Does God (Christian) exist (Try No.2)

[Dyakovo]

"You shall have no other gods before me."
I wouldn't construct that a no other gods.

Maybe he didn't want to have other gods stand before him in the line. That those other gods should have stood behind him.

Can you blame him? I mean, who honestly enjoys being stuck in a queue?

[Herargon]

I'm waiting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
Http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml

Excuse me for this offtopic comment, but I actually like that 'flag' of you.

Also, those sources are true, indeed.

[Distruzionopolis]

Now I'm debating with a fellow Christian here.

I never knew of an issue where Protestants removed the Apocrypha because they reinforced the idea of a physical church. There's a reason why they are called "Apocrypha" and why the term "apocryphal" originated from the said name, the Apocrypha was long written after the New Testament and so was not considered a part of the Canon. Some Church Fathers though respected the Apocrypha but considered it lesser than the New Testament Canon.

Lesser than the authority of the Gospels does not mean extra-canonical scripture. They are part of the Canon. They were removed because certain "authorities" considered them contrary to their "authority."

Consider wiki.

Until the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had never officially drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. Doing so had not been considered necessary because the authority of the Scriptures was not considered to be much higher than that of Sacred Tradition, papal bulls, and ecumenical councils. Rejecting these, Luther and other reformers focused on the Protestant doctrine of the Five solas.

It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone (the doctrine of sola scriptura) that it became necessary to establish a definitive canon which would include a decision on the 'disputed books'.

Martin Luther[edit]
Main article: Luther's canon
Martin Luther was troubled by four books, the Antilegomena: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. He did propose removing them from the canon,[101][102] echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[103][104]

Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[105] Luther also struggled with the Book of Esther in the Old Testament, so did the rabbis at various times. To this writing he applied the test: "Does it urge Christ? Yes, because it tells the story of the survival of the people from whom Christ came."

[Farnhamia]

Some things mentioned in the Bible have been verified, yes. Other things have not, for instance, the Exodus from Egypt. There is no evidence that Israel as a nation was ever enslaved in Egypt and escaped from there. All the archaeological evidence points to Israel having developed in place in the Judaean hills and being more or less Canaanite in culture.

There is respectable evidence of the Exodus. One reason could be is that the Egyptian chronology we have is inaccurate. The accounts given by contemporary historians of the day are blurry giving us an unreliable account so we can't figure when did the Exodus happened.

But, there is evidence.

First, we have evidence of Hebrew slaves.

In the traditional chronology, the Egyptian oppression of Hebrew slaves would have occurred in the 18th dynasty. The problem is there is little to no historical evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt at this time. However, when placed in the 12th dynasty under a revised chronology, there is substantial evidence for Israelite slave laborers in Egypt.

Dr Rosalie David, in charge of the Egyptian department of the Manchester Museum, writes about Semitic slavery in Kahun during the second half of the 12th dynasty:

It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.

The construction of mud pyramids by slaves as implied in the Book of Exodus:

Dr Rosalie David also writes about the slave presence at Gurob, Egypt:

The scattered documentation gives no clear answer as to how or why the Asiatics came to Egypt in the Middle Kingdom…There is nevertheless firm literary evidence that Asiatic slaves, women and children were at Gurob.16
Another piece of circumstantial evidence that supports the biblical account is the existence of pyramids built with mud bricks and straw during this dynasty. Amenemhet III, a pharaoh whose statues are sour-faced and cruel-looking in appearance, was likely the Pharaoh who answered the complaining Hebrew supervisors, ‘You shall no longer give the people straw to make brick as before Let them go and gather straw for themselves (Exodus 5:7).’

And some events in Exodus:

Another tantalizing piece of circumstantial evidence was the discovery of boxes beneath the floors of houses excavated in Kahun. Sir Flinders Petrie excavated a number of these boxes which contained the skeletons of babies up to three months old, sometimes up to three in a box.17 It is plausible that these baby skeletons are the bones of Hebrew babies killed by Pharaoh’s direct orders in an attempt to limit their population (Exodus 1:16). However, one particular baby boy would escape Pharaoh’s death sentence and change the course of Hebrew history.

http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

A creationist site to prove that the Bible is accurate? Seriously?

[Herargon]

Maybe he didn't want to have other gods stand before him in the line. That those other gods should have stood behind him.

Can you blame him? I mean, who honestly enjoys being stuck in a queue?

Yeah, he would've said ''Come on, let's go. We're nearly late and otherwise Mother Theia will be angry''. Completely understandable.

[Ozya]

Accept Je-

Oh wait, you're an atheist.

