21

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 13:22:42 »

the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.

More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead.  Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

He was not from this world. He said so

"There is no evidence for that statement. Indeed in Mark 8:31 and elsewhere he clearly stated that he was the Son of Man. So you either accept the word of Jesus Christ, or the bullshit put about by those who have cobbled together a spurious religion around his name. I always prefer the former, which, like most of what he said,  is consistent with everyday observation and common sense."

What did he mean?
He didn't claim to be God, but he did state that he was the son of man. ?

Accept the word of Christ? Or the B.S.? I pointed out that you can't distinguish. You pick and choose what fits your beliefs. He said He was God almighty, too. In the same documents you cite in which He called Himself the Son of Man, He said He was GOD.

22

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 13:16:52 »

the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

….and the world was flat and the sun travelled round the earth.

More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead.  Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

 Can science prove God exists?
« Reply #841 on: 02/04/2020 01:09:52 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/04/2020 23:31:02
in Mark 8:31 and elsewhere he clearly stated that he was the Son of Man."

Clearly? What else did he say?

23

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 13:07:52 »

What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God.

How many threads have I started?

Jesus is GOD.

And you still don't acknowledge your own aggressive hostility you and others have used.

24

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 13:03:28 »

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

Hundreds of millions disagree.

If it isn't evidence, what is it?

25

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 12:57:20 »

Anyway, the answer to your question is that you haven't presented any such evidence or even a testable definition of  god, and AFAIK neither has anyone else, ever.

Hundreds of millions disagree.

26

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 12:54:57 »

More precisely, of course, they told people that Christ had risen from the dead.  Whether they actually believed it or had any evidence for it is as likely as Donald Trump's statements about injecting disinfectant.

Look at their transformations. How do you explain them?

27

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 12:46:30 »

No one appreciates how strong my beliefs are. They can't stand my beliefs. Just look at the non-stop hostility. Come on. Don't call it appreciation. It is just the opposite. I have wanted to show how there are scientifically valid reasons for what I believe. What I believe doesn't amount to a warm glass of spit w/o evidence.
The testimony of millions of people has scientific value. It is not proof. It is verifiable evidence because it is repeatable. I don't say that based on what they say they believe alone. It has evidentiary value because of the profound changes that are universally experienced and borne out in the lives of these people. Just like there are measurable brain changes in the newly-fallen-in-love, born from above Christians show the same increases in neurotransmitters. Not proof, but evidentiary evidence that something real has happened in their lives. I pointed these things out. They are dismissed with comments like if Christ was real, everyone would have those kinds of things happen to them.  Not at all. People prayed to receive him. People took/take active steps to encounter him. He doesn't force himself on anyone. Hundreds of millions of people asked him, sought him, knocked and kept on pursuing a relationship with him and they found him. Yet, if I try to make that understood, I'm suddenly preaching and evangelizing and having comments removed. So, I tried to present my dilemma to the wider body of participants. And, I'm told I'm on thin ice. I'm told I'm inferior, too limited intellectually to make sound decisions, to engage in intelligent conversation and I don't respond to others and I don't provide evidence. I am bombarded with nasty accusations and silly, infantile objections to the evidence I am allowed to squeak in among the insults. I purposely ignore some of the ridiculous feedback because it is being used as bait. Look at the comments. Just read what bc, alan, jeffreyh, polygasoline and you and others have said and still are saying. I'm not a pig. I'm not mentally defective-- unless you ask my wife. The nastiness, the childishness, they are against the rules and that is a problem for N.S.

Is Bart Ehrman's testimony worthless because he believed something. Of course not. He experienced real changes and others could see those changes and he was amazed by those changes and milions upon millions have experienced the same changes and others have seen those changes. His falling away is his choice. That doesn't discredit the relationship he once enjoyed with his "best friend" his "hero" who filled him with "love".

28

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 12:18:22 »

Many attack me, my opinions, in aggressively hostile ways including you, colin. Nothing's been done. Not a word. Explain that if you'd like to.

29

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 12:16:05 »

Bruce Metzger,  “The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

This quotation contains an illogical sleight of hand. He states that the evidence is overwhelming, but uses the disciples belief as ‘proof’. However, belief is not proof of the existence of the object of that belief eg the resurrection.

Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by.

Scientists do not dismiss it, but they recognise it as belief, and also recognise that belief is a very powerful emotion  and strong motivator, both for good and evil. However, when we are talking about credible evidence, belief is not good enough, even when something is believed by a large number of people.
In another thread I gave one example where most of the citizens of the world believed something we now know to be incorrect; there are many other examples. We really cannot rely on belief for credible evidence.

