God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[The Venderlands]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
http://http://www.icr.org
http://www.icr.org/article/6630/

Do you have actual sources backing that up, or ones not actually published in peer reviewed papers and one you clearly didn't actually read?

I believe you are referring to the first one, of which I did intentionally post there to plant my anchor of discussion.

[Mavorpen]

Josephus was born in A.D. 37 and died 63 years later in A.D. 100. That's from Wikipedia, BTW.
Clearly, not everyone died at the age of 40. It is not unreasonable to assume Matthew and John survived, and Mark and Luke were both young when Jesus died.

Not that it matters because none of these people claimed to have been eyewitnesses.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article you cited attributes the first three Gospels to...
...Matthew, Mark, and Luke! The actual people they are claimed to be written by!

You do realize that those aren't their real names, right? They were written anonymously.

[The Venderlands]

Particles cannot be destroyed according to the Law of the Conservation of Matter.

It doesn't say this.

Obviously, matter has to of had some logical beginning, that matter cannot just pop up out of thin air.

Yes it can.

Creation ex-nihilo however says the opposite, but, then again, why do we see this small exception at the beginning of time, where a deity is absolutely necessary. Again, matter is not capable of creating itself out of thin air, where the need of a transcendent being is needed at the singularity.

Again, stop lying. I'm still waiting on the evidence published in a peer reviewed paper that substantiates this bullshit.

First of all, being a Sailor mouth is no way to win an argument. In fact, it makes you seem less educated in the arts of grammar. Second of all, I have posted multiple sources for my theories, whilst you have failed to do so. All you have been doing is bickering on how common physics aren't acceptable for you if they apply to a GOD. If you actually have any concrete evidence as to how in all creation ex-nihilo is physically possible, than please, say so.

[Excidium Planetis]

Sources please.

A great number of scholars would disagree with you.

Well, first of all, none of them claim to be. Those bits about "according to" were tacked on latter.

But sure, since you ask:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

None of them claim to be eyewitness accounts?
"... many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some times past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4, English Standard Version)

[Mavorpen]

First of all, being a Sailor mouth is no way to win an argument. In fact, it makes you seem less educated in the arts of grammar.

I get it, you don't have an argument.

Second of all, I have posted multiple sources for my theories, whilst you have failed to do so.

Yeah, and I'm waiting on you to post one I can take seriously.

All you have been doing is bickering on how common physics aren't acceptable for you if they apply to a GOD.

None of physics does such a thing so this is a weird thing to say.

If you actually have any concrete evidence as to how in all creation ex-nihilo is physically possible, than please, say so.

Have fun with actual research.

[The Venderlands]

The Law of the Conservation of Matter:

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-law ... matter.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... +of+matter
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservation+of+matter
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_ ... tter_state

[Mavorpen]

The Law of the Conservation of Matter:

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-law ... matter.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... +of+matter
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservation+of+matter
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_ ... tter_state

Yes, we get it, you don't understand the law of conservation of matter.

[Excidium Planetis]

1) Further research into that book you linked uncovers... that it argues for a historical, non-mythical Jesus!

...And? You can read. Good for you.

2) Haven't backed up as being legit? These are seriously ancient texts cited by Historians. Google search the Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger. Read their Wikipedia articles. Do some research. They actually exist.

Yes. They exist. And not a single one of them are regarded as legitimate in a consensus.

3) No sources for anything you said, you result to childish bashing of scholars with far more expertise and schooling than I believe you have,

Which makes it even more disgusting that they outright lie about what happens in the field.

and you refuse to acknowledge any of my arguments.

Stop projecting yourself onto me.

No sources... no evidence!
You have no argument, you call historical documents that historians regard as authentic illegitimate.

I'm going to ignore you until you come up with some actual arguments against my points.

You are a lousy debater, the other Atheists on here are much more intelligent (sometimes even more so than I).

[Godular]

The Law of the Conservation of Matter:

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-law ... matter.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... +of+matter
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservation+of+matter
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_ ... tter_state

Congratulations on being able to prove that you only have a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics. GG.

[Mavorpen]

No sources... no evidence!

Again, stop projecting yourself onto me.

You have no argument, you call historical documents that historians regard as authentic illegitimate.

I call them that because they are and because there's no actual consensus at all that they're authentic, even if you cite one scholar.

I'm going to ignore you until you come up with some actual arguments against my points.

