There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

You imply that anyone who disbelieves in God, which by definition means atheists, is not impartial but is a bigot.

That is how you read it and not as I intended for it to read. I am not that dense to believe that all non-believers are bigots and I am astounded that you consider that I implied such a Macavellion stance.

Are you saying atheists that use brainwashing techniques are impartial and without mindless bigotry?

No.

I have and I cannot see a single example of the evidence that you say ‘proves God exists’. Why not give me your best argument?

If you had then you would have read my many posts stating clearly that there is no single piece of evidence that supports the existence of God but that there are many circumstantial evidences that when combined make the existence of God more likely then not.

It's perhaps the biggest, most controversial mystery in the cosmos. Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?

The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them; a belief further backed up by evidence that everything in our universe may emanate from one extraordinarily elegant and beautiful design known as the E8 Lie Group*.

While skeptics hold that these findings are neither conclusive nor evidence of a divine creator, some cutting edge physicists are already positing who this God is: an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement. It's an answer as compelling as it is disconcerting.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/through-the-wormhole-is-there-a-creator/




* Basic description

The Lie group E8 has dimension 248. Its rank, which is the dimension of its maximal torus, is 8. Therefore the vectors of the root system are in eight-dimensional Euclidean space: they are described explicitly later in this article. The Weyl group of E8, which is the group of symmetries of the maximal torus which are induced by conjugations in the whole group, has order 214 3 5 5 2 7 = 696729600.

The compact group E8 is unique among simple compact Lie groups in that its non-trivial representation of smallest dimension is the adjoint representation (of dimension 248) acting on the Lie algebra E8 itself; it is also the unique one which has the following four properties: trivial center, compact, simply connected, and simply laced (all roots have the same length).

There is a Lie algebra En for every integer n ≥ 3, which is infinite dimensional if n is greater than 8.

 

[Serenity7855]

'Cos he's a troll. A more pertinent question is: why do you continue to entertain his trollings?

Even more pertinent, why do you.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Part 3

John has the Apostles not go anywhere to begin with but hide out in Jerusalem where Jesus appears to them twice. Then they go to Galilee to go fishing (!) where Jesus appears to them for the third time (as is explicitly stated).

John has Jesus appear to the disciples twice in Jerusalem and apparently disappear in between and after. (John 20:19-29) John then has the disciples fishing in Galilee (with no segue). (John 21:1-14) They all just went home and back to work? Note that it is explicitly stated that this is only the third time Jesus appeared to them. “This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.” (Jn 21:14)

No invitation to Galilee as in Matthew. No staying in Jerusalem. Two mysterious visits in Jerusalem, then the disciples go home to Galilee and run into Jesus while they are fishing. What happens to Jesus after that?

The original Mark has Jesus not appear to anyone. A later addition to Mark makes vague references to the other Gospels. Let’s face it, Mark’s Jesus is presented as an ‘action hero’ tangibly present in stories immersed in detail. Mark is never vague.

It is worth looking at this additional ending of Mark.

Matthew 19

16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
________________________________________
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

In addition to not sounding at all like Mark, the added verses seem to be a hodge-podge of elements from other Gospels:

Verse 7 (original) has it that the disciples were to go to Galilee, as in Matthew. But add-on verses 12-13 refer to the Road to Emmaus appearance, which in Luke is the reason the disciples did not leave Jerusalem.

Verse 14 is a reference to John.
Verse 15 is a reference to Matthew.
Verse 16 is a reference to John.
Verse 17 is a reference to Acts.

Verse 18 might be a reference to the Acts of Judas Thomas (Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles

Verse 19 is a reference to Luke
Verse 20 is a reference to Acts


Several times in these stories Jesus is not even recognized by those who knew him. And James is never mentioned at all nor are Paul’s 500.

