Why dosent God just pop up and say "Hi"

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Finally..sorry for the delay.

Problem is that God's knowledge in this regard is unsubstantiated, whereas medice has demonstrably been able to "bring people back." Looks like as far as evidence goes, we're one over God.

Unsubstantiated? Okay...

Again, such resurrection is not substantiated. The writings of the ancient Egyptians claim that Osiris was resurrected after being hacked to pieces. So did he beat Jesus to the punch?

same point reinforced. Fair enough.

Why do you reject Osiris? Marduk? Zeus? Vishnu? Mohammed's prophecies? Buddha?

Your explanations for those might give a hint as to why I reject your religious dogma, and all religious dogma. The simple matter is that I see absolutely no reason, other than the rather venal "I don't wanna die, I wanna go to heaven!" one, to believe in an all-powerful god who created everything. I feel even less compunction to devote myself to any of the myths created by man, whether it be Christianity, Zorastrianism, Shintoism, etc., as they all are full of, to be frank, a lot of BS.

Whoah....lots of stuff here.

1. Christ rose from the dead, we have substantive evidence in favour of Christ rising. The Jews and Romans assume an empty tomb, yet could not produce the body in order to disprove the Christians, who preached three weeks later during Pentecost, in Jerusalem, that Christ rose from the dead.

None of the other religions match in terms of falsifieable claims.

2. I don't cite my earlier statement as reason for my faith. I cite that as one of the rewards of my faith, a rather personal insight. If you want to get into my testimony, I'm fine with it, just don't presume I've already given you everything.

3. "myths created by man, whether it be Christianity"

That's not Christianity's claim, we claim that if the resurrection occurs, that God came down to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, and that the Bible records his words and life on Earth.

If it turns out god exists and he's so petty as to damn me for not believing in him, no matter what my works are as a person, then I wouldn't feel remorse over it, because he will have proven himself evil.

Does God hide himself from man? God provides adequate evidence for his existence, hence his judgement.

That's why I like to find more accurate translations of the Hebrew--after all, the KJV was assembled by people with an agenda as well. I think it is more reasonable to take the words in the Hebrew at their face value in as many instances as possible rather than relying on tortured excuses or inexplicable word changes (NIV) to sanitize what is said.

Agreed, though not on the NIV point. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so if we get to this point, I will have to rely upon the work of others. Are you a Hebrew scholar, Boris?

I don't see why you need to believe in a mythical paradise to have hope for the world. In fact, it seems to me such a notion would inhibit many from trying to make this world a better place. "Oh, things are bad, but it will all be alright in heaven, so I don't need to do anything about it."

True, but from an emotional standpoint, it helps keep perspective. We can only change things during our life here on Earth, so we'd better make the best of it. Just don't expect your way to be easy, or everything to ever be fixed. Find your corner and try to hammer things as best you can in the time you have.

And what failures? If you aim to be perfect, that's your problem. I aim to live the best life of which I am capable, knowing I'm not perfect. Yes, I'll screw up and yes, I'll have bad times--but so what? That's part of life and doesn't mean I'm bad for my mistakes.

Unfortunately, that's not the standard Christians are called to emulate.

You're here, you're alive, you have choices--I don't think life philosophies need to get too complicated beyond that.

"Sit in, strap in, and shut up."

Like a little child in the back of a car, I want to look out the window.

I really must go, sorry to not finish up here Boris.

[Ben Kenobi]

This text presupposes the reader's belief in the Judeo-Christian God,

Dinodoc:

[Dauphin]

The odds of that happening, even over a period of time through pure chance are staggering.

I find the anthropic principle works well here, even if it is a bit of a cop-out answer.

If we didn't evolve we wouldn't be here to ask or answer why we are here.

Even if human development had a probability of 1 in 10¹⁰⁰ it makes no difference at all. As we are working with conditional probabilities - the conditional being that we exist - it means that we can't meaningfully use the chances of us existing in any argument.

For example, suppose I rolled a dice and got a six and asked you what the probablity of the dice being a six is. The answer is 1 in 1, even though the odds of me rolling a six on the die beforehand was 1 in 6.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Secondly, there's no reason to assume that a genuine prediction was made, because Isaiah was apparently written after the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

When do you propose Isaiah was written? Remember, you cannot set a date after every prophecy listed occurred because prophecies cannot happen. That would be circular reasoning.

Because the text later records the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz as if it were an actual event. There is no reason to assume that the author intended Isaiah 8:3 to be a prophecy too, written before the event. "I hereby predict the birth of a green-skinned man with two heads: and, lo, it happened in 2007, so I'm a prophet too!".

