Scientists Confirm the Signs of God

Momma Angel wrote:

One can never receive enough evidence of God, if they do not have Faith. And if there is faith, there is never a need for evidence.

One can never have apples unless one has apples. If one has apples, no amount of oranges will change the fact one has apples.

"The Bible is the word of God, which I know because the Bible tells me so"

I'm not denigrating you, or your belief, M A, I'm criticisizing a forensic approach you and others have employed in this discussion. As a debate tactic, it is empty, sterile, pointless, and self-defeating; it epitomizes the worst of the shortcomings to which Christian Apologetics is prey. In no way does it advance the argument for the proposition you champion; quite to the contrary, it inevitably and justifiably reinforces support for the counter argument.

0 Replies

Actually Timber, I just think it is a plain and simple statement of fact.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

timber, i'm one non-Christian who had been unfamiliar with the subject matter of your essay, so i thank you for making it available.

Thank you for the kind words. I'm curious - did you find it confusing?

0 Replies

nope, quite clear, although it does raise the question, if the "Christians" alluded to were not followers of Jesus, then who was the Christ revered by this sect.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Actually Timber, I just think it is a plain and simple statement of fact.

There's the rub. I have no doubt that is what you believe; you make that very clear. However, functionally, from the standpoints of forensics and academic rigor, the proposition you accept as fact does not meet the qualifications necessary to accord a thing, conditiion, or observation the attribute of fact - by definition, it cannot be fact as stated- it fails the test. That does not necessarilly mean the proposition you forward cannot be factual, it simply means that as presented, it cannot be considered fact. Whether or not there is, or even may be, valid argument for the proposition, the argument as presented is invalid. That it works for you is irrelevant; the point at contest here is not what worksd for you, or for any other individual, but what, if anything, works for all, and if there be such a thing or condition, by what criteria does it work for all.

The simple fact this discussion is taking place, with pro and con argument, in a way moots the point of the discussion; if the proposition presented by you and your co-philosophists were to be valid, this discussion could not happen - the question could not arise.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

nope, quite clear, although it does raise the question, if the "Christians" alluded to were not followers of Jesus, then who was the Christ revered by this sect.

Glad you found it clear - that was my intent. As to your question, I don't know that anything says there was not a messianic Jewish prophet/holyman named Jesus, or that Jesus, if he existed, was not revered as "The Christ" by the followers of the offshoot cult of Judaism that came, largely through the efforts of Paul - though that's a whole other discussion - to be Christianity.

It is not at all unusual for a real individual to be elevated to cult-figure status, the chain of circumstance surrounding such elevation involving the incorporation of myth, reality, and pure wishfulness into the identity concept comprising the cult figure. Look to Buddha and Buddhism for a parallel of sorts, or the Arthur of Roundtable fame, or Jeanne d' Arc, or the protagonists of the Homeric epics. And then there always are such things as the story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, or St. Patric driving the serpents from The Emerald Isle, or the tale of Pocahantas and John Smith. People everywhere, everywhen, want to believe in things they want to believe in, and people will fabricate whatever is necessary to facillitate and perpetuate cherished beliefs - fact, logic, and reason not withstanding. All ya gotta do is BELIEVE. :wink:

0 Replies

I have asked this question quite a few times and have yet to receive a response. Perhaps you might answer it? What good would a God be if He had to prove Himself to man?

0 Replies

If there were a God, on the order of the God central to the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, how could this God's existence be the occasion of doubt and dispute? A self-evident fact, an immutable central premise, a valid, incontravertable absolute, a "Revealed Truth", if you will, obviates any question of itself. There is question; evidence this discussion. Draw your own conclusion. This "God for all men, for all time" appears to be neither the god of all men nor to have been the god "known" for "all time". Troublesome for the proposition.

0 Replies

Well, I haven't got the foggiest idea what that means, Timber. I guess I need to look up a few of those words first. Will have to get back to you.

0 Replies

Timber, I have no doubt that someone would have thought of those points and would have covered them, oh, back in the 14th Century or something, if not earlier. There have always been Talking Points.

0 Replies

Let me paraphrase then, using your own words, more or less. You said:

Quote:

What good would a God be if He had to prove Himself to man?

I say, "Why would a God - such as the God of the Bible - permit there to be any condition other than absolute and universal belief in and fealty to that god? Of what possible service to that god, or to the human subjects of that god, might be the condition of doubt, let alone outright dispute and rejection, to say nothing of ignorance.