Luke, the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)

John, Mary Magdalene at the tomb (John 20:11-16)

John, disciples in Galilee (John 21:4-12)

To be continued …

 

[Serenity7855]

Part 3

I am assuming that you mean that the extra verses are one of the contradictions you claim. I hate to disappoint but the fact that additional verses might have been added is neither a contradiction or in anyway takes away the authenticity of the bible.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF MARK 16:9-20

One textual variant that has received considerable attention from the textual critic concerns the last twelve verses of Mark. Much has been written on the subject in the last two centuries or so. Most, if not all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths presented in the verses are historically authentic—even if they reject the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark’s account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is verified elsewhere (Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18), as is His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:35), and His appearance to the eleven apostles (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The “Great Commission” is presented by two of the other three gospel writers (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-48), and Luke verifies the ascension twice (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). The promise of the signs that were to accompany the apostles’ activities is hinted at by Matthew (28:20), noted by the Hebrews writer (2:3-4), explained in greater detail by John (chapters 14-16; cf. 14:12), and demonstrated by the events of the book of Acts (see McGarvey, 1875, pp. 377-378).

Those who reject the originality of the passage in Mark, while acknowledging the authenticity of the events reported, generally assign a very early date for the origin of the verses. For example, writing in 1844, Alford, who forthrightly rejected the genuineness of the passage, nevertheless conceded: “The inference therefore seems to me to be, that it is an authentic fragment, placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times: by whom written, must of course remain wholly uncertain; but coming to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims on our reception and reverence” (1:438, italics in orig., emp. added). Attributing the verses to a disciple of Jesus named Aristion, Sir Frederic Kenyon nevertheless believed that “we can accept the passage as true and authentic narrative, though not an original portion of St. Mark’s Gospel” (1951, p. 174, emp. added). More recently, textual scholars of no less stature than Kurt and Barbara Aland, though also rejecting the originality of the block of twelve verses in question, nevertheless admit that the longer ending “was recognized as canonical” and that it “may well be from the beginning of the second century” (Aland and Aland, 1987, pp. 69,227). This admission is remarkable since it lends further weight to the recognized antiquity of the verses—what New Testament textual critic Bruce Metzger, professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, referred to as “the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel” (1994, p. 105)—placing them in such close proximity to the original writing of Mark so as to make the gap between them virtually indistinguishable.

For the unbiased observer, this matter is settled: the strongest piece of internal evidence mustered against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 is no evidence at all. The two strongest arguments offered to discredit the inspiration of these verses as the production of Mark are seen to be lacking in substance and legitimacy. The reader of the New Testament may be confidently assured that these verses are original—written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of Mark as part of his original gospel account.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704

Several times in these stories Jesus is not even recognized by those who knew him. And James is never mentioned at all nor are Paul’s 500.

James and Paul's 500 are not mentioned in the four Gospels because they had already been mentioned in Paul's writings. Why would, or what is the need, for them to be written more then once?

"not recognised", that is, not identified from previous encounters or knowledge..

Luke, the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35)

Luke 24:13-35King James Version (KJV)

13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.*
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

They didn't recognise him because their eyes were holden.

* 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

John, disciples in Galilee (John 21:4-12)

John 21:4-12King James Version (KJV)

4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.*
5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
8 And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.
9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.
10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.
11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken.
12 Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

It was not a case of not recognising him they said they did not know it was Jesus, probably because he was stood a ways off from them on the shore.

* but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.

John, Mary Magdalene at the tomb (John 20:11-16)

John 20:11-16King James Version (KJV)

11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

She did not recognise him because she was not looking at him. * She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.,

I eagerly await your next instalment. This is fun and only enhances my testimony.

 

[Mycroft]

I share a lot of your views and am on a similar page. My mind reels thinking how our DNA came to exist through only the processes accepted by science. I believe conscious intelligence fostered the process.

Just because you don't understand evolution/dna enough, it doesn't mean god did it, it just means you don't understand enough about evolution/dna and are too egotistical to admit it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just because you don't understand evolution/dna enough, it doesn't mean god did it, it just means you don't understand enough about evolution/dna and are too egotistical to admit it.

