[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I've read the King James version cover to cover three times, once via a bible study group. I'm well aware of the old and often used trope about the hebrew word for "day" used by many Christians to justify that seven day creation cycle.

I have 40+ years of research and experience in Biblical theology. It's not just superficial reading of the Bible, but digging-deep into it that reveals the real truths of the Bible. I have found that the greatest test of the Bible is the historical Jesus Christ. If people can't bust the resurrection - which is solid as a rock IMO - then they have to step back and admit it's hardly the work of fairy tales.

I don't eliminate god on a scientific basis, I choose to trust in facts, and about god, there are none. Science has never been in the business of proving something does not exist. Science is in the business of proving what does exist. You cannot prove a negative -- look it up. I also don't believe in ghosts, telepathy, vampires, zombies, telekinesis, levitation, and a host of other stuff for which no proven facts exist.

Science is great, but it cannot explain everything. There is massive evidence for God and the historical Jesus. A few books that contain those evidences are:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

Have you read any of those?

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If people can't bust the resurrection - which is solid as a rock IMO -

How "solid" can something be, that has in fact never been proven?


OM

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How "solid" can something be, that has in fact never been proven?


OM

"proven"?

Think EVIDENCE and you won't be in the dark.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I have 40+ years of research and experience in Biblical theology. It's not just superficial reading of the Bible, but digging-deep into it that reveals the real truths of the Bible. I have found that the greatest test of the Bible is the historical Jesus Christ. If people can't bust the resurrection - which is solid as a rock IMO - then they have to step back and admit it's hardly the work of fairy tales.



Science is great, but it cannot explain everything. There is massive evidence for God and the historical Jesus. A few books that contain those evidences are:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

Have you read any of those?

I read the last 2 and wasn't impressed. They are ostensibly intended to sway skeptics, but I think they are actually marketed to believers. They really present no convincing evidence for any of the supernatural events surrounding the Christian idea of Jesus as deity.

Honestly, I found C.S. Lewis a lot more convincing, mainly because he's an elegant writer and knows how to argue a case even when evidence is lacking. He can slip in appeals to emotion that you barely notice. He's that good.

 

[PoS]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I have 40+ years of research and experience in Biblical theology.

Thats like reading and watching Lord of the Rings every day for 40 years- its meaningless.

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

"proven"?

Think EVIDENCE and you won't be in the dark.

I didn't say "evidence" (which even biblical tales mired in myth can be considered scant "evidence"); I specifically said PROVEN (as in proof). Whereas proof does indeed contain evidence; evidence OTOH does not necessarily contain proof.


OM

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I read the last 2 and wasn't impressed. They are ostensibly intended to sway skeptics, but I think they are actually marketed to believers. They really present no convincing evidence for any of the supernatural events surrounding the Christian idea of Jesus as deity.

I've read both of them also. They both provide excellent evidence and/or arguments for the historical Jesus of the Gospels and the resurrection. Sorry you missed it.

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I didn't say "evidence" (which even biblical tales mired in myth can be considered scant "evidence"); I specifically said PROVEN (as in proof). Whereas proof does indeed contain evidence; evidence OTOH does not necessarily contain proof.
OM

Show me the scientific criteria to PROVE Jesus and/or a resurrection?

You're asking for something you can't even define yourself - the specific criteria required.

So, not only can't one scientifically prove Jesus and/or the resurrection, but YOU can't even provide the scientific criteria for the assessment!

A man's got to know his limitations.

Also,

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence and proof, please provide empirical evidence / proof for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

You can't, can you?!

So, take your history books and throw them in the trash, because they don't meet your pie-in-the-sky standards!

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Show me the scientific criteria to PROVE Jesus and/or a resurrection?

You're asking for something you can't even define yourself - the specific criteria required.

So, not only can't one scientifically prove Jesus and/or the resurrection, but YOU can't even provide the scientific criteria for the assessment!

A man's got to know his limitations.

Also,

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence and proof, please provide empirical evidence / proof for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

You can't, can you?!

