What would God have to do to convince YOU of His existence?

[Australian rePublic]

Dude, our entire world is based on incest. The best secularist genelogists, mathematicians, and other people who work in related fields all agree that every single person on the planet who has as little as a drop of European blood is decendant from Charlemagne. And the vast, vast majority of people would have at least a tiny bit of European blood in 'em. Considering that the vast majority of us are decendant from a man who lived 1000 years ago, and yet we're far enough apart from eachother for incest to not be a problem, then why would incest be a problem when you multiply the time period by 7? I mean, if a common ancestor dating back 1000 creates enough genetic distinction to avoid incest, then why would a common ansestor from 7000 years be an issue?

And that's if you take the story of Adam and Eve litterarly. Many Christians don't

Even if this were true (Because the same thing is commonly said about Genghis too), there were other people around the time Charlemagne lived who weren't related to him. If you take Adam and Eve literally, Adam and Eve were possibly the only humans around for a while, which means generations after generations of inbreeding among first cousins, siblings, etc. The two aren't even remotely similar.

Actually, only 5% of the world's population is decendant from Ghengis Khan. Meanwhile, Europe, alone has 12% of the world's population. And that excludes decendants of Europeans living in the new world. Your point Adam and Eve is fair, but don't foget how much inbreeding there was amongst the European monarchs of the time

[The Blaatschapen]

The idea that Europeans are descended from Charlemagne is not because of a first child of a monarch, but rather their third or fourth marrying a lesser noble, and then their third+ kid marrying a wealthy merchant, and then that going down to peasants, etc.

So the inbreeding was more among firstborns marrying cousins. Which is kind of tricky.

Once you get past that, eh, from a genetics point of view, it gets less important.

[Australian rePublic]

The idea that Europeans are descended from Charlemagne is not because of a first child of a monarch, but rather their third or fourth marrying a lesser noble, and then their third+ kid marrying a wealthy merchant, and then that going down to peasants, etc.

So the inbreeding was more among firstborns marrying cousins. Which is kind of tricky.

Once you get past that, eh, from a genetics point of view, it gets less important.

Fair enough

[Kowani]

If those Theologians with literal PHDs believe that the stories of Bible happened, they indeed are believing stories only a child under 5 could believe.

Actually if you were a dedicated theologian, younwould have to have multiple degrees. You would need to speak Ancient Hebrew, and Ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Not one of these languages, all of these languages. Not just the alphabet, grammar, etc. You'd also have to learn idioms, etc. in order to determin figures of speech. And you can't just travel and speak with the natives, because the dialects that the Bible was written in died out centuries ago. You also have to be an expert in Middle Eastern history, in order to understand the historical context, and you have to make use of other supporting documents, etc.

I've dabbled in English language theology, and it's a very difficult discipline. (And this is from someone who came in the top 5 in my entire grade for my Bachelor's degree, albeit a small class. Most of my marks were credits, distinctions and high distinctions. So I am a goodish academic). And dablong, I've dangled my feet in the kiddie section. With theology, you have to try to determine the answers to questions which are never answered anywhere. And my dabbling was limited to the English language. I could only imagine how much harder it would be in Koine Greek, or Biblical Hebrew, or Ancient Aramaic.

At this point, you would have to either be ignorant or dishonest to accuse a theologian of unintelligence.

Ya’ know, phrenology used to be a respected field.

[Australian rePublic]

Actually if you were a dedicated theologian, younwould have to have multiple degrees. You would need to speak Ancient Hebrew, and Ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Not one of these languages, all of these languages. Not just the alphabet, grammar, etc. You'd also have to learn idioms, etc. in order to determin figures of speech. And you can't just travel and speak with the natives, because the dialects that the Bible was written in died out centuries ago. You also have to be an expert in Middle Eastern history, in order to understand the historical context, and you have to make use of other supporting documents, etc.

I've dabbled in English language theology, and it's a very difficult discipline. (And this is from someone who came in the top 5 in my entire grade for my Bachelor's degree, albeit a small class. Most of my marks were credits, distinctions and high distinctions. So I am a goodish academic). And dablong, I've dangled my feet in the kiddie section. With theology, you have to try to determine the answers to questions which are never answered anywhere. And my dabbling was limited to the English language. I could only imagine how much harder it would be in Koine Greek, or Biblical Hebrew, or Ancient Aramaic.

