There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

I have never heard anyone talk so much and say so little.

People often make the mistake of not owning up to their mistakes, and try talking their way out.

 

[Serenity7855]

They know its not mythology.

They also do not repeat ancient mens mistakes of attributing what they do not konw to a deity of choice.

Man has FACTUALLY made this mistake for as long as writen history has existed. AND every single time each and every thing attributed has been pushed back into gaps of knowledge. It has natural explanations that do not require mythology

SO NOTHING has ever been able to be attributed to mythology

I feel sorry for you. Genuinely, I do. You really do not have a clue about that which you talk. Christians just do not suddenly turn into Bible punctures. They don't wake up one morning and decide to become religious. No, of course not. They most likely responded to these two scriptures and received an answer

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.


3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

We have all received a witness of diety. Why else would we all believe in something that cannot be proven. We are not delusional, or at least most of us are not. We find it quite strange that you really do not have what we have. It is the norm to us and anyone that doesn't have it doesn't want it. Which is fine, but do not assume that we are soft in the head because we believe in God. For us, you are the odd ones out.

 

[Serenity7855]

People often make the mistake of not owning up to their mistakes, and try talking their way out.

People more often don't do that.

 

[outhouse]

Christians just do not suddenly turn into Bible punctures. They don't wake up one morning and decide to become religious. .

Nope. Some would say they have been brainwashed since birth. Indoctrinated into belief by their parents solely based on geographic location.

Had you been born in Iraq, you would believe in a different god.

You really do not have a clue about that which you talk.

Thankfully, you have demonstrated a lack of credibility in many of your statements.


It must bother you that I know more about your religion then you do. So you continue the personal attacks your whole OP was based from.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Worked great on ignorant ancient Hellenist.

But you wont feed a family with that education.


Im so happy you keep religious text in context

We have all received a witness of diety.

That is the problem. You dont have much of a clue what a deity is or how they were placed on paper or papyrus.

There are no credible witnesses.


"Son of god" was term first given to the Emperor Augustus just before jesus birth.

We also know that the Helleist parralleled this emperors divinity.

Mortal men could be divine. And it does not look like you understand this.


We see how your gods were defined by men, and how the concept evolved in mythology. Period. There it is.

Now I do expect more attacks since you wil not refute what I posted. What I cannot figure out is why militant theist refuse knowledge.

 

[Serenity7855]

Nope. Some would say they have been brainwashed since birth. Indoctrinated into belief by their parents solely based on geographic location

Not the case, most people reach an age where they decide for themselves. I have six children, all adults now. Half of them are Christians and half are Atheists. They were all, raised in a Christian environment but half decided, around the age of 18, that it wasn't for them. You cannot blame it on brainwashing. Or you could, but you would be wrong.

Had you been born in Iraq, you would believe in a different god.

You think? There is only one God. We worship the same God under a different guise

Thankfully, you have demonstrated a lack of credibility in many of your statements.

Really, what statements are they?

It must bother you that I know more about your religion then you do. So you continue the personal attacks your whole OP was based from.

So, what do you think my religion is?

I would suggest that a little humility may go a long way for you. You may well know more then I, however, I have been blessed with a witness of divinity, have you. But I bow to your superior knowledge.

If you feel that my OP was an attack then what label can we give to your hostility and odious derision.

Worked great on ignorant ancient Hellenist.

But you wont feed a family with that education.

Im so happy you keep religious text in context

This typifies your responses. Totally incoherent.

What worked well on ignorant ancient Hellenists?

What education do you refer to?

What text have I kept in context?

That is the problem. You dont have much of a clue what a deity is or how they were placed on paper or papyrus.

A little rich coming from you, however, when nobody else blows you trumpet then you have to blow it yourself.

There are no credible witnesses.

I can think of 2.2 billion credible witnesses.

"Son of god" was term first given to the Emperor Augustus just before jesus birth.

And?

We also know that the Helleist parralleled this emperors divinity.

Well Bully for you.

