Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

god or advanced entity?

  • god

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • advanced entity

    Votes: 21 60.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hard_to_Beat

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Posts
11,162
Likes
6,002
AFL Club
North Melbourne
A computer simulation of data which was supplied by a christian pertaining to the "likely locations and depths of Nile delta waterways, which have shifted considerably over time"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,368
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I can well imagine the wind blowing the periphery ofa very shallow body of water back against it's natural "shoreline" but the bible speaks of "walls of water" held back on each side. If you contend that 1-100mm constitutes a wall I'll accept the theory as a plausible possibility, but that being said Moses and his band of Red Sea pedestrians could have simply walked through the 100mm deep water in any event, without any weather tampering by outside forces.
The possibility of the events described in your link, as tenuous as it already is, does not even approach the events described in the bible.
Not even close.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
I can well imagine the wind blowing the periphery ofa very shallow body of water back against it's natural "shoreline" but the bible speaks of "walls of water" held back on each side. If you contend that 1-100mm constitutes a wall I'll accept the theory as a plausible possibility, but that being said Moses and his band of Red Sea pedestrians could have simply walked through the 100mm deep water in any event, without any weather tampering by outside forces.
The possibility of the events described in your link, as tenuous as it already is, does not even approach the events described in the bible.
Not even close.
To be honest I don't necessarily agree with it all as well, but was just trying to show there could be science behind it. What's to say it wasn't scientifically logical but was done through divine Intervention? I mean it wouldn't be the first or last thing in the bible that requires faith. For instance Jesus' resurrection. There was a first century Palenstinian Jew named Jesus Christ who claimed to be the son of God, fact. This man did good deeds, fact. He was followed by 12 disciples, fact. He prophesized of his own crucifixion and his bodily resurrection to heaven three days after, fact. He was crucified, fact. His body was gone from his grave 3 days later (according to the Jewish measurements of time at that time.), fact. He had, like he predicted, raised to heaven and was therefore likely to be the son of God as he claimed, fact?

CS Lewis runs through some possible explanations.

1. Body was stolen by disciples- unlikely due to the guarding by the Roman soldiers.
2. Mary showed up to the wrong grave, it was in the dark.- when news of Jesus' missing body was out, the disciples showed up to the same grave.
3. Body was stolen by Romans and hidden in city- Unlikely as the they would of had to report him missing and would of surely faced dire consequences if this had been true, and probably would be known by now.
4. Jesus truly was the son of God.

Could science explain that? With that info, is it really completely unjustified to have Christiam faith?
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,368
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
To be honest I don't necessarily agree with it all as well, but was just trying to show there could be science behind it. What's to say it wasn't scientifically logical but was done through divine Intervention? I mean it wouldn't be the first or last thing in the bible that requires faith. For instance Jesus' resurrection. There was a first century Palenstinian Jew named Jesus Christ who claimed to be the son of God, fact. This man did good deeds, fact. He was followed by 12 disciples, fact. He prophesized of his own crucifixion and his bodily resurrection to heaven three days after, fact. He was crucified, fact. His body was gone from his grave 3 days later (according to the Jewish measurements of time at that time.), fact. He had, like he predicted, raised to heaven and was therefore likely to be the son of God as he claimed, fact?

CS Lewis runs through some possible explanations.

1. Body was stolen by disciples- unlikely due to the guarding by the Roman soldiers.
2. Mary showed up to the wrong grave, it was in the dark.- when news of Jesus' missing body was out, the disciples showed up to the same grave.
3. Body was stolen by Romans and hidden in city- Unlikely as the they would of had to report him missing and would of surely faced dire consequences if this had been true, and probably would be known by now.
4. Jesus truly was the son of God.

Could science explain that? With that info, is it really completely unjustified to have Christiam faith?
I don't accept that a word of that is even likely, let alone fact.

A small number of people wrote a number of widely varying, second hand accounts of alleged happenings between 100 and 300 hundred years after the alleged events had occurred...fact.
These second hand accounts were cherry picked to cobble together what is now known as the New Testament...fact.
There endeth the list facts pertaining to the Bible I am willing to accept.
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Posts
17,562
Likes
6,089
Location
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
I don't accept that a word of that is even likely, let alone fact.