And from what I've studied, DNA, cells, all of it is a hot mess. It's like there were a whole team of designers coming up with different ideas how to solve the same problems and all their solutions were thrown together. It works, but it's not a grand example of efficient or organized system. It's a very ad hoc design, i.e. what used to be called "spaghetti programming" in the old computer software days. It's bad design. A good design is to the point, efficient, reusable, manageable, maintainable, easy to study and understand (I think it was called "cognitive verification" when I was doing my computer science in the 80s). DNA, mitochondria (why the heck a separate DNA for that, in it's own little "cell" within the cell, and so very much similar to eukaryotes?), all the different energy cycles... it's a hot mess.

 

[serp777]

And from what I've studied, DNA, cells, all of it is a hot mess. It's like there were a whole team of designers coming up with different ideas how to solve the same problems and all their solutions were thrown together. It works, but it's not a grand example of efficient or organized system. It's a very ad hoc design, i.e. what used to be called "spaghetti programming" in the old computer software days. It's bad design. A good design is to the point, efficient, reusable, manageable, maintainable, easy to study and understand (I think it was called "cognitive verification" when I was doing my computer science in the 80s). DNA, mitochondria (why the heck a separate DNA for that, in it's own little "cell" within the cell, and so very much similar to eukaryotes?), all the different energy cycles... it's a hot mess.

Not only that, it's just an argument from personal incredulity--just because that person cannot understand how life and DNA came about through natural, simple processes, doesn't mean it's not true. Absurd.

It's like computers--All of our current software and logic is done with two simple logical gates--the nand gate and the nor gate. From those two simple logical gates, all of computing can be extrapolated. Life likely emerged in a very similar process--except that life had the entire periodic table to work with and therefore can be much more diverse and complicated than computers.

 

[Serenity7855]

Not only that, it's just an argument from personal incredulity--just because that person cannot understand how life and DNA came about through natural, simple processes, doesn't mean it's not true. Absurd.

It's like computers--All of our current software and logic is done with two simple logical gates--the nand gate and the nor gate. From those two simple logical gates, all of computing can be extrapolated. Life likely emerged in a very similar process--except that life had the entire periodic table to work with and therefore can be much more diverse and complicated than computers.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not only that, it's just an argument from personal incredulity--just because that person cannot understand how life and DNA came about through natural, simple processes, doesn't mean it's not true. Absurd.

It's like computers--All of our current software and logic is done with two simple logical gates--the nand gate and the nor gate. From those two simple logical gates, all of computing can be extrapolated. Life likely emerged in a very similar process--except that life had the entire periodic table to work with and therefore can be much more diverse and complicated than computers.

If I remember my Boolean algebra right, you can even construct a nor gate from two or three band gates.

 

[serp777]

Not only that, it's just an argument from personal incredulity--just because that person cannot understand how life and DNA came about through natural, simple processes, doesn't mean it's not true. Absurd.

It's like computers--All of our current software and logic is done with two simple logical gates--the nand gate and the nor gate. From those two simple logical gates, all of computing can be extrapolated. Life likely emerged in a very similar process--except that life had the entire periodic table to work with and therefore can be much more diverse and complicated than computers.

And it's reasonable to go with likely theories. Who's to say, if God exists, that he didn't design the universe so that life could emerge spontaneously anywhere just through the laws of physics and chemistry.

 

[serp777]

If I remember my Boolean algebra right, you can even construct a nor gate from two or three band gates.

Yes that's true, although i think it's four. But that would never be done in industry since it's much cheaper and space efficient to use the nand and nor gates together instead of just nand.

 

[Sapiens]

But sticking to just one or the other is so much more elegant.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes that's true, although i think it's four. But that would never be done in industry since it's much cheaper and space efficient to use the nand and nor gates together instead of just nand.

Yup.

But it's interesting that it's possible.

 

[Serenity7855]

And it's reasonable to go with likely theories. Who's to say, if God exists, that he didn't design the universe so that life could emerge spontaneously anywhere just through the laws of physics and chemistry.