Mortal men could be divine. And it does not look like you understand this.

Well no, you are so much more knowledgeable then I am.

We see how your gods were defined by men, and how the concept evolved in mythology. Period. There it is.

Who is "WE"?

Now I do expect more attacks since you wil not refute what I posted. What I cannot figure out is why militant theist refuse knowledge.

There is no such thing as a militant Christian. As soon as they become militant they cease to be a Christian.

 

[outhouse]

Not the case, most people reach an age where they decide for themselves. I have six children, all adults now. Half of them are Christians and half are Atheists. They were all, raised in a Christian environment but half decided, around the age of 18, that it wasn't for them. You cannot blame it on brainwashing. Or you could, but you would be wrong.


.

I knew you would drift away from the context on purpose.

My point is your chidlren are half Christian and not half Muslim, due to where they were born.

And that is a fact. Not debateable.

Not all are brainwashed. But it comes into question when education on topics of evolution are refused.

Hey wait! you refuse the current knowledge :sarcastic HHHMMMmmmm

 

[outhouse]

I can think of 2.2 billion credible witnesses.

.

Only witness to emotions, and a feeling from within, often viewed as a conscious mind.

Nothing more.

Not only that, the numbers are incorrect. That is based on geographic locations alone. I am included in those numbers.

 

[outhouse]

you are so much more knowledgeable then I am.


.

I can provide you with quite a lot of credible lectures from credible scholars at Yale on the NT. A complete NT course by Dale B Martin if you wanted to expand your knowledge base.

As well I could help you with Paul from classes at Harvard. I can copy resources and post them if you wanted.


To know the bible is something you must go through scholars to understand, apologetics do no teach you what happened so long ago, and the bible is not a complete accurate snapshot of the past.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Not the case, most people reach an age where they decide for themselves. I have six children, all adults now. Half of them are Christians and half are Atheists. They were all, raised in a Christian environment but half decided, around the age of 18, that it wasn't for them. You cannot blame it on brainwashing. Or you could, but you would be wrong.

Then neither can you blame atheism on "brain washing".

You think? There is only one God. We worship the same God under a different guise

You're missing the point. No, actually, you're smarter than that. You're evading the point.

 

[Serenity7855]

Only witness to emotions, and a feeling from within, often viewed as a conscious mind.

Rubbish

Nothing more.

More Rubbish

Not only that, the numbers are incorrect. That is based on geographic locations alone. I am included in those numbers.

The numbers are correct and the rest is incoherent.

 

[Serenity7855]

Then neither can you blame atheism on "brain washing".

That is true. That is why I didn't blame atheism on brainwashing .

You're missing the point. No, actually, you're smarter than that. You're evading the point.

Your erroneous assertion doesn't surprise me.

 

[Serenity7855]

I can provide you with quite a lot of credible lectures from credible scholars at Yale on the NT. A complete NT course by Dale B Martin if you wanted to expand your knowledge base.

Yes please.

As well I could help you with Paul from classes at Harvard. I can copy resources and post them if you wanted.

Yes please

To know the bible is something you must go through scholars to understand, apologetics do no teach you what happened so long ago, and the bible is not a complete accurate snapshot of the past.

Really

 

[outhouse]

Really

yes really

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-online-resource-introduction-nt-history.html

 

[outhouse]

If you get through that in a few weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rj3NxOyt7k

She was my professor on Paul.

 

[Serenity7855]

yes really

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-online-resource-introduction-nt-history.html

I do not consider the New Testament to be historically correct. I consider it to be a book of commandment for the purpose of teaching us how to live our lives so that we may enter the kingdom of God.

This course studies the origins of Christianity by using the New Testament and other literature for historical context. The course does not use the New Testament as for theological purposes, but rather as a source for historical study.

 

[outhouse]

I do not consider the New Testament to be historically correct. I consider it to be a book of commandment for the purpose of teaching us how to live our lives so that we may enter the kingdom of God.