I'm a scientist. Provide evidence of "God" and I won't have to believe because it will be as real as a Hydrogen atom. Don't provide evidence and I'll continue knowing "God" doesn't exist.

How do you know Hydrogen atoms are real?

[Distruzionopolis]

Accept Je-

Oh wait, you're an atheist.

I'm a scientist. Provide evidence of "God" and I won't have to believe because it will be as real as a Hydrogen atom. Don't provide evidence and I'll continue knowing "God" doesn't exist.

Again, if we're trying to prove the existence of God through falsifiable physical evidence then we might as well be discussing firetrucks. The one has no relation to the other.

God's existence must be deduced - not "proven."

[Herargon]

There is respectable evidence of the Exodus. One reason could be is that the Egyptian chronology we have is inaccurate. The accounts given by contemporary historians of the day are blurry giving us an unreliable account so we can't figure when did the Exodus happened.

But, there is evidence.

First, we have evidence of Hebrew slaves.



The construction of mud pyramids by slaves as implied in the Book of Exodus:



And some events in Exodus:



http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

A creationist site to prove that the Bible is accurate? Seriously?

9 posts till you have 75K posts. I'd already say, congratulations.

[Dyakovo]

It actually doesn't... It pretty clearly acknowledges that there are other gods, it just admonishes you to have Yahweh as your primary deity.

Well that's just silly. Why would the church then kill the followers of other gods?

Considering people's willingness to kill others because they're worshipping the same god in the "wrong" way, I'd say that question answers itself...

[Calisu]

There is respectable evidence of the Exodus. One reason could be is that the Egyptian chronology we have is inaccurate. The accounts given by contemporary historians of the day are blurry giving us an unreliable account so we can't figure when did the Exodus happened.

But, there is evidence.

First, we have evidence of Hebrew slaves.



The construction of mud pyramids by slaves as implied in the Book of Exodus:



And some events in Exodus:



http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match

A creationist site to prove that the Bible is accurate? Seriously?

Hey any chance you can do something about Ozya?

[Herargon]

I'm a scientist. Provide evidence of "God" and I won't have to believe because it will be as real as a Hydrogen atom. Don't provide evidence and I'll continue knowing "God" doesn't exist.

Again, if we're trying to prove the existence of God through falsifiable physical evidence then we might as well be discussing firetrucks. The one has no relation to the other.

God's existence must be deduced - not "proven."

Proven is not falsifiable. Deducing it - that's falsifiable.

[Calisu]

I'm a scientist. Provide evidence of "God" and I won't have to believe because it will be as real as a Hydrogen atom. Don't provide evidence and I'll continue knowing "God" doesn't exist.

Again, if we're trying to prove the existence of God through falsifiable physical evidence then we might as well be discussing firetrucks. The one has no relation to the other.

God's existence must be deduced - not "proven."

Firetrucks exist there is evidence. If there is not evidence of "God" then he doesn't exist.

Ideas are not real.

[Rajulamastan]

It depends. "God" isn't an exclusively Christian concept. I do believe there's some sort of higher power, but the interpretations of it are numerous, and one isn't more valid than the other. Personally, I don't need organized religion prompting me to "do good" or whatever. I try to do good because I like to be a decent human being. If "non-believers" are going to "hell" for that, well... That just doesn't make much sense.

Please provide evidence of a higher power.

That's the thing. I have no evidence. No one I know has walked on water, or made wine out of water (although that would be nice), or any other number of "miracles." Not even sure if that's the correct terminology for such things. I just have a personal belief that there is some sort of higher power. I honestly don't care if other people agree or not. Maybe it's human nature to want to have something (somebody) to look up to or follow or whatever. Who knows.

[Farnhamia]

A creationist site to prove that the Bible is accurate? Seriously?

Hey any chance you can do something about Ozya?

This is an inappropriate place for that question. You're not bashful, if you think he's breaking the rules somehow, go report him. I can't take any action because I've been more than a little active here.

[Distruzionopolis]

Again, if we're trying to prove the existence of God through falsifiable physical evidence then we might as well be discussing firetrucks. The one has no relation to the other.

God's existence must be deduced - not "proven."

Firetrucks exist there is evidence. If there is not evidence of "God" then he doesn't exist.

Ideas are not real.

*nods*

Fair enough then.

[The Rich Port]

I'm a scientist. Provide evidence of "God" and I won't have to believe because it will be as real as a Hydrogen atom. Don't provide evidence and I'll continue knowing "God" doesn't exist.

Again, if we're trying to prove the existence of God through falsifiable physical evidence then we might as well be discussing firetrucks. The one has no relation to the other.

God's existence must be deduced - not "proven."