Then nothing will change, because you haven't addressed a single one of my refutations.

You are a lousy debater, the other Atheists on here are much more intelligent (sometimes even more so than I).

Again, stop projecting.

[Neutraligon]

Again the general agreement is that the earliest gospel was mark and was generally agreed to be written in the latter 60s (65-70). Jesus supposedly died at around 33, so at minimum there is a 32 year difference. As I posted earlier ife expectancy once getting past infancy was about 40 years, meaning anyone old enough to have followed Jesus (lets put them in there teens) would most likely have been dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Origin

Josephus was born in A.D. 37 and died 63 years later in A.D. 100. That's from Wikipedia, BTW.
Clearly, not everyone died at the age of 40. It is not unreasonable to assume Matthew and John survived, and Mark and Luke were both young when Jesus died.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article you cited attributes the first three Gospels to...
...Matthew, Mark, and Luke! The actual people they are claimed to be written by!

Clearly Josephus was not an eyewitness. Mark is possibly the earliest. If he were in his teens at the time it was written he would have been at least in his fifties. Try to tell me the events of what happened to you 30 years ago, including actual conversations. Matthew would have been 57 at best, again an old man

And I have read it a couple of times, it says the authors were anonymous.

[The Venderlands]

First of all, being a Sailor mouth is no way to win an argument. In fact, it makes you seem less educated in the arts of grammar.

I get it, you don't have an argument.

Second of all, I have posted multiple sources for my theories, whilst you have failed to do so.

Yeah, and I'm waiting on you to post one I can take seriously.

All you have been doing is bickering on how common physics aren't acceptable for you if they apply to a GOD.

None of physics does such a thing so this is a weird thing to say.

If you actually have any concrete evidence as to how in all creation ex-nihilo is physically possible, than please, say so.

Have fun with actual research.

First of all, this theory does not apply to our discussion one bit, if were still on the same page.
I do have an argument, it's right here: http://www.icr.org/science/
Have fun discerning this: http://creationsciencetoday.com/ ; http://www.icr.org/article/6254/

And finally: I tired and am going to bed. I look forward to debating in the future.
Telegram me your responses so that I will be able to answer them at ease at dawn.

Cheers!

[Neutraligon]

...And? You can read. Good for you.

Yes. They exist. And not a single one of them are regarded as legitimate in a consensus.

Which makes it even more disgusting that they outright lie about what happens in the field.

Stop projecting yourself onto me.

No sources... no evidence!
You have no argument, you call historical documents that historians regard as authentic illegitimate.

I'm going to ignore you until you come up with some actual arguments against my points.

You are a lousy debater, the other Atheists on here are much more intelligent (sometimes even more so than I).

Do not attack the poster that is not allowed on this site.

[Excidium Planetis]

Josephus was born in A.D. 37 and died 63 years later in A.D. 100. That's from Wikipedia, BTW.
Clearly, not everyone died at the age of 40. It is not unreasonable to assume Matthew and John survived, and Mark and Luke were both young when Jesus died.

Not that it matters because none of these people claimed to have been eyewitnesses.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article you cited attributes the first three Gospels to...
...Matthew, Mark, and Luke! The actual people they are claimed to be written by!

You do realize that those aren't their real names, right? They were written anonymously.

They were written anonymously. But there is literally no one else who claimed to have written them, it was nearly unanimous in the Early Church that those were the ones who wrote them. Among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the people they are attributed to is unexpected: Luke and Mark probably wouldn't be known to most Christians had they not written the Gospels, as they were unimportant. And Matthew is not only not a very important disciple, he was a tax collector!

Secondly, Luke explicitly claims that his account is based on eyewitness testimony!

[Mavorpen]

First of all, this theory does not apply to our discussion one bit, if were still on the same page.

What are you talking about?

I do have an argument, it's right here: http://www.icr.org/science/
Have fun discerning this: http://creationsciencetoday.com/ ; http://www.icr.org/article/6254/

I'll continue to wait for you to find sources I can take seriously.

[Godular]

I get it, you don't have an argument.

Yeah, and I'm waiting on you to post one I can take seriously.

None of physics does such a thing so this is a weird thing to say.

Have fun with actual research.

First of all, this theory does not apply to our discussion one bit, if were still on the same page.
I do have an argument, it's right here: http://www.icr.org/science/
Have fun discerning this: http://creationsciencetoday.com/ ; http://www.icr.org/article/6254/

And finally: I tired and am going to bed. I look forward to debating in the future.
Telegram me your responses so that I will be able to answer them at ease at dawn.

