There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Wildswanderer]

What "eyewitness accounts"? The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses

Wrong.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The gospel authors names Mathew Mark Luke and John, are fictional, they were made up and assigned at the Council of Nicaea over 3 centuries after the alleged events. These are not eyewitness accounts, they are second and third hand hearsay at best, Seriously did you not know this?

Where did you get that, from a Dan Brown fiction novel?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.

No, I am right. Most Bibles even admit this. Why have you never studied the history of the Bible?

 

[ElishaElijah]

I can go to a magic show, that doesn't mean magic is real. You made a claim you can offer no objective evidence for, just this kind of unevidenced anecdotal claim.



If you mean the gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John being fictional names, assigned over three centuries after the alleged events, at the first council of Nicaea, it's a well established fact, I am stunned someone claiming to be a Christian can not know this?




hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

And that’s not what the Bible is

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did you get that, from a Dan Brown fiction novel?

When do you think that they got their names? All four are anonymous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that’s not what the Bible is

Actually it is.

What parts of the Bible are not hearsay?

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is your claim, not ours. Please support it.

Scientific " fact" that you probably heard as a kid:
Lightning never strikes the same place twice, (not true. )

During the nineteenth century, scientists believed that there was a planet that existed between Sun and Mercury. Its name was Vulcan.

For centuries, science taught that life rose from elements without seed or an egg or any other means of reproduction.

Science used to teach that the earth itself was expanding.

Science brought us water canals on Mars.

Science taught that a person had no built-in personality when he is born.

Before the Big Bang Theory was accepted, it was believed that the Universe and its size were not changing. That's a pretty big "fact" to be wrong about.

Go back a bit farther, the earth was the center of the universe according to science.

Just a few obvious ones.

 

[ElishaElijah]

If you mean the gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John being fictional names, assigned over three centuries after the alleged events, at the first council of Nicaea, it's a well established fact, I am stunned someone claiming to be a Christian can not know this?

Let me ask you how many Jewish believers were at the Council of Nicaea?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific " fact" that you probably heard as a kid:
Lightning never strikes the same place twice, (not true. )

Not a scientific fact.

During the nineteenth century, scientists believed that there was a planet that existed between Sun and Mercury. Its name was Vulcan.

Some scientists propose that, not a scientific fact.

For centuries, science taught that life rose from elements without seed or an egg or any other means of reproduction.

Never a scientific fact.

Science used to teach that the earth itself was expanding.

Citation needed and never a scientific fact.

Science brought us water canals on Mars.

No, merely the opinion of some scientists and never a scientific fact.

Science taught that a person had no built-in personality when he is born.

Really? I don't even know if anyone has a "built in personality now" but until you find a reliable source it cannot count as a scientific fact.

Before the Big Bang Theory was accepted, it was believed that the Universe and its size were not changing. That's a pretty big "fact" to be wrong about.

That might be one. The stead state was well accepted before relativity. By the way, not only is the Big Bang well supported by evidence, Relativity tells us that the universe has to be expanding or contracting.

Go back a bit farther, the earth was the center of the universe according to science.

Actually no. Now you are at a pre-science date. At least as defined today. That was before "science" existed.

Just a few obvious ones.

You only got one out of all of those. And your complaint is that science became more accurate. That is a very strange complaint.

Meanwhile if we go through the Bible we will find endless things known to be false.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Actually it is.

What parts of the Bible are not hearsay?

Although the Bible has rumors in it and hearsay, its not a rumor but Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Eyewitnesses, Prophets, Moses all wrote and recorded the Scriptures as God determined and directed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although the Bible has rumors in it and hearsay, its not a rumor but Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Eyewitnesses, Prophets, Moses all wrote and recorded the Scriptures as God determined and directed.

Sorry, newsflash. Moses is fictitious and those books are younger than the book of Job.

Why haven't you ever looked into the history of the Bible?

 

[Polymath257]

By that standard, nothing can be said to be reality. We don't know everything about anything.

We don't need to know *everything* in order to know *something*. And we do know some things about the universe. But there *are* limitations, especially when it comes to generalizations.

Once again, this is why testing and observation are so crucial.