So, take your history books and throw them in the trash, because they don't meet your pie-in-the-sky standards!

^^^This post gets my nomination for Red Herring of the Year Award.


Bravo!

OM

 

[Daisy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Nothing outside of the 66 books, penned by 40 some men, over a period of 1500+ years, is needed to convince a person that Jehovah God is real...nothing...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I've read both of them also. They both provide excellent evidence and/or arguments for the historical Jesus of the Gospels and the resurrection. Sorry you missed it.

The gospels aren't proof of the infallibility of the gospels, which is what they argue. That is circular. It winds up where it began.

I accept that the Jesus in the NT lived. The proof of the supernatural stuff is missing. The gospels are claims, no more.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Show me the scientific criteria to PROVE Jesus and/or a resurrection?

You're asking for something you can't even define yourself - the specific criteria required.

So, not only can't one scientifically prove Jesus and/or the resurrection, but YOU can't even provide the scientific criteria for the assessment!

A man's got to know his limitations.

Also,

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence and proof, please provide empirical evidence / proof for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

You can't, can you?!

So, take your history books and throw them in the trash, because they don't meet your pie-in-the-sky standards!

No one makes a religion out of those people or asks us to get us to dedicate our lives to serving them. Apples and marshmallows.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I leave that to religions.

Religions aren't trying to prove anything either. They are open functional systems... They don't have the power of proof...

I don't have any issues with you being a believer. If that works for you, as it seems to do for most human beings, I'm okay with that. Like I stated before, I'm fully aware that as a non-believer, I'm in the minority.

Agreed.

You repeated your bit about me asking you for clarification. You can't clarify nonsense.

It wasn't nonsense.

No, the bit that you bolded is a fact, not a belief.

Wrong, "atheists do not believe" is in and of itself a belief. You use these words and don't even know what they mean.

A belief is something accepted as truth or fact with no actual evidence required, as in taking something on faith alone.

WRONG. A belief is the acceptance of a claim/statement/argument as a true. It has nothing to do with evidence nor facts.

What is "actual evidence" as opposed to "evidence"?

Facts are assumed predicate. That's all facts are. They are used to speed up conversations. Evidence is any statement that supports an argument. Faith is circular reasoning.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No one makes a religion out of those people or asks us to get us to dedicate our lives to serving them. Apples and marshmallows.

He has run out that discredited argument many times. He doesn't seem to realize that nobody is claiming magic god power attributes to his list of historical figures.

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The gospels aren't proof of the infallibility of the gospels, which is what they argue. That is circular. It winds up where it began.

I accept that the Jesus in the NT lived. The proof of the supernatural stuff is missing. The gospels are claims, no more.

I think it's possible that some version of Jesus lived, but certainly not the Jesus in the NT because the Jesus in the NT is a magical man-god and we have no evidence of any of that. But without the magical man-god elements, is whatever real person the myth in the Bible is loosely based on actually Jesus? I don't think so.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

{facepalm}

I don't believe that god or gods exist because there is no evidence.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

Belief is accepting something as fact without evidence.

No, belief is a conclusion based on a circular argument. Evidence can certainly exist for it. Supporting evidence means nothing, however.

There is evidence for a god, gods, or spirits. Life itself. The Earth itself. Books like the Bible. People that testify of their prayers being 'answered'. All of this is evidence, supporting evidence to be sure, but evidence nevertheless.
There is also evidence that no god, gods, or spirits exist. Life itself. The Earth itself. The number of people that believe in it. All this is also supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence is not a proof. It does not make any theory proven, blessed, sanctified, or otherwise made more legitimate. Science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.

Believing that no god, gods, or spirits exist IS a belief.

Atheism is the opposite of belief.

No, it is a belief.

I don't BELIEVE there is no god, I simply refuse to take that, or anything, on faith alone.

You are now locked in paradox. You just said you don't believe a god or gods exist.

Which is it, dude?

 

[Omega Man]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

No, belief is a conclusion based on a circular argument. Evidence can certainly exist for it. Supporting evidence means nothing, however.