Cheers!

Anything with 'creation' in the link wields about as much scientific veracity as a pile of moose dung... wait... less. The presence of moose dung is scientifically verifiable. Hmm... what would be a better turn of phrase...

Ah! Less scientific veracity than a swarm of clowns waving pictures of the Piltdown man around!

[Neutraligon]

Not that it matters because none of these people claimed to have been eyewitnesses.

You do realize that those aren't their real names, right? They were written anonymously.

They were written anonymously. But there is literally no one else who claimed to have written them, it was nearly unanimous in the Early Church that those were the ones who wrote them. Among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the people they are attributed to is unexpected: Luke and Mark probably wouldn't be known to most Christians had they not written the Gospels, as they were unimportant. And Matthew is not only not a very important disciple, he was a tax collector!

Secondly, Luke explicitly claims that his account is based on eyewitness testimony!

Of course no one claimed to have written them? Why would they? Mark Matthew etc did not claim to write them either. The early church is often wrong...and?

"There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus.[87] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[88]

According to tradition the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.[89] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.[90]"

[Mavorpen]

They were written anonymously. But there is literally no one else who claimed to have written them, it was nearly unanimous in the Early Church that those were the ones who wrote them.

Yeah, you don't understand what's being said. There were no people with those names who wrote those. The early church didn't "confirm" anything. They just tacked on names to them.

Among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the people they are attributed to is unexpected: Luke and Mark probably wouldn't be known to most Christians had they not written the Gospels, as they were unimportant. And Matthew is not only not a very important disciple, he was a tax collector!

And none of these people actually existed.

Secondly, Luke explicitly claims that his account is based on eyewitness testimony!

Yeah. Too bad eyewitness testimony is unreliable and this isn't backed up by any non-Christian sources.

[Excidium Planetis]

Josephus was born in A.D. 37 and died 63 years later in A.D. 100. That's from Wikipedia, BTW.
Clearly, not everyone died at the age of 40. It is not unreasonable to assume Matthew and John survived, and Mark and Luke were both young when Jesus died.

Additionally, the Wikipedia article you cited attributes the first three Gospels to...
...Matthew, Mark, and Luke! The actual people they are claimed to be written by!

Clearly Josephus was not an eyewitness. Mark is possibly the earliest. If he were in his teens at the time it was written he would have been at least in his fifties. Try to tell me the events of what happened to you 30 years ago, including actual conversations. Matthew would have been 57 at best, again an old man

And I have read it a couple of times, it says the authors were anonymous.

Many people recount conversations from 30 years ago. It's called an autobiography. Perhaps you've heard of one? I can't recall conversations from 30 years ago because I didn't exist 30 years ago.

What is wrong with old men writing their accounts?

Additionally, these were seriously significant events. Ask old veterans about their experiences. They can recall the names of their companions, what battles they fought in, if and how their comrades died, and things they said in combat. All fairly accurately.

[Excidium Planetis]

They were written anonymously. But there is literally no one else who claimed to have written them, it was nearly unanimous in the Early Church that those were the ones who wrote them.

Yeah, you don't understand what's being said. There were no people with those names who wrote those. The early church didn't "confirm" anything. They just tacked on names to them.

Among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the people they are attributed to is unexpected: Luke and Mark probably wouldn't be known to most Christians had they not written the Gospels, as they were unimportant. And Matthew is not only not a very important disciple, he was a tax collector!

And none of these people actually existed.

Secondly, Luke explicitly claims that his account is based on eyewitness testimony!

Yeah. Too bad eyewitness testimony is unreliable and this isn't backed up by any non-Christian sources.

You have no sources.

And I did back up those accounts with non-biblical sources. I don't need to repeat them, it's all there in the posts.

[Neutraligon]

Clearly Josephus was not an eyewitness. Mark is possibly the earliest. If he were in his teens at the time it was written he would have been at least in his fifties. Try to tell me the events of what happened to you 30 years ago, including actual conversations. Matthew would have been 57 at best, again an old man

And I have read it a couple of times, it says the authors were anonymous.

Many people recount conversations from 30 years ago. It's called an autobiography. Perhaps you've heard of one? I can't recall conversations from 30 years ago because I didn't exist 30 years ago.