A small number of people wrote a number of widely varying, second hand accounts of alleged happenings between 100 and 300 hundred years after the alleged events had occurred...fact.
These second hand accounts were cherry picked to cobble together what is now known as the New Testament...fact.
There endeth the list facts pertaining to the Bible I am willing to accept.
That's all very well PE, but you've conveniently omitted to address the overwhelmingly most important point made by Lewis - that Jesus was the son of god. The science behind this claim is irrefutable, as is the logic. This bloke who might have been something else altogether, who was in a location unavailable to those who were alive at the time, for whom there is no record of possession of a penis, rooted a woman who never had sex, and begat a thing, which was, apparently, only part human.

Your cynicism founders on the rock which is the relentless inevitability of the truth of this proposition. If you had the privileged access to the word of god I do, you would have already understood this, without me having to point it out. Nevertheless, I forgive your ignorance, because of my generosity of spirit and complete lack of smugness.
 

Upton Sinclair

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Posts
5,441
Likes
2,033
AFL Club
Collingwood
tb_fanboy - this is just as likely:

(Shamelessly plagiarised from another forum)

Now before I start, you know I don't actually believe any of the nonsense in the Bible, but just for the sake of taking the piss, let's assume that the resurrection is absolutely real and historical.

Let me start with a preamble to illustrate the problem with it. Assume that one day, for whatever miraculous reason, all cats in town said "hello" to their owners. Would you think that it's caused specifically by Hans's cat, because she also say "hello"? Or does Hans's cat just get to be one of the mass of cats who did that weird stuff?

Or if there's an Earthquake and lots of houses collapse, would anyone sane think it was caused by Hans's house collapsing? Isn't it more likely that it's the earthquake that caused all the houses to fall down, including Hans's, rather than the other way around?

Now to get back to Jesus, brothers and sisters, let us open the good book to the gospel of St Matthew, chapter 27, verses 52 to 53:

52. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

53. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

So we have a day where great cosmic events happen. Earthquakes, the sun turning dark, etc. Some extraordinary circumstances are at work, clearly. And, more importantly, a whole LOT of people come back to life, including a newly executed Jesus. He's not the only one coming back to life on that weekend. He's one of literally hundreds or maybe thousands who wake right back up during those cosmic events.

Heck, he even goes to meet people on the same Sunday when all the other walking corpses walk into town and show themselves to people.

Just like in the earthquake example, what reason is there to assume that it's dead Jesus who caused all those cosmic events and resurrections, instead of the other way around? If we take the story literally, isn't it more believable that he's just yet another hapless guy who just had the good fortune to be caught in the blast radius of that event that raised the dead all around Jerusalem? Maybe if he were executed two days later, he'd have stayed dead.

The only argument for Jesus I can think of is basically an argument from ignorance, i.e., "what else could have caused that?"

I don't know. Maybe Yog Sothoth had a bad hair day. (After all, He is said to be the gate, the key and the guardian of the gate, and we know He can grant a resurrection.) Maybe some great old one was trying to break through and those guys slipped through the crack. Maybe someone was trying to raise a zombie army. Who knows? But there still is no reason to assume that when a few thousand wake up, you can know specifically which of them did it.
 

blackcat

https://t.co/2GDiITokES
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
25,166
Likes
12,124
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Your cynicism founders on the rock which is the relentless inevitability of the truth of this proposition. If you had the privileged access to the word of god I do, you would have already understood this, without me having to point it out. Nevertheless, I forgive your ignorance, because of my generosity of spirit and complete lack of smugness.
quality para

first para, need to substitute priapus for penis tho.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
I don't accept that a word of that is even likely, let alone fact.

A small number of people wrote a number of widely varying, second hand accounts of alleged happenings between 100 and 300 hundred years after the alleged events had occurred...fact.
These second hand accounts were cherry picked to cobble together what is now known as the New Testament...fact.
There endeth the list facts pertaining to the Bible I am willing to accept.
So you don't believe there was a first century Palestinian Jew named Jesus Christ?
 

Upton Sinclair

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Posts
5,441
Likes
2,033
AFL Club
Collingwood
So you don't believe there was a first century Palestinian Jew named Jesus Christ?
I don't believe there is much in the way of evidence to show that there was and the evidence that does exist points to a number of individuals. Certainly there are no contemporaneous accounts of the sort miraculous and distinctly noticeable behaviour to support the second hand accounts written centuries after he supposedly died.