There is evidence for a god, gods, or spirits. Life itself. The Earth itself. Books like the Bible. People that testify of their prayers being 'answered'. All of this is evidence, supporting evidence to be sure, but evidence nevertheless.
There is also evidence that no god, gods, or spirits exist. Life itself. The Earth itself. The number of people that believe in it. All this is also supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence is not a proof. It does not make any theory proven, blessed, sanctified, or otherwise made more legitimate. Science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.

Believing that no god, gods, or spirits exist IS a belief.

No, it is a belief.

You are now locked in paradox. You just said you don't believe a god or gods exist.

Which is it, dude?

Nothing quite as amusing as witnessing self-loathing closeted agnosticism, disguised as atheism.


OM

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There is no evidence for a god, gods, or spirits.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You keep trying to make a case that atheism is a system of beliefs.

It is.

It isn't.

It is.

It is the exact opposite of a system of beliefs.

No, it is the belief that there is no god, gods, or spirits.

I've already explained this,

No, you walked into a paradox. You have to clear it first. You are now arguing both sides of a paradox. That is irrational.

but Christians especially want to feel that atheists are the same as they are,

Atheists are not the same as Christians in any way. The belief of an atheist is diametrically opposed to the belief of a Christian.

therefore atheism must be about belief in something.

It is.

Gravity exists whether you believe in it or not.

Fine. It exists at the present.

Our solar system formed from the debris of a supernova 4.5 billion years ago whether you believe it or not.

How do you know this? Were you there?

Life on earth came about due to a very unique set of circumstances whether you believe it or not.

How do you know this? Were you there?

No evidence exists of a devine hand or cognitive design in any of this,

Yes there is. Life itself. The Earth itself. Books like the Bible. You still don't get that supporting evidence doesn't mean anything. You keep trying to kill what is irrelevant anyway.

therefore I do not choose to believe in a supreme being,

Right. You choose to believe there is no supreme being.

certainly not any of the fantastic myths claimed by today's religions.

Right. You choose to believe in the fantastic myths of the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of Abiogenesis.

I choose to seek out proven answers, such as they currently are.

Answers are not a proof, neither are they proven.

Religious belief provides one with all of the answers to life, the universe, and our place and purpose in it.

Depends on the religion. Not even Christianity provides that.

Science asks the difficult questions,

Science isn't questions. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

and every time they find an answer,

Science isn't answers. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

more questions result.

Science isn't questions. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

I prefer the questions;

You prefer that which isn't science.

believers prefer the more confortable answers that religions provide.

You think Christianity or any other religion is more 'comfortable'??? Some religions are so strict you are banished to misery for eternity if you step one toe out of line. You call THAT comfortable???

I do not believe that there is no god, I simply refuse to believe that there is one.

Still locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?

 

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

First off, you don't even know what the fallacy is called. That isn't it. Secondly, you clearly don't know what it is. It would be an argument from ignorance if he said "there is no evidence, therefore no gods exist". He didn't say that. He said "there is no evidence, therefore I don't believe in gods".

And you wonder why people laugh at this nonsense?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I don't believe the Bible teaches a 6,000 year old earth.

Quite right. The Bible does not mention the age of the Earth anywhere. We don't even know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden.

I don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth either.

No need to.

I believe it's like science says (4.5 billion or so years old).

Fine, but science doesn't know either.

I also have a degree in science so I'm not ignorant of what science says.

I think you will find that claims of credentials have no meaning on blind forums.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Yes, there is a theory that we can measure the age of rock using instrumentation. That theory is where the 4.5 billion years or so comes from. It IS only a theory, however. It could be wrong. There are already indications that measurements over this span of time might be wildly inaccurate. The Earth could be far older or younger than indicated. In the end, we really have no idea of the age of the Earth. 6000 years seems pretty ridiculous though. This figure comes from assuming zero time in the Garden of Eden, and that the Earth was literally created in 144 hours (six solar days).