Not all accept the existence of the Abrahamic God - some revere and worship some other god or gods. Some are unware even of concept of the Abrahamic god. Some are aware of the Abrahamic God, yet for a variety of reasons - some well met and honestly intentioned, others less so - reject or at the least dispute the validity of the concept. Perhaps a third of the planet's inhabitants subscribe to the Judaeo-Christian manifestation of god, leaving two thirds of the planet's population subscribing to some other religios belief set, if any at all. Why might it be that the majority of the planet's population does not subscribe to the proposition you hold to be a self-evident, incontravertable, unassailable truth, a truth for and divinely revealed to all mankind? That simply does not stand to reason; it is illogical. It may not be impossible, but it certainly meets the qualifications to be considered improbable.

0 Replies

goodfielder, those "Talking Points" have been around since the beginning of dialectic; they pre-date Socrates by a good, long while. They have survived - robustly so, more or less unchanged in form or nature - as religions have gone through countless births, declines, resurgences, revisions, amalgamations, schisms, abandonments, and permutations. That itself does not speak well for the validity of any religion, let alone that particular subset of religion espoused by the adherents of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

If there were a God, on the order of the God central to the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, how could this God's existence be the occasion of doubt and dispute? A self-evident fact, an immutable central premise, a valid, incontravertable absolute, a "Revealed Truth", if you will, obviates any question of itself. There is question; evidence this discussion. Draw your own conclusion. This "God for all men, for all time" appears to be neither the god of all men nor to have been the god "known" for "all time". Troublesome for the proposition.

You seem to propose that if there is a God, then He would be as you say He should be.

If all were as you say it should be, then you would be God.

The only thing you have proven, therefore, is that you are not God.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You seem to propose that if there is a God, then He would be as you say He should be.

If all were as you say it should be, then you would be God.

The only thing you have proven, therefore, is that you are not God.

Poppycock - what has been demonstrated is that the God of the Bible is not as the proponents of the God of the Bible purport the God of the Bible to be.

You do raise an interesting thought excersize, though. I submit you cannot prove I am not God.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

goodfielder, those "Talking Points" have been around since the beginning of dialectic; they pre-date Socrates by a good, long while. They have survived - robustly so, more or less unchanged in form or nature - as religions have gone through countless births, declines, resurgences, revisions, amalgamations, schisms, abandonments, and permutations. That itself does not speak well for the validity of any religion, let alone that particular subset of religion espoused by the adherents of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia.

That being so it tells me a bit about human physiology, the limitations of the mind and the fact that humans are consistent little buggers across time and space.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
You seem to propose that if there is a God, then He would be as you say He should be.

If all were as you say it should be, then you would be God.

The only thing you have proven, therefore, is that you are not God.

Poppycock - what has been demonstrated is that the God of the Bible is not as the proponents of the God of the Bible purport the God of the Bible to be.

You do raise an interesting thought excersize, though. I submit you cannot prove I am not God.

Are you omniscient? What's my name?

0 Replies

You cannot command or compel god, real. He doesn't have to tell you your name, but he knows it. He doesn't have to prove anything to you. He is god, and you must submit to his will. See? You can't prove he's not god.

0 Replies

His prior tacit admission "if there was a God" is certainly enough to disqualify him. Self doubt or lack of self awareness is an obvious barrier to his claim to Godhood.

0 Replies

Be at ease my son, and concern thyself not with things of this earth.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

If there were a God, on the order of the God central to the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, how could this God's existence be the occasion of doubt and dispute? A self-evident fact, an immutable central premise, a valid, incontravertable absolute, a "Revealed Truth", if you will, obviates any question of itself. There is question; evidence this discussion. Draw your own conclusion. This "God for all men, for all time" appears to be neither the god of all men nor to have been the god "known" for "all time". Troublesome for the proposition.

So basically, "If God were real, there would be no doubt about his existence." The thing is, Timber - the whole thing about faith has to do with the willingness to remove oneself from the center of the universe and allowing there be something else in that place. That necessarily involves a choice. I happen to think that there is much significance in the amount of willingness to believe that resides in the heart - and (although I have no empirical evidence for you today) I believe that's what God contends for.

0 Replies

Scientists Confirm the Signs of God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know