[duffyd (OP)]

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.

[duffyd (OP)]

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." big al

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.

"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." big al

Well, let's think about that. Did they believe He rose from the dead? You've been shown before what they did with their lives after they said that, haven't you? What did they do? Proof's in the puddin.

[duffyd (OP)]

If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution? They could have renounced their belief. Seeing him brutally murdered they would have been terrified that they too would face horrors if they went around claiming he was alive, wouldn't they? Because, in fact, that is what happened to them.

[Bored chemist]

If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?

Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?

Just look at the non-stop hostility.

My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[duffyd (OP)]

How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration. My questions stem from the vaguery as the rules stand now.

The following are rules are in place to make this forum a more comfortable place for all its users.  We would urge all users of the forum to read the rules below, and abide by them. 

1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.

A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed.

Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted? Many varied "religious" theories are promoted by different participants. When are they evangelizing a pet theory or just discussing it?

Many comments are deliberate, untrue and aggressively insulting of spiritual matters and those who make them. The rule governing all of our statements forbids this type of language, yet some continue doing so flaunting their defiance.

How are we to know, specifically, if/when we are violating this particular rule,  "evangelizing a pet theory" on N.S.?

If someone makes untrue, insulting accusations against spiritual opinions, persons, principles or their historic background, is everyone forbidden from responding, trying to make corrections?

If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so? What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail? 

Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?

"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." colin

IOW, you are an idiot, but I shouldn't have called you an idiot. If I had it to do over again, I'd call you a moron" Colin

Thank you so much.

BTW, I posted again your statement that I deliberately mislead people, for your viewing pleasure. You are absolutely right. You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people. My error.

The N.T., nature, the testimonies and changed lives of the original gang and millions and millions since then are evidence that God is. I have just begun to break these major categories down to their myriad smaller components. Evidence for God is everywhere (I'm preaching I guess--even as I'm attempting to present evidence.)

[duffyd (OP)]

More Evidence: "it takes the existence of some kind of a god to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible." b nelson

[Bored chemist]

More Evidence: "it takes the existence of some kind of a god to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible." b nelson

So, still on that learning curve then?

Not yet worked out that hearsay isn't evidence, have you?

Do you have any idea how long it will take you to learn?

[Bored chemist]

You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people.

If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?

Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?

Just look at the non-stop hostility.

My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[duffyd (OP)]

"Quote from: Colin2B on 07/05/2020 06:35:28
Quote from: duffyd on 07/05/2020 00:51:41
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"

Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 14:50:23
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 14:38:20
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:09:47
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.

Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:15:04
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.

Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?"

Aggressive hostility is forbidden? Now wait a minute. Did someone just cite the N.T. to accuse someone of being a triple liar? Now they believe in the accuracy of the N.T.!
Can't believe it. WE HAVE CONVERTS!
Golly. I never realized if someone said something, it is the truth. "Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists." Well now. I apologize. Colin said it. It is Gospel. (no pun intended.) Forgive me. He is right afterall. I am too stuopid.

[Bored chemist]

"Quote from: Colin2B on 07/05/2020 06:35:28
Quote from: duffyd on 07/05/2020 00:51:41
Then, Colin asks me if I'm ignoring the Harvard site. "So you have decided to ignore the Harvard site? Because it does not support your idea?"

Colin didn't mention the Harvard site to me. He mentioned it to GG.
The reply was published in a public thread you were following.
However, the question is still valid as you also said
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 14:50:23
I was aware of the studies that show an increase in the flow of neurotransmitters in the brains of those who are in love.
So your earlier statements were deliberately misleading as suggested by BC

Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/05/2020 14:38:20
Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:09:47
, but science can't even prove it exists.
Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists.

Quote from: duffyd on 03/05/2020 10:15:04
Why would anyone believe in love if science can't prove that it even exists
Doubly wrong.
Science can show that love exists.
You were already told that.

Why do you deliberately mislead people. You are denying Christ when you do that; Peter did it 3 times, how many times will you do it?"

Aggressive hostility is forbidden? Now wait a minute. Did someone just cite the N.T. to accuse someone of being a triple liar? Now they believe in the accuracy of the N.T.!
Can't believe it. WE HAVE CONVERTS!
Golly. I never realized if someone said something, it is the truth. "Liar.
You were just told (by Colin) that science can show that love exists." Well now. I apologize. Colin said it. It is Gospel. (no pun intended.) Forgive me. He is right afterall. I am too stuopid.

Because I know you tell lies, I suspect that you made that deliberately unclear so you could tell some more.

Is there some other reason for not using the quote function properly?

[Bored chemist]

You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people.

If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?

Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?

Just look at the non-stop hostility.

My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[duffyd (OP)]

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.

Colin, did I read that right? I can end this by answering the question? What do you mean by "this"? The harassment that began months ago, that has not let up? the nasty allegations? the nasty statements? the nasty accusations, the unfair treatment? calling me a retard and standing by it? not saying a word to anyone else about what they were doing in violation of the rules? Accusing me of starting many threads? Accusing me of not providing any evidence and never responding? of using sleight of hand? accusing me of not using a link you offered someone else out of fear I'd be corrected? of being illogical? of being a triple liar? by not accepting your comment as truth? by being a pig? Have I been accused of murder, yet? Well, give it time.