Quite so, however, likely is in no way a fact.

So, tell me, how did the most intricate instruction manual for making life come about naturally and simply. Only scientists have been trying to establish that for in excess of 50 years now with no real success. Surely if it were natural and simple we should have cracked it by now. There is currently no naturalistic laws that can explain "how life and DNA came about" which makes it a supernatural event. God is supernatural.

 

[Parsimony]

Surely if it were natural and simple we should have cracked it by now.

Whoever said that it was simple? If abiogenesis is possible, how do you know that we must have figured it out by now?

There is currently no naturalistic laws that can explain "how life and DNA came about" which makes it a supernatural event. God is supernatural.

Something is not automatically supernatural because we currently lack a natural explanation for it. You even used the word "currently" yourself.

 

[serp777]

Quite so, however, likely is in no way a fact.

So, tell me, how did the most intricate instruction manual for making life come about naturally and simply. Only scientists have been trying to establish that for in excess of 50 years now with no real success. Surely if it were natural and simple we should have cracked it by now. There is currently no naturalistic laws that can explain "how life and DNA came about" which makes it a supernatural event. God is supernatural.

"Surely if it were natural and simple we should have cracked it by now. There is currently no naturalistic laws that can explain "how life and DNA came about" which makes it a supernatural event."

First, just because it's simple doesn't mean it's easy to discover. Famous equations, like those in magnetism, electricity, and relativity are very simple, but were very difficult to initially determine. E = mc^2 and the lorentz transform is a good one, which, in conjunction with other work, took decades of time investments from a variety of physicists including albert einstein. Patterns are often hard to determine.

In addition, scientists have made great progress on uncovering the process by which life could have initially developed. Hydrothermal vents offer a location that allows interesting combinations of organic material, which eventually, in the right conditions, could lead to life. Nothing about the research being done suggests that a supernatural spark from an eye in sky was required. It is a fact that the spontaneous development of life requires nothing more than random chance. The documentation--

"While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Palasek showed that self-assembly of RNA molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents.[79] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[80] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[81][82]"

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is not a supernatural event, unless you have some evidence for that. All of the current evidence points to a genesis that was chemical in nature. And you certainly haven't proved which God created life.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that the idea of the probability of life emerging naturally is easily dismissed. Sure, you can look at the number of molecular interactions and possible permutations over time - but it is easy to forget that one must then multiply the result by however many precursor molecules there are per liter of seawater, multiplied by the number of liters of seawater in the planet.

Then take that number and look at the number of molecular interactions per second and multiply that by a billion years and all of a sudden the sequence of events necessary to produce complex self replicating polymers is perfectly likely.

Winning lotto is improbable, but enter a billion times and all of a sudden BINGO.

The winning sequence just had to happen once, that first self replicator and the whole thing kicks off.

 

[Serenity7855]

I think that the idea of the probability of life emerging naturally is easily dismissed. Sure, you can look at the number of molecular interactions and possible permutations over time - but it is easy to forget that one must then multiply the result by however many precursor molecules there are per liter of seawater, multiplied by the number of liters of seawater in the planet.

Then take that number and look at the number of molecular interactions per second and multiply that by a billion years and all of a sudden the sequence of events necessary to produce complex self replicating polymers is perfectly likely.

Winning lotto is improbable, but enter a billion times and all of a sudden BINGO.

The winning sequence just had to happen once, that first self replicator and the whole thing kicks off.

And yet it has never happened since and science cannot replicate it either.

 

[serp777]

And yet it has never happened since and science cannot replicate it either.

You don't know that it hasn't happened since. Where is your evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

And yet it has never happened since and science cannot replicate it either.

And on what authority did you make that claim?

How do you know that it did not happen a million times - please supply a citation to support your objection and establish that this has only happened once?

Science replicated this a number of years ago by the way. Self replicating molecules were first synthesised from plausible pre-biotic conditions last century.