What I do not understand in all the threads you have started is why you set out to prove the existence of Jesus when the main question is about the existence of God. Even if you were to prove that Jesus existed, died on the cross, and survived, and people believe he is the son of God, you do not thereby prove the existence of God. Neither can you look back at historical texts and prove the existence of God; such texts only tell us what was believed at the time. If you want to provide credible scientific evidence for the existence of God today, you have to use the scientific method. Asking people’s opinion is of no help whatsoever.
Are you able to propose a way of using the scientific method to determine whether there is credible evidence of his existence? And I don’t mean credible evidence of people’s belief in him. Bear in mind that there are alternative beliefs about Jesus eg by Muslims, and those beliefs are no less meaningful and influential to them as they are to you.

I don’t believe it is possible to use science or any other method to prove or provide evidence of God. In the end all you show is belief.

In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.

We all appreciate the strength of your belief and what it means to you and how much you want to share that belief. However, this is not the best forum to to share that belief, because as you say you can end up evangelising. You may be surprised to hear that you have been given more leeway than most, please don’t abuse it.

By the way, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you accused me of lying and subsequently said you would not reply to me. That irritated me and in the heat of the moment I made the comment about my poor expectation of your replies; I stand by that comment, but given a moment of reflection I would have worded it differently.

Just another small comment, you could stop this by answering his question. It is not harassment to ask for evidence of your statements.

please stop harassing me.

Calling you out for making false statements is not harassment, not least because you can so easily avoid it.

No, he doesn't take their belief as proof of anything. He recognizes the profound changes in their lives as a result of encountering a risen savior.

30

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 05:08:17 »

Quote from: jeffreyH on 04/04/2020 12:57:40
"Why can't god force someone to love it? Is it unaware of psychology, manipulation or hypnotism? Didn't it create those things? You seem to be able to attach anything to this god. It's almost as if it is a convenient mouthpiece for your own opinions. No matter how horrendous they are. Am I correct?"

You are always correct big boy. I didn't realize how much you care, you big sweetie.
He failed sophomore geometry. Gd has to work on his concentration lapses. Good point jeffreyh.

31

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 04:50:16 »

Jeffreyh the Delight
"You want everyone else to believe in something you were told was true. Without any evidence. Because the grown ups that taught you that were the ones you thought you could trust implicitly.
That isn't going to happen. So, no matter how hard you try and however long you try, to beat them down with my your evangelising, some will just ignore you. Others will just laugh.
That is the way of the world. You may find some kindred souls but you share an affinity with the foil hat brigade. Just as misguided and just as dangerous to those with any sanity left.

Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates."

Another wonderful example of the love flowing from my adoring public. The respectful tone is what stands out. Mind you, Jeff just pops in and out from nowhere whenever the spirit strikes, directing his edifying comments at me out of the blue. I have no idea who he is, what he wants, what he's doing here, but he's always eager to unleash his kind, insightful thoughts at me free of charge.
I was never told by a parent to believe anything except that religion is the most evil influence ever--in the entire world, in all recorded history.

32

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 10/05/2020 00:42:54 »

The rule says:

The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.

I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.

I want to thank you again, Kryptid. THANK YOU! How refreshing to read your reply. It means a lot to me. What you said makes perfect sense to me. i understand it and respect it. And, I appreciate you pointing out that you are new and don't presume to have all the answers. Keep your current attitude. I am certain you are going to do a very fine job.

33

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 23:56:36 »

Additionally, reading what has been handed down to us through the N.T. it is abundantly obvious that no human being ever spoke as he did. No one. Not even close. (Excluding those who have portrayed him in plays and in movies etc., repeating his words.) Try to find one example of anyone who expressed himself in words like he did.

We already wrote off that nonsense.
He didn't speak English.
The poetry of, for example, the KJB comes from the work of the translators.

thank you one more time. I couldn't have found a more perfect example of the way you conduct yourself--around me at least.

i always thought his English was quite good. his Russian, not so much, Japanese definitely needs divine intervention

34

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 23:53:14 »

This is an other reason I don't respond to you.

Because I point out that you are wrong?

thank you for this, bc. you have provided a perfect example why I refuse to respond to you. I just pointed out a couple more errors you've made and you replied in your classic style.
again, please stop harassing me.

35

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 23:43:40 »

The preferred method of science is to do experiments, which can then be reproduced by others, in the same (or slightly different) conditions, to produce a confirmed, published and reproducible result.

However, when it comes to an event in history (like the death and claimed resurrection of Jesus), this preferred method falls down. We can't just run experiments, rerunning history with variations - that is outside our control.