The key is not that the child would be born, named Immanuel, but in the meaning of Immanuel, or 'God with us.'

Now, what do you make Luke who does not refer to this particular prophecy, yet still testifies the Virgin birth, through a different account than Matthew. Two independent sources citing one fact seems to me reasonable truth in the virgin birth.

There is no reason to assume that Matthew and Luke are independent sources. In fact, Biblical scholars regard both as being derived from Mark and the Q sayings gospel. It is interesting to note that neither Mark nor John include the Nativity.

1. Christ rose from the dead, we have substantive evidence in favour of Christ rising. The Jews and Romans assume an empty tomb, yet could not produce the body in order to disprove the Christians, who preached three weeks later during Pentecost, in Jerusalem, that Christ rose from the dead.

None of the other religions match in terms of falsifieable claims.

How do you know that they did not produce a body? All you can say is that there is no record of them producing a body. Nor is there any record of them attempting to do so. Maybe because they weren't aware of anyone at the time claiming that Jesus rose from the dead?

As far as I am aware, there is no record of NASA producing evidence that there was NOT a spacecraft following the Hale-Bopp comet. So the Heaven's Gate cult were right?

[Angelo Scotto]

Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist

I've missed the official declaration of the president of science...
Look, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Godel, and a lot of others scientists better than you and me had a different opinion.
Today science simply remembered what forgot during the hype of first years of illuminism: that its aim is not metaphysics but physics; goal of science, as Galileo wrote, "is to teach us how heaven goes, not how one goes to Heaven"

Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Your's isn't?

Sorry, probably i missed the point in christian apocalypse when Mohammad pop up and says all muslims to go and convert to christianity...

Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Don't change the topic. We were talking about Genesis and the Tower of Bable and the like. Read some earlier posts if you forgot.

Oh, so you agree that christian principles depicted in the bible make sense?
This wasn't clear at all by your previous posts

Why in the name of dog should anyone believe in something that cannot be detected on any level?
"cannot be detected on any level" = "cannot be found in experience" = "cannot be assumed to exist"

Interesting, so in your opinion mathematics doesn't exist? or you've found the number four in a drawer of your desk?

Be careful, your position is dangerously similar to Carnap's positivism which tried to deny the soundness of metaphysics asserting that metaphysical problems were indeed meaningless.
Unfortunately Carnap theory falled under its own weight 'cause assuming as existing only things which comes by experience (inductivism) cut completely out deduction with its character of absolute necessity; in fact, even scientific laws can't be proved as correct using only experience; as Carnap himself was forced to admit the degree of confirmation of every universal law in his inductive logic is always zero.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
1. Christ rose from the dead, we have substantive evidence in favour of Christ rising. The Jews and Romans assume an empty tomb, yet could not produce the body in order to disprove the Christians, who preached three weeks later during Pentecost, in Jerusalem, that Christ rose from the dead.

None of the other religions match in terms of falsifieable claims.

Substantive? First, we don't even have substantive evidence Jesus existed. Second, there is nothing substantive about the resurrection. There are no eye witness accounts, nothing but writings that were made decades after the supposed events. Considering how phenomenal event it would have been to Jesus's followers, who were supposedly literate, you'd think ONE of them would have written it down.

The lack of a body produced is, as Jack points out, not proof of anything. For one, we don't know if there ever was a body to be there in the first place, nor do we have any corraboration Jesus was placed in a tomb of any kind (most "criminals" who were crucified by the Romans were buried in public pits, anyway). The Bible itself offers conflicting accounts of the Resurrection, so it is hard to take it seriously.

3. "myths created by man, whether it be Christianity"

That's not Christianity's claim, we claim that if the resurrection occurs, that God came down to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, and that the Bible records his words and life on Earth.

Sounds little different than things like Athena popping out of Zeus's head and the like.

Does God hide himself from man? God provides adequate evidence for his existence, hence his judgement.

God has obviously not provided adequate evidence, or else there wouldn't be such debate over it! All the evidence we have is explicable by natural phenomena, or at least indicates it. Nothing indicates God except the fallacious, "We don't know, ergo God" argument. That, of course, still begs the question, "Well, which God, then?"

Agreed, though not on the NIV point. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so if we get to this point, I will have to rely upon the work of others. Are you a Hebrew scholar, Boris?

I don't think one need be a Hebrew scholar to see how inadequate the NIV is. It drops whole versus from the original texts. How is that explicable?