So listen to the lectures and learn something. It will give you the ability to place the scripture into proper context, to how and why they were written.

 

[Agnostic75]

The brilliant Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory, and he would have disagreed with your approach.

This is an unnecessary comment that cannot be proved.

On the contrary, I quoted things by, and about Lemaitre that prove that he would have disapproved of your approach of trying to use science to show that it is more likely that God exists than not. Here is what I posted:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

Please note:

"It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time.......yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate......."

There is no doubt that that disagrees with since you do not keep scientific beliefs and religious beliefs separate. Many Christian biologists accept common descent, and many of them, including Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, whom I have quoted, keep their religious beliefs and their scientific beliefs separate. Miller is sensibly content to claim "that" common descent is true without claiming "why" it is true.

Also, please note LeMaitre's comment that the Big Bang theory "remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question." Obviously, if the Big Bang theory, which is a scientific theory, remains entirely outside of religion, it remains entirely outside of trying to use the Big Bang theory to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

And please note that Lemaitre said:

"It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being,.......[and] for the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God."

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

That agrees with what I quoted previously by, and about Lemaitre.

Lemaitre "was not pleased with the Pope’s position" of using "Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God."

LeMaitre said:

"The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

You essentially claimed that science can show that it is more likely that the Big Bang came from nothing than not, but LeMaitre disagreed with that approach.

Sir Isaacs Newton's third law of motion. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It came into force when t=0.

How does that show that it is more likely that God exists than not?

It shows that the universe was caused to come into existence. It does not prove that it was a God, but what is does do is to make him a possibility. If it was uncaused then it is not covered by our natural laws making supernatural, which again make a God a possibility.

"A possibility" is not the issue. Rather, "more likely" is the issue since that is what you said in the opening post.

Science is not set up to show that God exists, and it is not set up to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

I have actually said that.

If science is not set up to show that it is more likely that God exists than not, then Newton's third law of motion cannot be used to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

There is no doubt Lemaitre disagreed with your approach, and he knew far more about Newton's scientific writings that you will ever know.

How are you able to say that? You do not know who I am and what my achievements are. Have you not considered that this whole paragraph is offensive?

But what I said is true. You surely do not know nearly as much about physics as LeMaitre did, and probably never will, and LeMaitre opposed people trying to use the Big Bang theory to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

What is your academic background in physics? Lemaitre had a Ph.D. in physics, and a Ph.D. in mathematics, and graduated summa cum laude in mathematics, which means with highest honors. He also had a degree in mechanical engineering, and in philosophy, and knew a lot about religion since he was a Roman Catholic. Few people have, or had the broad academic, and religious background that Lemaitre had.

Since I do not know a lot about physics, I will defer to the members of Physics Forums at Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums. Physics Forums has over 385,000 members, many of whom have a Master's degree, or a Ph.D. in science. There are a number of different kinds of forums about physics.

If you participated at Physics Forums, I doubt that you would get anywhere with your approach of trying to use the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion to show that it is more likely that God exists than not. I recommend that you make some posts there in order to show that you know a lot about physics.

If it is plausible that a God used energy to cause the Big Bang to occur, it is also plausible that naturalistic energy existed, and caused the Big Bang to occur.

Anyway, a large percentage of theists do not know enough about physics to have scientifically informed opinions about the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True

I’m glad you agree. So I’m sure I won’t see you suggesting any more that atheists feel they are not accountable for their actions.

That is true for the majority of people on this planet, however, there are groups of people who feel no remorse or guilt for their actions. There is a small minority of Atheists, who seem to seek out these forums, who fall into that category. They are militant atheists. Atheists that are obsessed about removing religion from our world and instilling their own moral standards that do not comp, y with God's Commandments.

Yes, and as I pointed out, those groups of people are sociopaths and psychopaths who make a quite a small percentage of the human population. Unless you have some kind of studies indicating that all or most of such people identify as atheists, I don’t know how you’re drawing the conclusion that you are. Anecdotal stories don’t really cut it.