The story is at best allegorical.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,368
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
That's all very well PE, but you've conveniently omitted to address the overwhelmingly most important point made by Lewis - that Jesus was the son of god. The science behind this claim is irrefutable, as is the logic. This bloke who might have been something else altogether, who was in a location unavailable to those who were alive at the time, for whom there is no record of possession of a penis, rooted a woman who never had sex, and begat a thing, which was, apparently, only part human.

Your cynicism founders on the rock which is the relentless inevitability of the truth of this proposition. If you had the privileged access to the word of god I do, you would have already understood this, without me having to point it out. Nevertheless, I forgive your ignorance, because of my generosity of spirit and complete lack of smugness.

Jesus, pardon the pun, could you possibly post a more inane/insane/less supported statement as that?;)

Even in gest.


I fart in your general direction....your mother was a Hamster and you father smells of elderberries........

"I am searching for the Messiah!"


"Arrgh! Wee haff already gart whan!"....chuckles......"Ah told heem weeeev arlredy gart whan!" .....sniggers.


"Could we see him?"


"No! Now leave theese place English pig dog...you and all your silly....k...niggets!"
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Posts
17,562
Likes
6,089
Location
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
Jesus, pardon the pun, could you possibly post a more inane/insane/less supported statement as that?;)

Even in gest.


I fart in your general direction....your mother was a Hamster and you father smells of elderberries........

"I am searching for the Messiah!"


"Arrgh! Wee haff already gart whan!"....chuckles......"Ah told heem weeeev arlredy gart whan!" .....sniggers.


"Could we se him?"


"No! Now leave theese place English pig dog...you and all your silly....k...niggets!"
You will burn in hell for this. It will be a thrill to at last meet you.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
I don't believe there is much in the way of evidence to show that there was and the evidence that does exist points to a number of individuals. Certainly there are no contemporaneous accounts of the sort miraculous and distinctly noticeable behaviour to support the second hand accounts written centuries after he supposedly died.

The story is at best allegorical.
To be honest, I thought it was generally accepted as a fact

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus .... We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period."
Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did"
NT Wright


Robert Van Voorst gives 7 reasons why historians are confident Jesus lived:

The Apostle Paul did not say a lot about Jesus (an argument sometimes used by sceptics, but this is an argument from silence and therefore invalid without positive evidence). But Paul did know about Jesus, and was unlikely to write a lot of historical detail in letters.

The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.

The development of the early christians' understanding of Jesus which can be seen in the gospels (another argument sometimes used) is not sufficient to justify the belief that they were inventions.

No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.

Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,368
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
To be honest, I thought it was generally accepted as a fact

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus .... We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period."
Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did"
NT Wright


Robert Van Voorst gives 7 reasons why historians are confident Jesus lived:

The Apostle Paul did not say a lot about Jesus (an argument sometimes used by sceptics, but this is an argument from silence and therefore invalid without positive evidence). But Paul did know about Jesus, and was unlikely to write a lot of historical detail in letters.

The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.

The development of the early christians' understanding of Jesus which can be seen in the gospels (another argument sometimes used) is not sufficient to justify the belief that they were inventions.

No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.

Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.
These "facts" are genrally accpeted as "fact" by those whohave never questioned the foundation of said "facts".
In reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Have you ever spent more than few minutes researching from whence these "facts" sprang or looking at the tiny scrap of parchment/papyrus from which these claims of "fact" spring?

You can download the full, digitized, archive of all the Dead Sea scrolls.....
All of Christianity, the bible and every Abrahamic religion's proofs of veracity hinge on a single scrap, from tens of thousands...which if sympathetically translated resembles a few words from one line of the Gospels.

Time to throw out what you thought you knew (were told) was true and actually examine the actual evidence.


Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.
All arguments that Jesus was a historical figure have come from people ensconced in Christianity or beholding to it.
I suppose that as you make claims that there is evidence, unbiased and founde in historical record you will post it or at least links?

I have not been discussing these issues for a short time.....
I probably have 20 years on you...on the net..30 in general discussion and at the very least 20years of actual research into the claims.