Speaking of deduction, Dear Watson, however unlikely it may seem to you, it appears most logical that God doesn't exist, as it is the only conclusion that is supported by the evidence, or rather the lack thereof.

[Dyakovo]

It depends. "God" isn't an exclusively Christian concept. I do believe there's some sort of higher power, but the interpretations of it are numerous, and one isn't more valid than the other. Personally, I don't need organized religion prompting me to "do good" or whatever. I try to do good because I like to be a decent human being. If "non-believers" are going to "hell" for that, well... That just doesn't make much sense.

Please provide evidence of a higher power.

[Distruzionopolis]

Again, if we're trying to prove the existence of God through falsifiable physical evidence then we might as well be discussing firetrucks. The one has no relation to the other.

God's existence must be deduced - not "proven."

Speaking of deduction, Dear Watson, however unlikely it may seem to you, it appears most logical that God doesn't exist, as it is the only conclusion that is supported by the evidence, or rather the lack thereof.

That doesn't counter my comment. It, rather, reinforces it. You derive a conclusion separate from my own.

[WestRedMaple]

The part where you try and use lack of evidence as evidence of lack

When there isn't evidence for something the default position should be "it doesn't exist." If evidence comes along, you can reconsider.

There is quite a difference between 'I have no reason to believe this exists' and 'I know this does not exist'

The default position is always lack of knowledge

[Herargon]

And the discussion nearly died out, instantly.

[WestRedMaple]

The part where you try and use lack of evidence as evidence of lack

Well... No...
Lack of evidence is evidence of lack... What it isn't is proof…

Not really. You lack any evidence that I own a Mazda. That is not evidence that I do not own a Mazda

[Distruzionopolis]

And the discussion nearly died out, instantly.

Is 33 pages instant?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

We can test the validity of the holy books of the worshippers though. The Four Evangelists, Matthew and John are eyewitnesses and there are multiple even secular accounts of Jesus.

What can you test? That the Roman Empire existed and controlled Judea at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived? No one's disputing that. That the Gospels get the general environment of Jesus' ministry correct? No one's disputing that. Miracles and rising from the dead, now, those are different things.

It is not certain that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple of that name. The book itself has no author's name in it, and "Matthew" was only added in the century after it was written. The Gospel of John says it was composed from testimony of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but doesn't name him. The identification of the author of that gospel with the disciple John originates more than half a century after Jesus' death. And again, all the writings about Jesus come directly from his followers or from non-Christians writing about Christians and what they believed. There are no documents saying "On the 7th day before the Kalends of October a man called Iesus, from Nazareth in the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas was arraigned before the Procurator Pontius Pilatus ..."

Look, believe what you like but don't tell me there is scientific evidence for it when there isn't.

Just because the miracles and the resurrection seem so odd dosen't mean they can be true.

The authorship of the Gospels are well-established fact.

Matthew did wrote Matthew-http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
And John did wrote John- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.php
There is well established evidence that the Matthew and John was indeed authored by the authors with the same names.

But, the amount of secular sources testifying Jesus is noteworthy, 4 sources, of course from the Bible and several secular sources. There is actually no doubt among modern scholars that Jesus existed.

[Herargon]

And the discussion nearly died out, instantly.

Is 33 pages instant?

Actually, I thought it died out because the comments came slower.

[Arkolon]

There's this very basic root of epistemology that assesses what truth and belief are, and how they compare and comprise that which we consider knowledge. We have a Venn diagram of Truth, ie all things that are true in the world and beyond, and of Belief, or Faith, ie all things that we believe without necessary truth. Where these two circles intersect, however, is Knowledge, ie things that we believe to be true (things we know). Graphically, it looks like this.

In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, God is mentioned to have retorted to someone who inquires about His existence that "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". God's existence is dependent on faith. If there is no faith in God, then God does not exist. If God answers the question honestly as to whether or not He exists, then we will know whether or not He exists, which no longer makes His existence something we believe in but something that we believe to be true, ie that which we know. If we know, then we have no belief (faith) in God, and as such it is impossible for Him to exist.

The reason we cannot ever know whether or not God exists, and why this debate will continue for ever, is because you cannot find proof of His existence. You cannot ever know whether or not He exists because that's what makes him God; that's what gives Him (possible) existence. God, really, lives in phase space. His existence is a possibility, and cannot ever, ever, be translated as a possibility of either 1 or 0 because that would no longer make Him a God (even if the result is in His advantage).

I find militant atheism just as ignorant as militant theism. I feel sceptic about both sides, really, and prefer to join the ranks of other agnostics when it comes to the God issue.