Do you think it’s right for a Christian, for example, to attempt to instill their own moral standards to the world that do comply with god’s commandments? And if so, why would you find that acceptable?

Some atheists feel that religion is harmful to society, and yet, I’m not aware of many that think religion should be entirely removed from our world. Even some atheists who identify themselves as “antitheists” wouldn’t even agree with that (see Christopher Hitchens, for one).

The first sentence is spot on. It is the explanation for my hostility. I look at it like if someone is rude to me then just because I am a Christian does not mean that I cannot retaliate. I know that the Scriptures say we should turn the other cheek, but I am a sinner, I do not always choose the right. I usually never insult other posters until they draw first blood. I need to go through the thread to see if I have attacked anybody before being attacked. I do not believe that I have. You must also remember that if someone speaks politely to you, with decorum and honestly, it is almost impossible not to do the same.

As I and a number of others have pointed out to you, your OP (and a number of your other posts) comes off as quite hostile which would explain the responses you have received to it. It appears you do not view it that way, and of course you can respond in any manner you like (within forum rules) but I’m just pointing out to you where this apparent return in hostility is coming from.

I mean, I wouldn’t expect that if I walked up to someone just standing around minding their own business and punched them in the face, that they’d just sit there and take it. I would expect a similar response in return. You suggest in your OP that atheists are close-minded, mindless bigots, who employ brainwashing techniques to convert the world to atheism. How do you expect anyone to respond to that?

No, you are not rude and obnoxious. If only all posters emulated you we would have some brilliant debates. I could learn a great deal and enjoy being challenged about my religion. I do not class you a militant.

I think most other posters are not acting in a rude or obnoxious manner.

That is not my intentions, my axe to grind is with militant atheists. My daughter is a mental health consultant. She has told me that sociopaths and psychopaths are like onions, having many layers. We all suffer with it, from the most insignificant symptoms to requiring sectioning. I have debated with some real narcissistic psychopaths on these forums who are genuinely without empathy or compassion. I can categorically state that every one of them were militant atheists. They are far a few between, it is true, but you have to be vigilant and test the water before you dive in. I look for personal attacks instead of debating the topic. It is usually an indicator.

Then you should ask your sister to carry out some studies on your suggested correlation between atheism and psychopathy and ask her to demonstrate how one is caused by the other. We don’t all suffer with psychopathy and you cannot categorically state that every psychopath you’ve ever met were militant atheists, especially without any sort of psychological training or in-depth psychological analysis of the people in question.

A great deal of experience

I’m sure your experience is not in mind reading.

So you must have actually had (militant) atheists say to you that they only felt guilty of doing something they considered wrong because they got caught? I find that very hard to believe.

Agreed

Great.

Not true. You have only witness my real opinions right here. I have experience in many other field.

Well, that’s certainly what it appears you are saying when you state it the way you did:

“If an atheist tells lies on here, and they do, there is no reason for them to feel guilt, whereas, a Christian would need to recognise the sin, make restitution and then repent. We have a higher being to be accountable to.”
There is plenty of reason for an atheist (or anyone) to feel guilt when they feel they’ve don’t something wrong or immoral. To me, the moral thing to do when you’ve done such a thing is to make restitution with the actual person you have wronged. That’s how a person can be accountable for their actions.

Most do

Did you take a poll or something?

I have and I maintain my stance that I have not unduly insulted atheists.

Well I’m sorry, but I think you need to look deeper.

 

[Serenity7855]

On the contrary, I quoted things by, and about Lemaitre that prove that he would have disapproved of your approach of trying to use science to show that it is more likely that God exists than not. Here is what I posted:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

I do not get what point you are making. Georges Lemaître died in 1966, that is 48 years ago now. Science has progressed leaps and bounds since then. We live in a different world today than he lived in. I do not see the relevance of his opinions against mine. I would have far more knowledge then he had simply because I have been alive through fourty eight years of scientific progression that he hasn't.

Please note:

"It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time.......yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate......."