Have you done your homework on it in the Bible? Many of those who have, including me, understand that the Hebrew word for day (yom) in Genesis can mean extended ages of time.

Again, quite right. In Hebrew the word for day can mean any length of time...even centuries or millennia.

In fact, the author of Genesis uses that same word that most people think is a day, to describe the entire WEEK of creation. Did you know that?

Again, quite right. People like this tend to read Genesis as if the original language were English, and read it like a legal contract.

I read the first one you listed a long time ago. Interesting.



You eliminate God as many believe to be the Creator. But on what scientific basis have you eliminated him? Science has never proven that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

Exactly. Science does not prove any god or gods exist, and it does not prove that no god or gods exist. It simply doesn't go there. Science is agnostic.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I've read the King James version cover to cover three times, once via a bible study group. I'm well aware of the old and often used trope about the hebrew word for "day" used by many Christians to justify that seven day creation cycle.

Wups. It was a SIX day cycle. God rested on the seventh. Guess you haven't read it very carefully, eh?

I don't eliminate god on a scientific basis,

You said:
"If you're a Christian, your bible claims that our planet was created a mere 6,000 or so years ago. Science has disproven that:", in an effort to justify eliminating any god or gods.

I choose to trust in facts, and about god, there are none.

But there is. One fact you are using is the concept of a single god.

Go learn what a fact is. A fact is not a proof or a Universal Truth. You have literally built your trust on sand. Any fact can cease to be a fact as soon as someone disagrees with it. It becomes an argument at that point.

Science has never been in the business of proving something does not exist.

You said, "If you're a Christian, your bible claims that our planet was created a mere 6,000 or so years ago. Science has disproven that:". You have locked yourself in another paradox. Which is it, dude?

Science is in the business of proving what does exist.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It has neither proofs nor the power of prediction. A theory of science must be transcribed into a closed functional system such as mathematics to gain the power of prediction. That process is not a proof, either. Science does not prove what exists.

You cannot prove a negative -- look it up.

Yet you are are attempting to do just that.

I also don't believe in ghosts, telepathy, vampires, zombies, telekinesis, levitation, and a host of other stuff for which no proven facts exist.

A fact is not a proof. Learn what a fact is.
As far as supporting evidence, there IS supporting evidence for ghosts, telepathy, vampires, zombies, telekinesis, levitation, and a host of other stuff. This evidence is just as real as the existence of gravity.

Supporting evidence doesn't mean anything. Science doesn't use it. Literally mountains of supporting evidence mean NOTHING in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I have 40+ years of research and experience in Biblical theology. It's not just superficial reading of the Bible, but digging-deep into it that reveals the real truths of the Bible. I have found that the greatest test of the Bible is the historical Jesus Christ. If people can't bust the resurrection - which is solid as a rock IMO - then they have to step back and admit it's hardly the work of fairy tales.

While it's not possible to prove the resurrection took place, it DOES withstand attempts to falsify it.

Science is great, but it cannot explain everything.

Nor does it try to. Even if it did, we would have to create something like science to explain the explanation!

There is massive evidence for God and the historical Jesus.

True.

A few books that contain those evidences are:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

Have you read any of those?

I have. Don't forget the Bible itself, though. It is also a bit of evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How "solid" can something be, that has in fact never been proven?


OM

As solid as any theory of science. No theory of science has ever been proven either.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I read the last 2 and wasn't impressed. They are ostensibly intended to sway skeptics, but I think they are actually marketed to believers. They really present no convincing evidence for any of the supernatural events surrounding the Christian idea of Jesus as deity.

Honestly, I found C.S. Lewis a lot more convincing, mainly because he's an elegant writer and knows how to argue a case even when evidence is lacking. He can slip in appeals to emotion that you barely notice. He's that good.

There are holes in some of the extensions of the arguments that each of these authors present, but their basic argument is sound. You are attempting to discard all arguments based on a few holes in some arguments. Compositional error fallacy. This variation is sometimes known as the Bad Apple fallacy.