Some areas of science are like that - Astronomy and Geology, for example. We can't rerun the history of the Earth, or create stars of our own*.

So, when it comes to non-reproduce-able events, scientists adopt a modified method - they try to collect as much evidence as they can, from different sources, and attempt to build a credible picture. Other scientists will collect slightly different aspects of the data. But the goal is to produce a consensus view among experts in the field, applying the techniques of evidence and analysis. The consensus is often formed in the heat of fiery debate.

Historical events fall into this area where we must apply a modified scientific method, to look at events that appeared in the past.

While scientists have, at times resorted to insults to win debates, we don't permit that here.
- Requiring evidence is not an insult
- Setting a high bar for the evidence is expected

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

- Some of the evidence quoted above is based on analysis of ancient texts, which can be rather opaque to those who don't read those languages.
- While a coin minted during the reign of Nero is understandable by everyone

Overall, keep down the snide comments, and try to address the requests for evidence.

*At least, in Astronomy, we can look into space, and see stars of different ages, and piece together their life history from looking at many different stars.
- In Geology, we are (so far) very restricted in the number of other worlds we can look at to compare with Earth

If you review thoroughly the attacks others have leveled against me, you will get a clear picture why I have pointed out the problem.

I agree with much of what you said. However, the resurrection of Christ is reproducible today. It has been observed throughout history and up to and including the present. Hundreds of millions of people claim the same profound, other worldly impact that he has had on their lives personally through the Spirit He sent in His place just as He promised before He was crucified. This is a phenomenon. It is unprecedented. Scientists cannot simply dismiss what this mass of humanity swear by. They not only claim an extra ordinary rebirth, but his impact lasts for their lifetimes and the changes they describe are evident to others. We are not talking about a few people who had questionable experiences. Hundreds of millions of people, most of them unknown to the others, from every walk of life, rich and poor, of every color, nationality, young and old, educated and not educated, male and female, proclaim he is indeed risen and that he lives, literally, he lives inside them, just as he promised he would. People who know nothing of the N.T. or about the experiences of others, say the same things. They don't know what to expect and may never see the person who shared the message, or read the book or tract again, insist they met him and were transformed by him. Bart Ehrman had the same experience I had and I knew zero about Jesus. Zero. How do we explain all of this?

Additionally, reading what has been handed down to us through the N.T. it is abundantly obvious that no human being ever spoke as he did. No one. Not even close. (Excluding those who have portrayed him in plays and in movies etc., repeating his words.) Try to find one example of anyone who expressed himself in words/phrases like he did. Nothing is there. He was from a different universe and sounded like it in his teaching and conversations with others. He wept, too. He was total God and total man, even though someone commented the other day that screaming out asking God why he had forsaken him, proved he failed as God's son and ergo he couldn't be his son.

In attempting to point out his divine nature I may have "evangelized" without intending to. I don't know exactly what is permitted and what isn't, so I'm on my own.

36

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 23:15:31 »

You did not present information.
You made a statement

This is an other reason I don't respond to you. "You did not present information.
You made a statement..." bc

I quoted a scholar. That is information. I shouldn't have to explain that.

37

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 23:10:21 »

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

I disagree.

When you attempt to prove I'm wrong, don't misquote or misinterpret what I said. One reason I don't like to interact with you, and there are quite a few, is that you change what I've said.

For example, "You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period." No. I did not. I quoted a world renown scholar, Bruce Metzger who said, "The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples believed that, after being crucified, dead, and buried, Christ rose again from the tomb on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter he met and conversed with them.”

38

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 20:27:23 »

You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans.

Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?

I doubt it.
When these threads began I had hopes that someone might come up with a credible way of showing whether God, or any god exists. Instead we have been given lists of people who believe and what they believe; but I never doubted that people believe in his existence, huge numbers of books and websites are proof of that belief.

We have also been treated to some false reasoning.

"You haven't presented any evidence that supports your argument. You have presented evidence that you are gullible and the useful tool of sociopathic religious charlatans."

A moderator never rebuked the participant who said this about me nor did he remove it. No warning. Nothing.

39

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 16:35:48 »

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

Keep reading

40

New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 09/05/2020 16:33:54 »

When I present information to the contrary,

You did not present information.
You made a statement to the effect that the Apostle's belief  in resurrection was  better proved than anything else from the period.
I pointed out that practically every museum in the country has a Roman coin or two with Nero's face on it.
So that's a better candidate for "best proved".

So, for you to hold that view- in spite of the obvious fact that it's not true is evidence of a lack of clear thinking.
That's not  an insult, it's an observation.

I disagree.

It is an insulting observation.