At this point, you would have to either be ignorant or dishonest to accuse a theologian of unintelligence.

Ya’ know, phrenology used to be a respected field.

Did it require you to learn three different, dead languages, as well as history, as well other disciplines indipendantly to it? Also, wasn't blood letting still a thing back then. Also, also, everything I've fo u nd said that it was never subjected to rigerous tests

[North German Realm]

If those Theologians with literal PHDs believe that the stories of Bible happened, they indeed are believing stories only a child under 5 could believe.

Actually if you were a dedicated theologian, younwould have to have multiple degrees. You would need to speak Ancient Hebrew, and Ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Not one of these languages, all of these languages. Not just the alphabet, grammar, etc. You'd also have to learn idioms, etc. in order to determin figures of speech. And you can't just travel and speak with the natives, because the dialects that the Bible was written in died out centuries ago. You also have to be an expert in Middle Eastern history, in order to understand the historical context, and you have to make use of other supporting documents, etc.

I've dabbled in English language theology, and it's a very difficult discipline. (And this is from someone who came in the top 5 in my entire grade for my Bachelor's degree, albeit a small class. Most of my marks were credits, distinctions and high distinctions. So I am a goodish academic). And dablong, I've dangled my feet in the kiddie section. With theology, you have to try to determine the answers to questions which are never answered anywhere. And my dabbling was limited to the English language. I could only imagine how much harder it would be in Koine Greek, or Biblical Hebrew, or Ancient Aramaic.

At this point, you would have to either be ignorant or dishonest to accuse a theologian of unintelligence.

The fact they believe that all Bible Stories actually and historically happened alone proves they are either intellectually dishonest or lack intelligence.

[North German Realm]

Even if this were true (Because the same thing is commonly said about Genghis too), there were other people around the time Charlemagne lived who weren't related to him. If you take Adam and Eve literally, Adam and Eve were possibly the only humans around for a while, which means generations after generations of inbreeding among first cousins, siblings, etc. The two aren't even remotely similar.

Actually, only 5% of the world's population is decendant from Ghengis Khan. Meanwhile, Europe, alone has 12% of the world's population. And that excludes decendants of Europeans living in the new world. Your point Adam and Eve is fair, but don't foget how much inbreeding there was amongst the European monarchs of the time

You're still not getting it. Even if every single European dynasty committed to marrying brothers to sisters and children to parents for entire millennia, the only "gene pool" they'd fuck up would be their own (and anyone unlucky enough to be descended from them), not everyone in the world. By Bibilical narrative, Adam and Eve were literally the first humans two humans in the world.

[Satuga]

Dude, our entire world is based on incest. The best secularist genelogists, mathematicians, and other people who work in related fields all agree that every single person on the planet who has as little as a drop of European blood is decendant from Charlemagne. And the vast, vast majority of people would have at least a tiny bit of European blood in 'em. Considering that the vast majority of us are decendant from a man who lived 1000 years ago, and yet we're far enough apart from eachother for incest to not be a problem, then why would incest be a problem when you multiply the time period by 7? I mean, if a common ancestor dating back 1000 creates enough genetic distinction to avoid incest, then why would a common ansestor from 7000 years be an issue?

And that's if you take the story of Adam and Eve litterarly. Many Christians don't

Could you prove a link, because I'm not exactly familiar with Charlemagne but from what I can see is he is the "Father of Europe" or the first king of Europe. However that by no way means that every single one of the descendants from Europe are from him. There are likely many, many women who he slept with that passed down his genes, however I highly doubt all of Europe is a descendant from him as it's quite likely that other families moved into europe as well. Also I'm kinda stuck sitting here wondering how the hell that has to correlate with Adam and Eve being forced to have sex with their children, or the children having sex with each other.

[Dogmeat]

Dude, our entire world is based on incest. The best secularist genelogists, mathematicians, and other people who work in related fields all agree that every single person on the planet who has as little as a drop of European blood is decendant from Charlemagne. And the vast, vast majority of people would have at least a tiny bit of European blood in 'em. Considering that the vast majority of us are decendant from a man who lived 1000 years ago, and yet we're far enough apart from eachother for incest to not be a problem, then why would incest be a problem when you multiply the time period by 7? I mean, if a common ancestor dating back 1000 creates enough genetic distinction to avoid incest, then why would a common ansestor from 7000 years be an issue?