As I have written many times...I am totally open to any evidence regarding th everacity of any claim of religious proof.

I have yet to see, read, witness or get a "gut feel" for the even the possible veracity of a single theological claim to factuality.

You may dismiss this as the simple "anti-religiousness" but I assure you I am and have been for decades, open to even a hint that religion has even the slightest basis in reality.

The fact is I've never been made aware of any. And I've looked.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Posts
1,477
Likes
219
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Denver, UO, NY
These "facts" are genrally accpeted as "fact" by those whohave never questioned the foundation of said "facts".
In reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Have you ever spent more than few minutes researching from whence these "facts" sprang or looking at the tiny scrap of parchment/papyrus from which the claims of "fact" spring?

You can download the full, digitized, archive of all the Dead Sea scrolls.....
All of Christianity, the bible and every Abrahamic religion's proofs all veracity hinge on a single scrap, from tens of thousands...which if sympathetically translated resembles a few words from one line of the Gospels.

Time to through out what you thought you knew(were told) was true and actually examine the actual evidence.
I was talking about the existance of Jesus Christ, who from as far as I can tell you denied? There's no point discussing the rest if you're going to dismiss this.

And as for the last part, I've actually done a basic amount of research on the evolution theory, the Cambrian explosion and I've made the choice for myself.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
I don't accept that a word of that is even likely, let alone fact.

A small number of people wrote a number of widely varying, second hand accounts of alleged happenings between 100 and 300 hundred years after the alleged events had occurred...fact.
These second hand accounts were cherry picked to cobble together what is now known as the New Testament...fact.
There endeth the list facts pertaining to the Bible I am willing to accept.
Sorry mate, I really do like you and enjoy reading what you write, which is usually thought provoking and clever, but your 'facts' here are patently false.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,368
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
I was talking about the existance of Jesus Christ, who from as far as I can tell you denied? There's no point discussing the rest if you're going to dismiss this.

And as for the last part, I've actually done a basic amount of research on the evolution theory, the Cambrian explosion and I've made the choice for myself.
Categorically.
There is scant evidence of any person who resembles Jesus Christ, a son of a deity, ever existing. Ever.
The actions/events ascribed to him and his existence have even less historicy.
All evidence resides in a tenuous mention by an unreliable roman scribe and 100 or more year old second hand accounts which themselves are open to dispute re: their actual authorship and/or veracity.

Don't feel I'm not being clear.
There is no reliable evidence that Jesus of the bible ever existed, even as a simple human let alone as the son of God in the Bible.

I'm staunch on that fact,though as I have posted I'm open to any actual evidence.

Feel free to post it.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,965
Likes
15,368
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Sorry mate, I really do like you and enjoy reading what you write, which is usually thought provoking and clever, but your 'facts' here are patently false.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Even mentioning the two in the same post is anathema.
It amazes me that a belief of a supernatural being ever gets lumped in with the interpretation of a scientific theory.

Toyou does one hinge on the veracity of the other?

Evolution, as thoroughly evidenced as it is, does not either point to or away from a God.

God does not rely on either the veracity or dis provenance of science.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Even mentioning the two in the same post is anathema.
It amazes me that a belief of a supernatural being ever gets lumped in with the interpretation of a scientific theory.

Toyou does one hinge on the veracity of the other?

Evolution, as thoroughly evidenced as it is, does not either point to or away from a God.

God does not rely on either the veracity or dis provenance of science.

What has evolution got to do with anything here? I was referring to the fact that you claimed the documents and records were
manipulated, written much later etc.
 

Jentleman Geff

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Posts
2,749
Likes
324
AFL Club
Fremantle
Never really ever considered Jesus was not a historical figure until I read one of Roylion's posts on the matter.

It makes sense actually, given the causes of the diaspora, Jesus being a redemption myth that takes the blame for the sins of those undergoing the trauma of losing their homelands.
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
has RL a copy of the dead sea scrolls? what is so profound about his presence, to deign us with prosperity. Is he a she?
Nah!
Just a very good reader of theology and scripture.
An indulgence of his, I guess.
But he is very convincing, thorough and a good reasoner!
Ditto Contra Mundum
I'm a fan!

ps Theological study is not confined to the religious. Science is not confined to the secular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom