• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evidence for the Bible / God [W536; 634]

Logicman said:
Evidence for the Bible / God

Critics claim there is no evidence for God or the Bible / New Testament. Many scholars have been refuting that idea for centuries, noting archaeological evidence, fulfilled Messianic prophecies, and so on.

This thread is for debate on those issues.




I do believe in a higher power/Source, but I do not believe in the bible, especially the new testament or religion in general, and certainly not in devils, demons, Satan or an everlasting hell... I believe that we are spiritual beings temporarily in a physical body and that this is not our true home--so yes, I believe in an afterlife, reincarnation and the spirit world....I think evidence for the existence of a God/Source is all around us, as the essence of the Great Spirit of love and light is all around us... I suppose it hinges on what you imagine this Source of creation to be.....
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand the point of this thread.

No evidence is needed to prove the existence of the Holy Bible. It is in material existence - albeit translated and copied with all manner of variation. It exists.

Whether one should regard it as the word of God (whoever and whatever that may be,) or a collection of myth and fable intended as an ethnocentric 'history' of a particularly unexceptional and primitive, nomadic Middle Eastern desert tribe, is the only thing open to question.

There is no material evidence which would be admissable in a court of law, to support the existence of a god or gods, and there never has been. The requirement to prove a negative (that there is no God) is a legal and philosophical nonsense.

It is one of those issues which will never be proven or disproven in the philosophical sense, but in the absence of any admissable legal evidence, one is entitled to hold the position that there is no such Supreme being. For myself, I prefer to regard the matter as one about which I can never have certain knowledge.
 
Logicman said:
You can't replicate historical events from 2,000 years ago. You don't know what the conditions actually were back then. And that's why you can't try to recreate them now.
Click to expand...

You can't replicate supernatural events, because they didn't happen. The laws of physics don't change, supreme being or not.

So, your god can end all this argumentation by coming back and doing all kinds of supernatural miracles and such...

Everyone would believe, we would live in peace, isn't that god's goal? If not, it is kinda creepy...
 
Paralogic said:
So, if a random idiot claims that 3 invisible yellow butterflies fly around every one's head directing them what to do, I can't prove a negative because I can't prove that there are *NO* 3 invisible yellow butterflies flying around every one's head directing them what to do... to you????

That's just wrong.

That's why all religion is false, by definition. And it has something to say about the stupid, too.
Click to expand...

You're making an argument that is pretty similar to the ignorant "spaghetti monster" one.

The basics of God's existence is defined as a metaphysical, necessary, uncaused, spaceless, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Diety of the Universe and with it all physical existence. Your invisible butterfly argument and other "spaghetti monster" arguments like it are dishonest as these arguments are drastically out of touch with theism and the arguments for it as a whole.

Yellow butterflies and spaghetti monsters have no characteristics of God.

Here's the thing, religion is not like the belief in fantasy monsters or beings, as there are arguments for the existence of a theistic God (such as Aquinas's).

Back on track... You still have not given me any reason to believe that the notion "God does not exist" can be proved.
 
Paralogic said:
So, if a random idiot claims that 3 invisible yellow butterflies fly around every one's head directing them what to do, I can't prove a negative because I can't prove that there are *NO* 3 invisible yellow butterflies flying around every one's head directing them what to do... to you????

That's just wrong.

That's why all religion is false, by definition. And it has something to say about the stupid, too.
Click to expand...

Your logic commits philosophical suicide here since the very IDEA of something being false by definition that cannot be empirically verified, cannot be empirically verified.
 
Paleocon said:
St. Thomas Aquinas proved the existence of God beyond any and all reasonable doubt. With the light of faith God's existence is absolutely certain.
Click to expand...

Um... no. Only a fool believes that. All of the classical arguments have been shown to be entirely irrational. Faith is not something to be proud of.
 
Paleocon said:
Aquinas was highly educated. What problems are there with his proof(s)?
Click to expand...

Aquinas lived 1225-1274CE, his education, compared to the modern day, is virtually irrelevant.

Now if you want us to specifically address any of Aquinas arguments, present them and I'd be happy to tear them apart. It's honestly not that hard.
 
Logicman said:
The Jewish Messiah was prophesied to be God - ancient Jewish rabbis confirm.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Perhaps most explicitly of all is the statement found in R. Simeon b. Yochai's comments on the Zohar,

"There is a perfect Man, who is an Angel. This Angel is Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is an Emanation from Him; yea, He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Of jmx dwd, David's Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God
Click to expand...

Why is it that all of your arguments are based on empty claims and faith? Where is your EVIDENCE? It doesn't matter what the Bible says, the Bible is a bunch of books written by man. It doesn't matter what any book says unless the contents are objectively demonstrable. Faith is an embarrassment. Try again.
 
Logicman said:
You can't replicate historical events from 2,000 years ago. You don't know what the conditions actually were back then. And that's why you can't try to recreate them now.
Click to expand...

But...but....."with god, all things are possible"

Arrange that, and get back with me..'kay?
 
Cephus said:
Um... no. Only a fool believes that. All of the classical arguments have been shown to be entirely irrational. Faith is not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...

Personal attacks and baseless assertions. How rational and enlightened.

Cephus said:
Aquinas lived 1225-1274CE, his education, compared to the modern day, is virtually irrelevant.

Now if you want us to specifically address any of Aquinas arguments, present them and I'd be happy to tear them apart. It's honestly not that hard.
Click to expand...