And that's if you take the story of Adam and Eve litterarly. Many Christians don't

Could you prove a link, because I'm not exactly familiar with Charlemagne but from what I can see is he is the "Father of Europe" or the first king of Europe. However that by no way means that every single one of the descendants from Europe are from him. There are likely many, many women who he slept with that passed down his genes, however I highly doubt all of Europe is a descendant from him as it's quite likely that other families moved into europe as well. Also I'm kinda stuck sitting here wondering how the hell that has to correlate with Adam and Eve being forced to have sex with their children, or the children having sex with each other.

Australian fundamentally misunderstands the Charlemagne thing.

It's nothing to do with any inbreeding, it's just that the number of ancestors you have increases exponentially with every generation. Which makes it increasingly likely that "x" person is one of your ancestors the further back you go. By the time you get to Charlemagne, it nearly a mathematical certainty if you're European.

But since that's only like 1/140,000th of your ancestry, it's very unlikely that you carry a single chromosome, or even carry a single gene from Charlemagne. No inbreeding required.

[The Blaatschapen]

Could you prove a link, because I'm not exactly familiar with Charlemagne but from what I can see is he is the "Father of Europe" or the first king of Europe. However that by no way means that every single one of the descendants from Europe are from him. There are likely many, many women who he slept with that passed down his genes, however I highly doubt all of Europe is a descendant from him as it's quite likely that other families moved into europe as well. Also I'm kinda stuck sitting here wondering how the hell that has to correlate with Adam and Eve being forced to have sex with their children, or the children having sex with each other.

Australian fundamentally misunderstands the Charlemagne thing.

It's nothing to do with any inbreeding, it's just that the number of ancestors you have increases exponentially with every generation. Which makes it increasingly likely that "x" person is one of your ancestors the further back you go. By the time you get to Charlemagne, it nearly a mathematical certainty if you're European.

But since that's only like 1/140,000th of your ancestry, it's very unlikely that you carry a single chromosome, or even carry a single gene from Charlemagne. No inbreeding required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Uce4fG4R0

This video gives some insights into the how and why of the argument.

Which, btw, is quite offtopic.

[Purpelia]

After giving this some thought I honestly say nothing. There is nothing he could do. Because if there really was an omnipotent omnipresent deity out there his existence should be self evident. The fact it isn't and he has to actually act to prove him self shows he isn't what his definition says he should be.

As if the people were aware that they were in the Matrix

That's the point. An all knowing all present all powerful god would be like the matrix. His very existence would be inextricably woven into the very fabric of reality so as to make it undeniable by any meaningful argument made by a sane individual.

Story of Adam and Eve, if this frankly insane story were true, then our entire world would be based upon incest, which if doctors haven't told isn't exactly a good thing for the health of a person.

On the other hand it would explain why humans suck so much.

How come there's so much incest within these books?

My guess is the authors had some unresolved sister issues. That or humans suck. Take your pick.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

1) We can detect that the majority of Europeans are related to Charlemagne (related≠product of incest between his many children), but afaik there is no evidence that a genetic bottleneck proofing the theory hypothesis of Adam and Eve exist.

2) The only way around this is to not take the bible literally, which is super fine as
a) it make us prioritize science science over bible 'science' ,
b) reinterpreting the bible (or any other holy book) gives way for liberal and good interpretations by interest groups (such as the JIL in my country that have been trying to reinterpret the Quran to legalize LGBT)

3) Regarding Christianity (and other religions, really), there are two possibilities for the Holy Book:
a) It's divinely created/inspired
b) It's a human product

Maybe this is biased (as my old Holy Book claimed scientific supremacy), but sceptics needs good reason if they are to believe that the Holy Book is a divine product instead of human product. The fact that Adam and Eve, Noah, enslavement of Jews in ancient egypt is apparently the same level as Cinderalla doesn't help.

[Australian rePublic]

Could you prove a link, because I'm not exactly familiar with Charlemagne but from what I can see is he is the "Father of Europe" or the first king of Europe. However that by no way means that every single one of the descendants from Europe are from him. There are likely many, many women who he slept with that passed down his genes, however I highly doubt all of Europe is a descendant from him as it's quite likely that other families moved into europe as well. Also I'm kinda stuck sitting here wondering how the hell that has to correlate with Adam and Eve being forced to have sex with their children, or the children having sex with each other.