There are enough translations that attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text that being a scholar isn't necessary. The NIV isn't trying to be faithful to the actual text, but rather convey a particular interpretation while avoiding the pitfalls. That's fine if you want, but don't claim it's accurate, because it isn't.

True, but from an emotional standpoint, it helps keep perspective. We can only change things during our life here on Earth, so we'd better make the best of it. Just don't expect your way to be easy, or everything to ever be fixed. Find your corner and try to hammer things as best you can in the time you have.

That is pretty much my philosophy, and I did not need belief in God to get me there.

Unfortunately, that's not the standard Christians are called to emulate.

Christians must strive to be perfect? News to me--most Christians I know would disagree.

"Sit in, strap in, and shut up."

Like a little child in the back of a car, I want to look out the window.

I really must go, sorry to not finish up here Boris.

That's not what I was saying at all. Seeking a purpose in life need not hinge on believing in deities or the like.

[Zylka]

I often lean towards the absurd notion that perhaps those who use "Cuz", "Coz", "Exisisit", "Uber*" and "ownZ" - aren't quite able to prove or disprove the existence of the infinitely definable concept of GOD through HUMAN logic (let alone anyone, obviously). Furthermore, I tend to notice that the majority of those actually responsible for dissecting, defining, and explaining the laws and logic of our Universe are either of faith or Agnostic themselves. Imagine that!

THE UNIVERSE just IS, WE KNOW THAT O DAGREEZES FREEZES WATER AND OTHER SCIENCES (we founded it out on the path to all knowing) AND I AM HERE - SO GOD IS UNDENIABLY LIKE SANTA CLAUS ROFLLL UBER FUNNIE

[Zylka]

UHHH OH, OZ iz onn!!

[Bookwyrm]

Originally posted by Angelo Scotto

Look, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Godel, and a lot of others scientists better than you and me had a different opinion.
.

I grant you Newton, Galileo, and Godel, but as for Einstein:

Einstein is quoted HERE and other places as saying
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

juhani_kahvi, I would have to disagree with you that the scientific consensus is that god is non-existant. While atheism and agnosticism are much more prevalent amongst scientists than they are among the populace at large, there remains a significant population of theists in the scientific community. I would say that the consensus would be more accurately described as "Saying a god did it doesn't actually explain anything, so when we have phenomena we don't yet understand we should look for explanations that actually do explain things"

[Angelo Scotto]

Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I grant you Newton, Galileo, and Godel, but as for Einstein:
[...]

Indeed, i never said that Einstein believed in christian God (what he called personal God in your quote), anyway he believed in a supreme being who started all.
In the same book from which your quote comes you can read:

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in that pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way, the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Later he added:

(the scientist's) religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

My point was to rebut the phrase "The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist", as you can notice it is not referring to christian God but with the God concept in its generality, so i'm allowed to underline that Einstein opinion, similarly to Galileo, Newton and Godel one was different.

Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I would say that the consensus would be more accurately described as "Saying a god did it doesn't actually explain anything, so when we have phenomena we don't yet understand we should look for explanations that actually do explain things"

"... to teach us how heaven goes, not how one goes to Heaven"

Guess what, i agree completely

[cavebear]

The "mystery of the absence of Jesus's body in the vault" can be easily explained by suggesting that Jesus never really existed in the first place. There is not one single piece of evidence for his existence.

[Tuberski]

God exist!

I can prove it!

When my car was destroyed by floods last year, the insurance company said it was an "Act of God".

If those heathens say there is a God, then there must be one!



ACK!

[Zylka]

The "mystery of the absence of Jesus's body in the vault" can be easily explained by suggesting that Jesus never really existed in the first place. There is not one single piece of evidence for his existence.

That's great. Atheism in a nutshell, folks.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zylka

The "mystery of the absence of Jesus's body in the vault" can be easily explained by suggesting that Jesus never really existed in the first place. There is not one single piece of evidence for his existence.

That's great. Atheism in a nutshell, folks.

I believe he is referring to non-circumstantial evidence. Do you have any of which we are unaware?

There are some historians who have examined the Jesus myths and other contemporary Messianic stories, and they believe the evidence indicates the Jesus created by Paul was an amalgam of several different people, but in particular was based on a prophet who had actually lived and died over 100 years before the events of the New Testament. This would explain why there are absolutely zero contemporary accounts of Jesus by anyone who supposedly witnessed his works.

I find their explanation provocative, though I remain unsure.

[Zylka]

Unfortunately... I haven't a photograph of Jesus, nor a Newspaper dated from the era, nor directions to the sidewalk square in Hollywood where he engraved his name

Therefore Christianity undoubtedly fails, and I too am an atheist?