There is no doubt that that disagrees with your approach since you do not keep science and religious beliefs separate.

It may very well disagree with my approach. It was at least 48 years ago. He did not know what I know. Since then, we have discovered the Higgs Boson and Dark Energy and Matter.

Also, please note LeMaitre's comment that the Big Bang theory "remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question." Obviously, if the Big Bang theory, which is a scientific theory, remains entirely outside of religion, it remains entirely outside of trying to use the Big Bang theory to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

Why do you object to a scientific theory being used to validate the possibility of the big bang being caused by a God. That is narrow mindedness and has an effect of stunting progression. Why would you consider the stifling of truth with the effect of preventing it to be published. If science can do anything to substantiate the supernatural, then why do you object. I do not blame LeMaitre's, as he knew no different, you do.

And please note that Lemaitre said:

"It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being,.......[and] for the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God."

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

Once again, I realise that you have invested a great deal of admiration for this character, however, it is old news compared to today's papers.

"The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

Well, I have to disagree. The Standard Cosmological Mode is a scientific model. It determined the age of the universe an how it came into being. The whole concept of the big bang is scientific. It, therefore, is essential for science to settle it.

You essentially claimed that science can show that it is more likely that the Big Bang came from nothing than not, but LeMaitre disagreed with that approach.

I initially stated that the big bang had a causation and that causation could be a God. Since then I have learned that it is impossible for our natural laws to exist before the big bang, because there is no time, space, matter or energy. So if it were a cause it would have to occur at the exact same time as the big bang, at t=0. That is a perfectly feasible possibility. I then was questioned as to why it could not have been uncaused, a perfectly reasonable postulation. However, it changes nothing as if it was uncaused then it is outside of our natural laws and therefore supernatural. It could easily be a God that is responsible for that supernatural event. That means that I did not initially claimed that the universe came from nothing, as you have said.

"A possibility" is not the issue. Rather, "more likely" is the issue since that is what you said in the opening post.

I do not mind you holding to the OP in this case because I still maintain it is true, however, these forums are used to gain knowledge as well as to impart knowledge. If I decided that a posters opinion was right and mine was wrong, then I would change my opinion, so, you cannot always hold a person to the OP as he maybe wrong and you cannot edit the OP.

Secondly, the big bang is one of a number of circumstantial evidences that make up the existences for God more likely then not. We have never left the first premise to investigate the rest of them

If science is not set up to show that it is more likely that God exists than not, then Newton's third law of motion cannot be used to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

Why not?

But what I said is true. You surely do not know nearly as much about physics as LeMaitre did, and probably never will, and LeMaitre opposed people trying to use the Big Bang theory to show that it is more likely that God exists than not.

I am know, I have been alive for nearly a half a century longer then him. It is a distinct possibility. It is, of course, his perogative to believe whatever he likes.

What is your academic background in physics?

I have a Higher National Diploma in Building Services, a 2.1 Honours Degree in Environmental Engineering, and a Doctorate in the Egress of Particulates into the Lower Respitory Track.

Since I do not know a lot about physics, I will defer to the members of Physics Forums at Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums. Physics Forums has over 385,000 members, many of whom have a Master's degree, or a Ph.D. in science. There are a number of different kinds of forums about physics.

If I wanted to debate physics then I would, but I don't

If you participated at Physics Forums, I doubt that you would get anywhere with your approach of trying to use the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion to show that it is more likely that God exists than not. I recommend that you make some posts there in order to show that you know a lot about physics.

How are you able to say that when you admit not knowing much about physics, or did it provide an opportunity for you to insult me.?

Anyway, a large percentage of theists do not know enough about physics to have scientifically informed opinions about the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion.

Yet you appear to be an avid fan of George LeMaitre's, a Christian?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would not agree with that. Science is proactive in discrediting religion. One of the main focus's of the research into abiogenesis is to discredit religions claim for a creation.

I'm sure you've got evidence to back up this claim, right?