Australian fundamentally misunderstands the Charlemagne thing.

It's nothing to do with any inbreeding, it's just that the number of ancestors you have increases exponentially with every generation. Which makes it increasingly likely that "x" person is one of your ancestors the further back you go. By the time you get to Charlemagne, it nearly a mathematical certainty if you're European.

But since that's only like 1/140,000th of your ancestry, it's very unlikely that you carry a single chromosome, or even carry a single gene from Charlemagne. No inbreeding required.

I already admited that I was wrong. Can we please be wrong

[Australian rePublic]

1) We can detect that the majority of Europeans are related to Charlemagne (related≠product of incest between his many children), but afaik there is no evidence that a genetic bottleneck proofing the theory hypothesis of Adam and Eve exist.

2) The only way around this is to not take the bible literally, which is super fine as
a) it make us prioritize science science over bible 'science' ,
b) reinterpreting the bible (or any other holy book) gives way for liberal and good interpretations by interest groups (such as the JIL in my country that have been trying to reinterpret the Quran to legalize LGBT)

3) Regarding Christianity (and other religions, really), there are two possibilities for the Holy Book:
a) It's divinely created/inspired
b) It's a human product

Maybe this is biased (as my old Holy Book claimed scientific supremacy), but sceptics needs good reason if they are to believe that the Holy Book is a divine product instead of human product. The fact that Adam and Eve, Noah, enslavement of Jews in ancient egypt is apparently the same level as Cinderalla doesn't help.

There isn't a Biblical scholar who thinks that the Bible was written by God. I think you're confusing the Bible with the Quran, which Muslims believe was the direct written word of God

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

1) We can detect that the majority of Europeans are related to Charlemagne (related≠product of incest between his many children), but afaik there is no evidence that a genetic bottleneck proofing the theory hypothesis of Adam and Eve exist.

2) The only way around this is to not take the bible literally, which is super fine as
a) it make us prioritize science science over bible 'science' ,
b) reinterpreting the bible (or any other holy book) gives way for liberal and good interpretations by interest groups (such as the JIL in my country that have been trying to reinterpret the Quran to legalize LGBT)

3) Regarding Christianity (and other religions, really), there are two possibilities for the Holy Book:
a) It's divinely created/inspired
b) It's a human product

Maybe this is biased (as my old Holy Book claimed scientific supremacy), but sceptics needs good reason if they are to believe that the Holy Book is a divine product instead of human product. The fact that Adam and Eve, Noah, enslavement of Jews in ancient egypt is apparently the same level as Cinderalla doesn't help.

There isn't a Biblical scholar who thinks that the Bible was written by God. I think you're confusing the Bible with the Quran, which Muslims believe was the direct written word of God

Skeptics still needs a good reason why the bible is divinely inspired instead of a full human product

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

There isn't a Biblical scholar who thinks that the Bible was written by God. I think you're confusing the Bible with the Quran, which Muslims believe was the direct written word of God

Skeptics still needs a good reason why the bible is divinely inspired instead of a full human product

See, this is the thing that drove me to my present (non)belief. As I find more and more scientific discrepancies in my Holy Book, regarding astronomy and geology, I'm left with some possible conclusions:

1. The author of the Holy Book thinks the world is flat, surrounded by a firmament dome

2. I misunderstood the poetic (and suspiciously geocentric/platist relevant) verses and the scholarly interpretations (despite their function of settling things like this)

3. The Messenger would be bullied if he says the world is round, so the Holy Book doesn't specify (despite strong evidence suggest they are suggesting the opposite, i.e flat)

Through occam's razor, I find conclusion 1) most satisfying and explaining, and from there I became very open minded to further and further information.

The same IMO should be applied to the question of whether your Holy Book is divinely inspired or 100% human creation.

[Dytarma]

Honestly, bringing my father back would change me in an instant.

[Australian rePublic]

Actually, only 5% of the world's population is decendant from Ghengis Khan. Meanwhile, Europe, alone has 12% of the world's population. And that excludes decendants of Europeans living in the new world. Your point Adam and Eve is fair, but don't foget how much inbreeding there was amongst the European monarchs of the time

You're still not getting it. Even if every single European dynasty committed to marrying brothers to sisters and children to parents for entire millennia, the only "gene pool" they'd fuck up would be their own (and anyone unlucky enough to be descended from them), not everyone in the world. By Bibilical narrative, Adam and Eve were literally the first humans two humans in the world.

Well, I don't know, maybe we started off as super human, and became weakened after a few generations due to imbreeding.

But I don't believe in a litteral interpretarion of Adam and Eve

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Honestly, bringing my father back would change me in an instant.

The Islamic legend of Dajjal (i.e Antichrist) specifically states that Dajjal would came to a town, saw someone crying, he asked why, the guy said their parents had died. Dajjal than revive them, the guy is very happy and become a follower of Dajjal.

In reality the revived parents are actually satans in disguise. Oh, and followers of Dajjal will be burned in hell for eternity, so that's that.

[Neanderthaland]

Australian fundamentally misunderstands the Charlemagne thing.

It's nothing to do with any inbreeding, it's just that the number of ancestors you have increases exponentially with every generation. Which makes it increasingly likely that "x" person is one of your ancestors the further back you go. By the time you get to Charlemagne, it nearly a mathematical certainty if you're European.

But since that's only like 1/140,000th of your ancestry, it's very unlikely that you carry a single chromosome, or even carry a single gene from Charlemagne. No inbreeding required.

I already admited that I was wrong. Can we please be wrong

I could forgive you for describing the opposite of inbreeding (a family tree branching out) as inbreeding (a family tree not branching out.) I mean, that's some Orwellian shit, but whatever.

I'm finding it harder to forgive how you just casually excuse your own wrongness and move along to the next talking point. I mean, if your belief in the Christian God is made out of the arguments you post to Nationstates, and every single one of those arguments turns out to be bad, how do you not question that belief?

And if your belief is not based on these arguments, then why are you bothering with them?

[Australian rePublic]

I already admited that I was wrong. Can we please be wrong

I could forgive you for describing the opposite of inbreeding (a family tree branching out) as inbreeding (a family tree not branching out.) I mean, that's some Orwellian shit, but whatever.

I'm finding it harder to forgive how you just casually excuse your own wrongness and move along to the next talking point. I mean, if your belief in the Christian God is made out of the arguments you post to Nationstates, and every single one of those arguments turns out to be bad, how do you not question that belief?

And if your belief is not based on these arguments, then why are you bothering with them?

I don't see how this intereferes with my beliefs. As said earlier, I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. If I don't believe in a literal interpration of something, then what's the point in arguing about its details?

[Dytarma]

Honestly, bringing my father back would change me in an instant.

The Islamic legend of Dajjal (i.e Antichrist) specifically states that Dajjal would came to a town, saw someone crying, he asked why, the guy said their parents had died. Dajjal than revive them, the guy is very happy and become a follower of Dajjal.

In reality the revived parents are actually satans in disguise. Oh, and followers of Dajjal will be burned in hell for eternity, so that's that.

Hasn't happened yet, so meh on believing.

[Neanderthaland]

I could forgive you for describing the opposite of inbreeding (a family tree branching out) as inbreeding (a family tree not branching out.) I mean, that's some Orwellian shit, but whatever.

I'm finding it harder to forgive how you just casually excuse your own wrongness and move along to the next talking point. I mean, if your belief in the Christian God is made out of the arguments you post to Nationstates, and every single one of those arguments turns out to be bad, how do you not question that belief?

And if your belief is not based on these arguments, then why are you bothering with them?

I don't see how this intereferes with my beliefs. As said earlier, I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve. If I don't believe in a literal interpration of something, then what's the point in arguing about its details

I'm speaking generally. You have time and time again brought up something you thought was a good argument for Christian theism, or at the very least a nice "gotcha" for atheists, but every time it gets effortlessly smacked down.

I guess I'm just wondering how someone who can be so consistently wrong, can be so convinced that they're ultimately right?

[Orange-Transvaal]

For me, he/she would have to give me a fairly long mathematical explanation on their existence.
Doesn’t mean I would worship them.

[Greater Istanistan]

Summa Theologia mostly did the trick for me - I don't need direct intervention. A general series of proofs and an ensuing act of faith should have me covered, I think.