 

[Polymath257]

What were facts of science thirty years ago aren't now. You claim we are moving forward but you can't know that what we think we know now is anymore accurate than in the past. The so called facts will change again.

Actually, we *can* know that what we know is more accurate than in the past. Newtonian physics is not as accurate (not as many decimal places of accuracy) as relativistic physics is.

In those areas that have been well tested, the 'facts' don't change. It is on the boundaries where we are still learning that things change.

But, for example, Newtonian physics was accurate to 4 decimal places or so for objects in the solar system. Relativistic physics is at least 8 decimal places (we are still testing to see where it fails).

But we still use Newtonian physics to get probes to other planets. And we use relativistic physics to support GPS. Some theoretical predictions from quantum mechanics match observations to 13 decimal places of accuracy, which is far better than anything possible a century ago.

 

[Polymath257]

I can know God the same way and do.

If so, present the evidence. If it is as empirical as the evidence for the sun, that should be easy and demonstrative.

 

[Polymath257]

You’d have to read The Gospels, Acts and letters from the Apostles who were alive at the time.

The book of Acts is, at least, fairly early. The Gospels are much later.

But why should we believe what *any* of them say? When they *claim* there were hundreds of witnesses, what's to say they aren't just lying? Do you have actual records of all of those witnesses? Of course you don't.

 

[Viker]

Scientific " fact" that you probably heard as a kid:
Lightning never strikes the same place twice,

That was always a wives tale or cultural myth.

Go back a bit farther, the earth was the center of the universe according to science.

I'm sure Copernicus and Galileo smashed that at the dawn of the modern scientific age.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientific " fact" that you probably heard as a kid:
Lightning never strikes the same place twice, (not true. )

Never a scientific fact.

During the nineteenth century, scientists believed that there was a planet that existed between Sun and Mercury. Its name was Vulcan.

There was one proposed. It was never discovered. So it was never 'scientifically accepted'.

For centuries, science taught that life rose from elements without seed or an egg or any other means of reproduction.

Yes, *before* the science of biology got started as a science.

Remember that modern science only got started around 1600 and took until about 1750 to mature.

Science used to teach that the earth itself was expanding.

Nope. Never *established science*. This was one proposal made, but not taken very seriously.

Science brought us water canals on Mars.

Nope. First, the observation of Mars through the Earth's atmosphere is notoriously difficult. Canals were *proposed*, but never accepted as valid.

Science taught that a person had no built-in personality when he is born.

Nope. That was a philosophy, not a science. Tabula rasa was never established *science*.

Before the Big Bang Theory was accepted, it was believed that the Universe and its size were not changing. That's a pretty big "fact" to be wrong about.

Yes, and because of lack of evidence (including not knowing that some 'nebula' were actually other galaxies), made this all speculative as was recognized at the time.

Go back a bit farther, the earth was the center of the universe according to science.

Nope. That was when religion was in control and well before the rise of modern science.

Just a few obvious ones.

Mostly showing your ignorance of scientific history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The book of Acts is, at least, fairly early. The Gospels are much later.

But why should we believe what *any* of them say? When they *claim* there were hundreds of witnesses, what's to say they aren't just lying? Do you have actual records of all of those witnesses? Of course you don't.

Acts appears to have been written by the same author that wrote Luke. And most do date it earlier than Luke but not by a lot. The most common date appears to be between 80-90 CE:

When Was Acts Written? | Zondervan Academic

 

[Wildswanderer]

If so, present the evidence. If it is as empirical as the evidence for the sun, that should be easy and demonstrative.

We all perceive the sun using our senses. You don't know the sun even exists, you only know what you perceive and have been told about it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The book of Acts is, at least, fairly early. The Gospels are much later.

But why should we believe what *any* of them say? When they *claim* there were hundreds of witnesses, what's to say they aren't just lying? Do you have actual records of all of those witnesses? Of course you don't.

Well their first hand accounts and the message of the Gospel actually does happen to a person when they receive Eternal Life through Jesus Christ. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be saying it did, I’d still be a drug addict, be dead, in jail or some institution. But what happened is that I was born again and that is no pipe dream, myth or fantasy.

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.”
‭‭I John‬ ‭1:1-4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