What is wrong with old men writing their accounts?

Additionally, these were seriously significant events. Ask old veterans about their experiences. They can recall the names of their companions, what battles they fought in, if and how their comrades died, and things they said in combat. All fairly accurately.

Uhuh, they remember conversations exactly including long speeches...uhuh. To put it simply there is no evidence they were actually written by eyewitnesses. Second eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Third eyewitness testimony after significant periods of time is even less reliable.

You did not you used Josephus. There is one mention of Jesus which is considered authentic in it's entirety and it says James brother of Jesus called teh Christ. Since at the time of writing this history Christians would be calling him the Christ this is hardly more than a reference to the existence of Christianity at the time

[The Alma Mater]

Clearly Josephus was not an eyewitness. Mark is possibly the earliest. If he were in his teens at the time it was written he would have been at least in his fifties. Try to tell me the events of what happened to you 30 years ago, including actual conversations. Matthew would have been 57 at best, again an old man

And I have read it a couple of times, it says the authors were anonymous.

Many people recount conversations from 30 years ago. It's called an autobiography. Perhaps you've heard of one? I can't recall conversations from 30 years ago because I didn't exist 30 years ago.

What is wrong with old men writing their accounts?

Additionally, these were seriously significant events. Ask old veterans about their experiences. They can recall the names of their companions, what battles they fought in, if and how their comrades died, and things they said in combat. All fairly accurately.

Actually, no. The accuracy is horrible and shifting reality from "embellishment" is a lot of work.
Human memories suck.

[Mavorpen]

You have no sources.

I can't believe I have to do stuff for you that you should already know.

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Mount-Sin ... 0385232977
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Test ... 0300140169
http://www.cengage.com/search/productOv ... allpartial
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament ... 0199757534
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Tes ... 0060655186
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Test ... 0687055768

And I did back up those accounts with non-biblical sources. I don't need to repeat them, it's all there in the posts.

No you didn't.

[Excidium Planetis]

They were written anonymously. But there is literally no one else who claimed to have written them, it was nearly unanimous in the Early Church that those were the ones who wrote them. Among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the people they are attributed to is unexpected: Luke and Mark probably wouldn't be known to most Christians had they not written the Gospels, as they were unimportant. And Matthew is not only not a very important disciple, he was a tax collector!

Secondly, Luke explicitly claims that his account is based on eyewitness testimony!

Of course no one claimed to have written them? Why would they? Mark Matthew etc did not claim to write them either. The early church is often wrong...and?

"There is general acceptance that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles originated as a two-volume work by a single author addressed to an otherwise unknown individual named Theophilus.[87] This author was an "amateur Hellenistic historian" versed in Greek rhetoric, that being the standard training for historians in the ancient world.[88]

According to tradition the author was Luke the Evangelist, the companion of the Apostle Paul, but many modern scholars have expressed doubt and opinion on the subject is evenly divided.[89] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. Some of the evidence cited comes from the text of Luke-Acts itself. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages. And in the we passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural— the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". To those who are skeptical of an eyewitness author, the we passages are usually regarded as fragments of a second document, part of some earlier account, which was later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke-Acts, or simply a Greek rhetorical device used for sea voyages.[90]"

The level of scepticism is pretty high here.
Luke claims to be an eyewitness, Paul (who actually does refer to himself and whose letters were written earlier than the Gospels) claims to be an eyewitness.

Furthermore, who would have written them if not Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Why would the church attribute them to two nobodies and the second least-liked Disciple, unless those were the real authors?

[Mavorpen]

Clearly Josephus was not an eyewitness. Mark is possibly the earliest. If he were in his teens at the time it was written he would have been at least in his fifties. Try to tell me the events of what happened to you 30 years ago, including actual conversations. Matthew would have been 57 at best, again an old man

And I have read it a couple of times, it says the authors were anonymous.

Many people recount conversations from 30 years ago. It's called an autobiography. Perhaps you've heard of one? I can't recall conversations from 30 years ago because I didn't exist 30 years ago.

People don't actually do this. It's virtually impossible based on how memory works.

What is wrong with old men writing their accounts?

Additionally, these were seriously significant events. Ask old veterans about their experiences. They can recall the names of their companions, what battles they fought in, if and how their comrades died, and things they said in combat. All fairly accurately.

No they can't. Please stop lying. Memory doesn't work like this.