I think the rules advise that we should try to tone down the nastiness in our comments, don't they? Oooops. I am likely lying again if I didn't describe that rule perfectly!

[Bored chemist]

Do you really not understand that it you turn up on a site and tell lies you will get grief for it?
Do you really not understand that it you make  contentious statements and then refuse to back then up you will get grief for it?
Do you really not understand that if you keeps calling things evidence or proof when they are hearsay or logical fallacies, you will get grief.

[Bored chemist]

You didn't call me a liar, I just deliberately mislead people.

If they were lying, if they made up the stuff about his rising from the dead, why did they subject themselves to the persecution?

Perhaps you can explain to me why you lied- that might give us an insight into why others might.
Why did you open yourself up to what you call harassment?

Just look at the non-stop hostility.

My so called hostility isn't about your beliefs.
It's about your dishonesty.

By the time you said I lack clear thinking, you had already told me to, "Tell the truth for the first time in your life"

OK, show everybody where I said that.

[Bored chemist]

calling me a retard and standing by it?

What word do you use for someone who thinks that it's more likely that the Queen wasn't crowned than that the Apostles disbelieved that Jesus was resurrected?

What word do you use for someone who, even after it is explained, doesn't understand that the point isn't what they believed, because they may have been mistaken?

What word do you use for someone who can't  understand that even if you had proof of Jesus, you would not have scientific proof of God?

[Colin2B]

Colin, do you know what a figure of speech is? Do you know what personification is? Hyperbole? Apply them to my comment that science says there is no God. You see, science can't talk. I was personifying science, making it or attaching to it human characteristics. ........ When I made science say it doesn't believe in God, I didn't mean literally that science became a human being. ......keep in mind those commonly used literary tools.

Yes, I am fully aware of these literary tools, I do keep them in mind, and I never believed that you were suggesting science had become a human being. However, the use of these tools does not absolve you from ensuring that your statements are factually correct. As far as I am aware, there is no generally accepted scientific theory or published theory in any reputable journal or textbook which claims that god (any god) does not exist. So, to use personification, you are misquoting science and no matter how you phrase it, or interpret it, that is bad witness.

[duffyd (OP)]

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."

"We" dismissed that, did we? I am losing it. I have no recollection of dismissing it. I must be lying. I've got to knock that off! Darn.

IOW, the translators made up out of whole cloth:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

17These things I command you, that ye love one another.

18If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

21But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

23He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

24If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

25But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

27And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." KJV
Dag man. I always thought Christ spoke those words originally, in another language, which were interpreted and translated holding to the transcripts word for word as closely as possible.

He really said, "Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow..." Learn something new every day.

[duffyd (OP)]

Colin, do you know what a figure of speech is? Do you know what personification is? Hyperbole? Apply them to my comment that science says there is no God. You see, science can't talk. I was personifying science, making it or attaching to it human characteristics. ........ When I made science say it doesn't believe in God, I didn't mean literally that science became a human being. ......keep in mind those commonly used literary tools.

Yes, I am fully aware of these literary tools, I do keep them in mind, and I never believed that you were suggesting science had become a human being. However, the use of these tools does not absolve you from ensuring that your statements are factually correct. As far as I am aware, there is no generally accepted scientific theory or published theory in any reputable journal or textbook which claims that god (any god) does not exist. So, to use personification, you are misquoting science and no matter how you phrase it, or interpret it, that is bad witness.

No. I didn't misquote or mislead anyone in any manner especially given the use of literary tools. I do not need to be absolved. It is a given among the educated public that the very use of these tools is a means of relaxing the standards in casual conversation. No implication of deceit or subtle misleading of an kind was intended or implied or could be construed due to the very nature of the phrasing of the sentences. It is rather obvious that no one was quoted. There is no one named science of whom I'm aware that has anything to say about science. Never asked science for a quote. I did/do rely upon my knowledge of the world in general and I know something about the scientific community.

Leading scientists still reject God
Edward J. Larson & Larry Witham
The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the 19th century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.
Nature

[duffyd (OP)]

 "the use of these tools does not absolve you from ensuring that your statements are factually correct."

My statement was correct as it was intended to suggest that often science and "religion" don't mix, and I stand by it. I make comments. I am not an expert giving testimony at a capital offense trial. I am not trying to be perfect. I think making perfectly "factually correct" statements in this case isn't necessary. I think most of us understood what I said should not be taken as a scientifically established, perfectly honed, precise calculation of inerrant, documented, peer reviewed, double-blind and controlled proof.

I don't believe anyone was in danger of committing heresy from my comment. Do you?

[duffyd (OP)]

I always prefer the former, which, like most of what he said,  is consistent with everyday observation and common sense."

Check that out. Most of what he said was bizarre, nearly impossible to understand, totally unique, totally unlike anything anyone ever said in all of recorded history.