the subject at hand and to avoid anyone else jumping in, would you consider moving this part of our conversation over to the formal debate section?I would be happy to see what you've got
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?