The average modern day education would enable one to know more about Aristotle than "he was Greek"?

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

Argument from motion

(and now we're probably going to get something along the lines of "I can't refute that so I'll just dismiss it without an argument and call Aquinas and all other theists stupid because I'm smarterer than them")
 
Paleocon said:
Personal attacks and baseless assertions. How rational and enlightened.



The average modern day education would enable one to know more about Aristotle than "he was Greek"?

Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

Argument from motion

(and now we're probably going to get something along the lines of "I can't refute that so I'll just dismiss it without an argument and call Aquinas and all other theists stupid because I'm smarterer than them")
Click to expand...

Only a very ill-informed or mentally challenged person would call St.Thomas Aquinas stupid. His five 'proofs' were genuine attempts to intellectualise the potential for a power which would explain the inexplicable.

They were not however, 'proofs' as we would understand them in the modern empirical sense. They were theses based upon his understanding of physics in the 13th century, and his realisation that there were inexplicable forces at work in the universe (as he knew it). They were, in fact, five well thought out, and plausably put assumptions. You will note that the conclusion drawn with each is "men call this God".
 
reidster said:
I said irrefutably. You cannot prove that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

Well proving the negative is relatively stupid and not how proof or evidence is gathered. Regardless, you cannot prove that gods do exist. So in reality there is no knowledge of the system.
 
Logicman said:
You can't replicate historical events from 2,000 years ago. You don't know what the conditions actually were back then. And that's why you can't try to recreate them now.
Click to expand...

So you can't verify it then, thanks for admitting it.
 
Leo said:
Only a very ill-informed or mentally challenged person would call St.Thomas Aquinas stupid. His five 'proofs' were genuine attempts to intellectualise the potential for a power which would explain the inexplicable.

They were not however, 'proofs' as we would understand them in the modern empirical sense. They were theses based upon his understanding of physics in the 13th century, and his realisation that there were inexplicable forces at work in the universe (as he knew it). They were, in fact, five well thought out, and plausably put assumptions. You will note that the conclusion drawn with each is "men call this God".
Click to expand...

They were logical proofs.
 
Cephus said:
You cannot have a mathematical probability for something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Your argument assumes that there is a Christ. That is a faulty assumption.

Come on, not another thread where we all laugh at religious stupidity.
Click to expand...

The New Testament confirmations of Jesus as the Messiah certifies your argument is utter nonsense.
 
Ikari said:
So you can't verify it then, thanks for admitting it.
Click to expand...

Not what I said, Ikari. I said you can't replicate historical events from 2,000 years ago. So please save your spin cycle for MSNBC.
 
Logicman said:
Not what I said, Ikari. I said you can't replicate historical events from 2,000 years ago. So please save your spin cycle for MSNBC.
Click to expand...

Ergo, you cannot verify it. I don't think you quite grasp the logical conclusion of your statement. You cannot verify the resurrection as you yourself say it cannot be replicated and you have no direct proof.
 
Ikari said:
Ergo, you cannot verify it. I don't think you quite grasp the logical conclusion of your statement. You cannot verify the resurrection as you yourself say it cannot be replicated and you have no direct proof.
Click to expand...

Your statements are illogical. You can't use the scientific method on what historical personalities did 2,000 years ago, especially for establishing miracles. But that's not to say there isn't any EVIDENCE for what happened. Multiple, historical sources such as we find in the Gospels and New Testament, plus extra-biblical writings, certainly qualify as evidence.

Along with that, there's a principle regarding ancient works of antiquity that Simon Greenleaf (a respected Harvard professor and expert on the rules of evidence) provided for people who want to honestly assess ancient writings:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Simon Greenleaf wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Fact or Fiction?
 
Logicman said:
Your statements are illogical. You can't use the scientific method on what historical personalities did 2,000 years ago,
Click to expand...

Particularly when those personalities break all known laws of physics and biology. I don't really care too much about your zombie lust, I'm just saying you have no proof, you cannot verify your claim.
 
Logicman said:
The following shows there is evidence.

Mathematical Probability that Jesus is the Christ
Click to expand...

Strike one; Source is from biblebelievers.org

Logicman said:
The Jewish Messiah was prophesied to be God - ancient Jewish rabbis confirm.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (JEHOVAH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

Perhaps most explicitly of all is the statement found in R. Simeon b. Yochai's comments on the Zohar,

"There is a perfect Man, who is an Angel. This Angel is Metatron, the Keeper of Israel; He is a man in the image of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is an Emanation from Him; yea, He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Of jmx dwd, David's Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is ‘The Lord our Righteousness.’

Jeremiah 23:5-6 - The Messiah as God
Click to expand...

Strike 2: source is the bible

Logicman said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...1918-evidence-bible-god-5.html#post1062715143
Click to expand...

Source is from discredited post in another thread. Strike 3 uuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr OUT!

7rn0zSC.gif
 
Ikari said:
Particularly when those personalities break all known laws of physics and biology.
Click to expand...

The state and understanding of physics and biology is not static - the disciplines are undergoing updates and discovering new things all the time.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, former NASA scientist, from his book, "God and the Astronomers"
 
Logicman said:
The state and understanding of physics and biology is not static - the disciplines are undergoing updates and discovering new things all the time.
Click to expand...

While true, zombism is pretty well nailed down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom