|
Replies: 78
| visibility 506
|
All-In [46528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 24172
Joined: 2/1/99
|
If God created everything....
2
May 20, 2024, 9:21 AM
|
|
Who created God???
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [98338]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65241
Joined: 7/13/02
|
everything....***
2
May 20, 2024, 9:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
4
May 20, 2024, 9:36 AM
|
|
Prepare thyself for special pleading
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
3
May 20, 2024, 11:31 AM
|
|
Never heard that one. Publish that and win a Nobel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 20, 2024, 11:32 AM
|
|
The moderator is back everyone, funs over
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 20, 2024, 11:35 AM
|
|
Okay, you publish it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 11:37 AM
|
|
Nah just believe it brother, we don’t need evidence around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 12:05 PM
|
|
Respond to this how you will. I just want it said:
No one believes your schtick of "used to be a Christian, taught Sunday school, then I read the bible, and all the evidence, and found out there is no evidence." Not only do your posts not come from such a person, but you actually told me: "If you want me to read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", I have already read some critiques of it on the internet." That's okay. We all know it is hard to keep a story straight over time. But we know.
What this means is that you have no ideas of your own to discuss. You are instead here to say, "All you Christians are stupid". You word this as "there is no evidence." The reason your motive is transparent is that your claim is objectively false. IE, if evidence does exist, all that remains is a difference of conclusion, which is possible among reasonable and intelligent people. You come to say Christians can be neither.
Freeman Dyson (of the Dyson sphere, and generally considered to have been worthy of a Nobel for work in math and physics) was a Christian who said, "It is widely considered in the scientific community that either an infinite multiverse exists or God is responsible for what we see in this one." (Paraphrase) Several Nobel winners (most are Christians or Jews, btw) have written books explaining why their observations lead them to the conclusion God exists. These are people who know evidence. Their entire lives are evidence. They know when none exists.
Obviously not everyone agrees with that conclusion. Fine. Nobel winners, more than anyone, would not expect everyone to do so. So, that is your right also, if it were your position. But it is not. Instead, by serially jumping into any discussion with "There is no evidence!", you reveal a number of things about yourself, none good. Among them, it is you who plays moderator, telling everyone they have no right to their discussion, by claiming the stupidest of claims, that they have to evidence on which to have a discussion.
Nothing about you adds up, except the worst of conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 12:27 PM
|
|
>No one believes your schtick of "used to be a Christian, taught Sunday school, then I read the bible, and all the evidence, and found out there is no evidence."
Two things:
1. your standard for belief is quite bad, so this is not suprising to me
2. You are thinking of someone else, I never taught sunday school but I absolutely was a christian until my mid 20s until i learned to much.
>Not only do your posts not come from such a person, but you actually told me: "If you want me to read "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", I have already read some critiques of it on the internet." That's okay. We all know it is hard to keep a story straight over time. But we know.
Don't like getting fact checked huh? I can see that. You are also leaving out the part where I had already listened to hours of video on the arguments on that exact book. The evidence laid out there is not verfiable proof of anything supernatural. How do I know this? You would show it if it did.
>What this means is that you have no ideas of your own to discuss. You are instead here to say, "All you Christians are stupid". You word this as "there is no evidence." The reason your motive is transparent is that your claim is objectively false. IE, if evidence does exist, all that remains is a difference of conclusion, which is possible among reasonable and intelligent people. You come to say Christians can be neither.
Saying you do not have verifiable evidence is just a fact, the fact that you get upset about it is your own insecurity problem. Show me where I have said you were stupid.
>Freeman Dyson (of the Dyson sphere, and generally considered to have been worthy of a Nobel for work in math and physics) was a Christian who said, "It is widely considered in the scientific community that either an infinite multiverse exists or God is responsible for what we see in this one." (Paraphrase) Several Nobel winners (most are Christians or Jews, btw) have written books explaining why their observations lead them to the conclusion God exists. These are people who know evidence. Their entire lives are evidence. They know when none exists.
Oh, Dyson said it? You mean another man made a claim but does not back it up with verifiable evidence? No way!
Then show a single piece of evidence that is verifiably god. Why can't you do this simple thing?
Notice how you always just point "over there". Take a hint from Erhman and show some hard evidence. This verse is not available in the older manuscripts. Easy peasy.
>Obviously not everyone agrees with that conclusion. Fine. Nobel winners, more than anyone, would not expect everyone to do so. So, that is your right also, if it were your position. But it is not. Instead, by serially jumping into any discussion with "There is no evidence!", you reveal a number of things about yourself, none good. Among them, it is you who plays moderator, telling everyone they have no right to their discussion, by claiming the stupidest of claims, that they have to evidence on which to have a discussion.
We've been over this a thousand times so i can only conclude that you are a liar. I have said VERIFIABLE evidence a million times. "batman was here" is evidence. it's not good evidence, unless you have corroborating evidence that he indeed was there.
You always skip the imporant bit and just straight up lie. That's what apologists do for a living.
>Nothing about you adds up, except the worst of conclusions.
Or you are just a religous zealot, that's more probable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 4:12 PM
|
|
He has you confused with me lol. I used to teach sunday school and was a deacon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1414]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2119
Joined: 4/23/15
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 11:45 PM
|
|
I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time Tulsa has accused someone of this. He seems to confuse people on this board often
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:34 AM
[ in reply to Re: If God created everything.... ] |
|
I like how he can’t be a simple fact like that but expects us to believe miracle claims because someone said so. Hilarious
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 11:26 AM
|
|
Facepalm. Dang it. Hard to keep you two apart. You're right, he's the Sunday School director. You're the one who has read every book on this subject, and who knows more about evidence than Nobel scientists who write books about evidence.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 11:39 AM
|
|
Of course you deleted the one where you just lied.
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 11:47 AM
|
|
Here's how that works. If you actually donate? You have a little button? Says "edit"? Yeah, that is what that button is for. Lets a person decide to keep things short.
But if you mean where I reminded you that I offered to send you evidence (it weighed out as an expensive package), but which you turned down because internet? There it is. And that's fine. All that means is that I'm not going to discuss your conclusion or mine. But the evidence is there. You need to write a book that says it doesn't exist. Win your own Nobel.
I just now edited this. See how that works?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 12:18 PM
|
|
Still a liar. cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 12:26 PM
[ in reply to Re: If God created everything.... ] |
|
I think you’re still confused. Echoes may have as well but I’ve read all the Lee Strobel books. A couple by Craig Blomberg and William Lane Craig.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 12:40 PM
|
|
Indeed, I'm pretty familiar with their arguments. Not a single shred of verifiable evidence for any of the supernatural claims.
CU says otherwise, but the only evidence we have for the resurrection isn't verifiable. It requires that you just believe the claim, aka have some faith.
If he just said, the bible says and I believe, that's fine. But he want to act like there is verifiable evidence to go along with it.
Notice that CU has not ever once provided a single piece of evidence for the resurrection that doesn't require a leap of faith or to simply believe a claim we can not verify.
He knows that, that's why his go to is "i tried to show you the evidence and you didn't accept it" because it let's him cop out.
Go for it CU, let's see that verifiable evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 5:40 PM
|
|
I had 3.7 lbs of it ready to go, but you said "nah, internet." In all that back and forth, not once did you say, "Okay, send it." So, that's the end of that discussion for me. I'm fine with that. Get over it.
What are you on about with this verifiable? I dont think that word means what you think it means.
"I saw the Broncos play in Denver back when they were AFL."
"Prove it."
"Cant be done. I can show evidence that I did."
"You got your ticket?"
"Nope."
"I figured as much. So, no verifiable evidence?"
"Is there any other kind?"
"Okay, go."
"Here's an email from Joe, where he speaks of our trip there and talks about the game."
"One guy."
"Okay, here is a letter from Bill who lives there, thanking Joe and I for coming, and hoping we enjoyed the game."
"Both those guys are dead?"
"Yep."
"So, nothing verifiable?"
That guy doesn't understand verifiable. Seems you dont either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 5:57 PM
|
|
lol, I'll ingore like your 5th lie in 24 hours but here we go
>What are you on about with this verifiable? I dont think that word means what you think it means.
This is your cop out right here, you know you don't have the verification, which is why you flail around and get all Missy.
There are two options:
1. Supernatural events require faith, i.e. believe in the absence of verifiable evidence
or
2. supernatural events do not require faith, they can be verified.
I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying #2. Is that correct?
If so, show me a single example of a verified supernatural event and how you verified it.
>"I saw the Broncos play in Denver back when they were AFL."
"Prove it."
"Cant be done. I can show evidence that I did."
"You got your ticket?"
"Nope."
"I figured as much. So, no verifiable evidence?"
"Is there any other kind?"
"Okay, go."
"Here's an email from Joe, where he speaks of our trip there and talks about the game."
"One guy."
"Okay, here is a letter from Bill who lives there, thanking Joe and I for coming, and hoping we enjoyed the game."
"Both those guys are dead?"
"Yep."
"So, nothing verifiable?"
That guy doesn't understand verifiable. Seems you dont either.
If that is quality of evidence you say you have for the resurrection, I totally agree! lmao
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:01 PM
|
|
One point at a time, echo. Are those emails and letters verifiable evidence or not? We're not talking weight or volume yet. Are those verifiable evidence? Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:24 PM
|
|
It's clearly not, you have to accept them at their word. I have no way to verify it if that's all the evidence i had. I would not however require verifiable evidence for a football game attendance though, it's a terrible example that doesn't relate, but you know that.
Let's relate this back to the exact thing we are getting at though: Using EXACTLY the evidence you just gave would you call it verified evidence if instead of:
"I saw the Broncos play in Denver back when they were AFL."
it was
"I saw the Broncos play in Denver back when they were AFL. God Helped Denver Win, I saw a miracle in the stands"
Is that verified evidence of the miracle or god having a hand in the game? You seem to be saying so. Because THAT is the type of evidence we have for the resurrection. Well not exactly, we don't even have first hand claims to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:06 PM
[ in reply to Re: If God created everything.... ] |
|
That's not a trick question. Yes or no? Verifiable evidence or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:25 PM
|
|
Welp, that was ridiculously easy, so do you have the verifiable evidence for the resurrection (or anything supernatural will do) as you seem to claim you have?
Still waiting on something I don't have to rely on hearsay for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:39 PM
|
|
No, we're not doing that yet. Your claim is that no verifiable evidence exists. We're going to do this one step at a time, or you are going to opt out. So, are those letters verifiable evidence? I promise you there is no 'gotcha' regardless of what you answer. But yes or no, are those letters verifiable evidence? Yes or no?
You can say 'no'. Or you can say, "Yes, but it's weak." Fine. But, but yes or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:47 PM
|
|
>No, echo, we're not doing that. Your claim is that no verifiable evidence exists. We're going to do this one step at a time, or you are going to opt out. So, are those letters verifiable evidence?
Are you... serious? I literally answered you. Don't do your flailing thing when you are called out.
I already said, no, the letters are not verifiable evidence of the event in question. Furthermore, you are adding elements you know that we do not have for the resurrection:
- the ability to question one of the people is the big one.
- if you are extending the question, we could at least verify the email came from the supposed guy, so that would help.
>We're going to do this one step at a time, or you are going to opt out.
This is fantastic, I easily answered the question and i'm the one opting out? hilarious.
No, let's continue, I can see what you consider verfied now.
>I promise you there is no 'gotcha' regardless of what you answer. But yes or no, are those letters verifiable evidence? Yes or no?
Let me spell it slowly for you. N.O. You have given claims that must be taken at face value.
>You can say 'no'. Or you can say, "Yes, but it's weak." Fine. But, but yes or no?
Once again, for those at the back: NO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 7:02 PM
|
|
Edit: Ah, I see. You said no while I was typing a response, so I didn't see it. My fault.
I didn't see a yes or a no. If you said it, I didn't see it. I'm looking, and I still dont see it, but maybe it's there and i'm not seeing it. (See edit)
Okay, so, you say those letters are not verifiable. They actually are, because the letters are there for you to see any time you want. I'm not claiming to have them: I'm showing them to you. Verify them however you want. Check the postage, url, investigate other actions of Bill and Joe, etc. Whatever. But verifiable is what they are.
What they are not is reproducible. Joe and Bill are admittedly dead. I can't ask them to send another letter. Scientific claims are generally considered to be reproducible. Not always: I can't reproduce the Big Dipper, but it is observable. But yes, a test should be reproducible.
Those letters don't meet that test of "scientific". So, is it possible that what you mean to say is that "there is no scientific evidence"?
If you insist on "no verifiable", you are using definition of 'verifiable' not applied by anyone, anywhere, that I am familiar with. So, is it possible that 'scientific' is what you have in mind?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 7:33 PM
|
|
>Okay, so, you say those letters are not verifiable. They actually are, because the letters are there for you to see any time you want.
Whoa, ok, I see the confusion here. You are conflating if the letters themselves are verifiable with if they verify the event in question. I am talking about the latter.
I think this all makes more sense now. We aren't even talking about the same thing apparently.
When I say there is no verifiable evidence, I am not saying "We don't have (at least some of) Paul's letters", for example. I'm saying "Paul's letters make a claim we can not verify, we must accept him at his word".
You seem to be saying we have some way to verify that these claims without having to take him at his word. I'd like to know what that method is.
If you are asking me if I think Paul believed what he said or if we can have some confidence Paul wrote them, sure, I don't need to be able to verify that further, people write and believe all kind of things as evidenced on this board.
If you are asking me if I think the letters in your example are verifiably from their sources? Sure, but no they do not verify the event in question. Even then the only way for me to verify them further is if you change your questions criteria which you seem to have done here: "Check the postage, url, investigate other actions of Bill and Joe, etc. Whatever. "
>But verifiable is what they are."
Sure, but the entire point is to verify the event in question. A letter saying something happened, does not mean said thing happened.
If you are asking if I can verify the LETTERS given your changes, sure. Do they verify the events in the letters? No. They are however, good enough evidence for me to believe someone attended a football game even if i can't verify it.
>Those letters don't meet that test of "scientific". So, is it possible that what you mean to say is that "there is no scientific evidence"?
>If you insist on "no verifiable", you are using definition of 'verifiable' not applied by anyone, anywhere, that I am familiar with. So, is it possible that 'scientific' is what you have in mind?
Scientific evidence would be great, but no, that's not a requirement. Here's the rub. I am not the one saying there is a way to verify the supernatural claims, YOU seem to be. So, I'd like to know what that method of verification is and what verifiable evidence (not the evidence itself, evidence that verifies the event) you are referring to.
As of know, you have only offered claims by men who we can not interview and who we don't have physical evidence for. So, my point still remains: Where is the verifiable evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 8:07 PM
|
|
All that is fair. I am not going to argue here - not yet - what evidence exists is and what it means. Yes, I am saying there is evidence. You say - I am stopping to discuss this because you don't merely say it, but interject into numerous conversations to say it - that there is no evidence, sometimes but not always qualified as no 'verifiable' evidence.
Understanding evidence as you do, you understand that you cant test for two variables at the same time. IE, one subject at a time. Either no evidence exists, or it is not strong. Either can be argued, but not at the same time. If A says there is no evidence OJ killed those two, and B says there is no evidence OJ could be innocent, would you agree both are wrong? One conclusion is right, for sure, but both have evidence, do they not? Is that not merely a possibility, but a given?
So, to your question, sure, we have Paul saying as early as 40-ish AD that the resurrection occurred. Did he, as some claim, thus invent Christianity? The test of that evidence is corroboration, both in the documents and out. Luke said he and Paul went to Jerusalem to speak with the 12 about that subject - what did they see - and Peter affirms that meeting. If that is the case, it much pre-existed Paul. And then one should look at the external factors, such as the behavior not only of those people but the community around them. And then there is the question of authorship, the difference between authorship and co- or pseudo authors. I am not saying that this one little thing is near conclusive evidence, I am just answering your question about what it means to verify evidence, and whether it has been subjected to that process.
So, isnt it more likely that the issue isnt whether evidence exists, but the conclusions about the evidence?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 8:29 PM
|
|
>All that is fair. I am not going to argue here - not yet - what evidence exists is and what it means. Yes, I am saying there is evidence. You say - I am stopping to discuss this because you don't merely say it, but interject into numerous conversations to say it - that there is no evidence, sometimes but not always qualified as no 'verifiable' evidence.
If left at that it goes like this:
"There is no evidence."
"Sure there is. Multiple people saw it."
"That's just what somebody said."
I think it's a little pedantic given we've been talking for months (years?) now and I have clarified this on more than several occasions. But whatever, I'll try my best to qualify it in the future.
I want to be crystal clear, I 100% agree that we can call the claims in the Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon, etc... evidence. Zero problem with that. It is a very different question from evidence that we can verify.
>Sure, but that switches the conversation from whether there is evidence to whether the evidence is strong.
Well, no, I've been talking about the strength of the evidence the entire time, not if there is evidence. I believe i've used the silly example of "batman was here" more than is warranted, lol. If you find that written on a wall, that is indeed evidence of Batman's presence there. It is not verifiable evidence of batman actually being there, though.
You and I both agree, it says "batman was here". That is not very interesting and i'm not saying it doesn't say what it says.
>I dont mind discussing evidence, but it cant be discussed if one has already decided none can exist, or if verifiable is conflated with scientific, or if conclusions are conflated with evidence.
Sure, but nobody in this conversation is saying that evidence doesn't or can not exist. We (or at least I) am very specifically asking for evidence that can be verified without simply having to take someone(s) at their word. Saying that I have not seen verifiable evidence is not the same as saying it can't or doesn't exist. You apparently have it, given this conversation, so...
Again, I'll ask what method do we have outside of taking someone like Paul at his word, do we have to verify his claims?
Just like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, how could we verify that?
Seriously, this is the crux of the issue, you keep implying that it's ridiculous for me to say we verifiable evidence hasn't been provided so are you going to pony up at any point in this conversation?
>If A says there is no evidence OJ killed those two, and B says there is no evidence OJ could be innocent, would you agree both are wrong? One conclusion is right, for sure, but both have evidence, do they not? Is that not merely a possibility, but a given?
Yeah, but again, getting a little tired of going in circles on the "no evidence" bit, it's not my position I've clarifed that several times, so I don't care to defend a position I don't hold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 8:37 PM
|
|
I hate to do this to you, but delete your answer, and answer again. I reread your previous answer, saw I had misread it, so rewrote mine. In fairness to you, I have not read this answer. This is "wait, I didnt mean it that way. What I meant was ...". Maybe your answer wont even change. Just part of written communication.
I read an account of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy would ponder an answer for hours before replying. They suspected Kruschev was trying to find a way out, with the Politbureau not knowing, so they had to craft answers that said we knew this, without saying we knew it. Talking in code, both sides intuiting the other. We dont make 'em like that anymore.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 21, 2024, 8:53 PM
|
|
>I read an account of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy would ponder an answer for hours before replying.
How could we fling poo if we thought about our words, though 
I'll re-read and re-answer if necessary. I can't edit so i'll repost here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 21, 2024, 9:21 PM
[ in reply to Re: If God created everything.... ] |
|
I think my previous answer still mostly works, and I think you should still read it, but I'll add some shorter commentary here as well.
>Yes, I am saying there is evidence.
We are on the same page there, I think I've clarified that point enough. There is indeed evidence. I've clarified that I mean verifiable when I say that. I see no reason to bring up "no evidence" again, it is not a position I hold.
>Understanding evidence as you do, you understand that you cant test for two variables at the same time. IE, one subject at a time. Either no evidence exists, or it is not strong. Either can be argued, but not at the same time. If A says there is no evidence OJ killed those two, and B says there is no evidence OJ could be innocent, would you agree both are wrong? One conclusion is right, for sure, but both have evidence, do they not? Is that not merely a possibility, but a given?
Again, saying "no evidence" is not a position I hold, so I'm not going to spend time defending a position I'm not even claiming.
> So, to your question, sure, we have Paul saying as early as 40-ish AD that the resurrection occurred. The test of that evidence is corroboration, both in the documents and out. Luke said he and Paul went to Jerusalem to speak with the 12 about that subject - what did they see - and Peter affirms that meeting. If that is the case, it much pre-existed Paul. And then one should look at the external factors, such as the behavior not only of those people but the community around them. And then there is the question of authorship, the difference between authorship and co- or pseudo authors.
The authorship is a pretty big problem, yes, but that's a different subject, let's just grant the authors for this conversation.
Ok so let's get in the weeds here:
>I am not saying that this one little thing is near conclusive evidence, I am just answering your question about what it means to verify evidence, and whether it has been subjected to that process.
When you refer to whether "it" (the evidence/claims) has been subjected to (the verification) process, are you saying that since Luke and Peter affirm Paul, the verification has already been done and that is synonymous with you and I being able to verify those events?
If so, this still seems like I have to just accept them at their word. What point am I missing here? How do I verify these claims without having to just believe them?
> So, isnt it more likely that the issue isnt whether evidence exists, but the conclusions about the evidence?
I have to be honest here, I am very confused why we are still talking about whether evidence exists. My position is not, nor has ever been, that evidence doesn't exist. It's the fact that we can't verify it that's the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 11:16 PM
|
|
>. "When you refer to whether "it" (the evidence/claims) has been subjected to (the verification) process, are you saying ... that is synonymous with you and I being able to verify those events?"
No, not at that point. Authorship, reliability of source documents and translations, etc have to be assessed. Having done that, I am saying that we then have three people reasonably reliably saying they met to discuss the Gospel events, one being one of the 12. That establishes only two things: (1) a record that the 12 believed they had firsthand knowledge of an execution/resurrection and (2) while Paul didn't write about it until a decade or two after the events, he didn't make it up then. (There can be an alternative explanation, such as Peter made it up. That is an explanation of the evidence, not a lack of it. Other evidence will point toward or away from the alternate explanation. See court example below.)
Does that establish an execution/resurrection? Heck no. I'd need quite a bit more than that. My only point is that this is one item of evidence, part of a larger case made up of many items.
You say 'verified', which I think is semantical. If it can't be verified in the way I just described, it's not even evidence. "I have this letter" is not evidence. A letter shown to come from X person, and another letter shown to be from Y person, describing the same thing, is evidence. The former could not be submitted in court as an exhibit, the latter could be. They do not allow verified evidence in court (they have no such term): they allow evidence. And no single item of that evidence will convict anyone of anything. A court record is built of all the evidence, and that record allows and accounts for alternative explanations. Then the conclusions.
The Paul/Luke/Peter thing is only one item, showing only two things, but it is one item.
The only place I am trying to get to is to somehow move past having otherwise fun discussions interrupted with "No evidence", as if we're stupid and don't understand evidence. That's a hijack, besides being untrue. Except the stupid part, which might be true, in which case just say that. You have concluded that there is not enough to satisfy you, and that is fine. No problem. But it's a difference of conclusions, not of existence of evidence.
But in the final analysis, yes, you can say what you like on a message board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 22, 2024, 6:51 AM
|
|
>The only place I am trying to get to is to somehow move past having otherwise fun discussions interrupted with "No evidence", as if we're stupid and don't understand evidence. That's a hijack, besides being untrue. Except the stupid part, which might be true, in which case just say that. You have concluded that there is not enough to satisfy you, and that is fine. No problem. But it's a difference of conclusions, not of existence of evidence.
So after all this conversation, and me repeatedly saying that "no evidence" is not my position, you still end with "no evidence" being my position?
I'm just not sure why you won't stop strawmaning my argument.
>You say 'verified', which I think is semantical. If it can't be verified in the way I just described, it's not even evidence. "I have this letter" is not evidence. A letter shown to come from X person, and another letter shown to be from Y person, describing the same thing, is evidence. The former could not be submitted in court as an exhibit, the latter could be. They do not allow verified evidence in court (they have no such term): they allow evidence. And no single item of that evidence will convict anyone of anything. A court record is built of all the evidence, and that record allows and accounts for alternative explanations. Then the conclusions
Verified is not semantic at all. "Bob said he saw Tim steal a car" is much different than "Bob said he saw Tim steal a car, here's Tim's fingerprint/dna evidence in the car, CCTV footage and phone records showing his location at the time". Relying on someone else's testimony requires a leap of faith, which I am totally fine people holding, but saying it is a verifiable event is a different threshold that I've yet to see demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 22, 2024, 8:33 AM
|
|
You say your position is not 'no evidence', but you keep keep saying there is none You interrupt conversations out of context to say it. I'm not arguing with you about what you believe, but what you are doing/saying on the board, which comes across as calling people stupid.
You say you mean 'verified evidence'. (1) You do not always say that, and (2) we just discussed that I, 88 and others do know what 'verified' is - it is what we call 'evidence'. Whether a poster knows it or not, it exists.
> "Relying on someone else's testimony requires a leap of faith, which I am totally fine people holding, but saying it is a verifiable event is a different threshold that I've yet to see demonstrated."
That is true. However:
1. That is a difference in conclusion about the evidence, not whether it exists.
2. No one relies on one item of evidence, such as the example we have discussed. Its an entire record.
Nevertheless, regardless of the amount, great or small, you are free to conclude what you like. As am I. And disagreements about conclusions is what discussions are about. But that is what is happening. It is not "no verified evidence". Not by a long shot. But again, you are free to say anything you like on a message board. I would want to be accurate, and I would not want to call people stupid. But yes, you can say what you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 22, 2024, 8:52 AM
|
|
>You say your position is not 'no evidence', but you keep keep saying there is none You interrupt conversations out of context to say it. I'm not arguing with you about what you believe, but what you are doing/saying on the board, which comes across as calling people stupid.
I have said I mean no verifiable evidence several times, directly to you for a while now.
>which comes across as calling people stupid.
This is your own interpretation, saying you haven't shown verifiable evidence is a fact; you interpreting that as being stupid is something you are doing. I have not called you stupid for being a believer. But I am calling you dishonest because even to this very comment you continue to say I have a position I do not have.
But while we are talking about it, let's point to where YOU actually do directly call me stupid: which comes across as calling people stupid: https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-forum/message/re-i-thought-this-was-quite-interesting-34919954#34919954 (screenshotted so you can't edit)
>You say you mean 'verified evidence'. (1) You do not always say that, and (2) we just discussed that I, 88 and others do know what 'verified' is - it is what we call 'evidence'. Whether a poster knows it or not, it exists.
How many times do you need correction? From here on out, if I say no evidence, are you going not going to know what i'm talking about? If that's the case, I might indeed need to add the stupid moniker you keep accusing me of.
>That is true. However:
1. That is a difference in conclusion about the evidence, not whether it exists.
No, it is not. You can of course come to a conclusion on it but that conclusion is entirely based on faith in what that person says, it has not been verified.
2. No one relies on one item of evidence, such as the example we have discussed. Its an entire record.
Nor should you nor is that what I'm saying. That other evidence that gets you passed "someone said so" has not been provided by you. If you have it, which you seem to imply you do, let's see it. Otherwise, my insistence that you have not shown something I can verify still stands.
>Nevertheless, regardless of the amount, great or small, you are free to conclude what you like. As am I. And disagreements about conclusions is what discussions are about. But that is what is happening. It is not "no verified evidence". Not by a long shot. But again, you are free to say anything you like on a message board. I would want to be accurate, and I would not want to call people stupid. But yes, you can say what you like.
Again you are the only one calling people stupid here. I have verifiable evidence of that lol.
>It is not "no verified evidence". Not by a long shot.
It 100% is though. There are two options: 1. Evidence that we must accept without being able to verify or 2. Evidence that we don't have to just accept, we can verify it.
You have #1, I agree but you want to say you have #2 without providing it. THAT is what is happening here. You are free at any time to provide a single verifiable supernatural event. But I suspect I'll just get, "stop saying no evidence" even though I have unequivocally stated otherwise multiple times now.
In closing:
1. You accused me of doing something I have hard evidence of you doing
2. You have yet to give me evidence I am able to verify myself without having to rely on hearsay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 22, 2024, 11:41 AM
|
|
We are not going to come together on this. As a separate thing, I dont see where I called anyone stupid. I did say Nobel scientists are NOT stupid enough to say there is 'no (verified) evidence'. They're not. If you think that is calling you stupid, okay, you got me. But they're not stupid enough to say that, and other people know they're not, so you can keep saying what you like about that, and have people think what they will.
But as to why we wont come together:
You insist on using 'verified' in a manner not used anywhere else, and that is your right. There are items of (verified) evidence, which when collected together, are considered by many people who are professionals in use of evidence to be of volume and quality for them to reach affirmative conclusions about God and Jesus . You are free to conclude otherwise, as many do. Totally fine. You want to insist that means nothing is verified, that no verified evidence exists. I cant help you with that: that is your made up vocabulary.
So, if you want to continue to make those statements, out of context and hijacking threads ... I dont know how to say it more clearly than this ... you have a right to do that. That's the third time I've said it, and its the best I can do. I give you the last word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 22, 2024, 12:07 PM
|
|
>You insist on using 'verified' in a manner not used anywhere else, and that is your right. There are items of (verified) evidence, which when collected together, are considered by many people who are professionals in use of evidence to be of volume and quality for them to reach affirmative conclusions about God and Jesus . You are free to conclude otherwise, as many do. Totally fine. You want to insist that means nothing is verified, that no verified evidence exists. I cant help you with that: that is your made up vocabulary.
This is simply not true, though. I have qualified what I am asking for several times:
Show me a single piece of evidence I can verify that does not rely on accepting hearsay. You keep implying that you have this, as you've done here, but you do not show it. And we both know WHY that is happening (because you do not posses it) but you aren't honest enough to say that you are simply choosing to believe a claim that we do not have the ability to verify.
So stop restating the problem as something I am not saying. We are NOT talking about coming to different conclusions on the evidence, as you keep insisting. We are NOT talking about whether the evidence ITSELF is verifiable.
As I said before, you have 1 (evidence) and only claim to have 2 (verifiable evidence).
>So, if you want to continue to make those statements, out of context and hijacking threads
Again, moderator, this is an OPEN forum. Making comments in said forum is not hijacking threads or interjecting. And when you say there is evidence and I say that it is not verifiable, that is well within the context when you are trying to convince someone using false claims.
>You insist on using 'verified' in a manner not used anywhere else, and that is your right.
Furthermore, no this is not different from how it's used elsewhere even courts don't generally accept hearsay.
> I give you the last word.
So this is the opt out. got it.
Par for the course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 6:53 PM
[ in reply to Re: If God created everything.... ] |
|
Easy again, Still waiting on something I don't have to rely on hearsay for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 7:05 PM
|
|
See above. We'll get to hearsay. One step at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 8:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: If God created everything.... ] |
|
Here's another cool example of communication (I am responding to a post above, because on my tablet the answers get very narrow in a long thread):
When China finally emerged from self imposed isolation in the 70's, their 'coming out' was a visit by the Nixon admin to Peking. Seemed like a good idea at the time. So, the ending event was a gala state dinner. Long table. Nixon at one head, Chairman Chou at the other. The second ranking was at each's right hand, so Kissinger was at Chou's right. After hours of toasts and courses, the main course came. Pork.
Nobody said a word, but there was a bit of a hush. Kissinger was a practicing Jew. This was perfectly understandable: China had not been exposed to the west for decades, so an underling could make that mistake. But a rule is a rule. What would Kissinger do? That what happened next happened on the fly, with no exchanged information or time to think about it, is, to me, incredible. The plates were set down, Kissinger leans over to Chou and says:
"This looks very interesting. What is it?"
"It is duck."
"Wonderful. I love duck."
And that was that. How did Kissinger know that Chou would understand the question, and how did Chou know it's intent? Again, they don't make 'em like that anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 12:09 PM
|
|
If he can win a Nobel with it, absolutely. Echo turned it down. Give it a shot.
Even Hitchens would be like, "Dang bro, did you think about that first?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 12:17 PM
|
|
Just to clarify, the guy who believes in talking snakes and donkeys is asking this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 4:03 PM
|
|
To be fair, he doesn't believe in talking snakes or donkeys. He believes that a snake talked, and that a donkey talked.
Who's to say one hasn't been able to?
I personally find it hard to believe that dinosaurs existed, even though we have fossil evidence that they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 20, 2024, 4:36 PM
|
|
>even though we have fossil evidence
Is the key point.
>Who's to say one hasn't been able to?
Good point, maybe they have, I just don't have any verifiable evidence for it.
If we have the kind of evidence that a snake or donkey talked that we do dinosaurs existed, I'd believe it too. But right now, it would be like you saying "dinosaurs exist" and then when I say can you give me evidence you just say "a guy said so a long time ago".
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46580
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Given that we are talking about something that can't be known with
2
May 20, 2024, 11:42 AM
|
|
certainty, in the traditional sense, and therefore requires a certain amount of faith, I think the common belief is that God exists outside of time, and has always existed given our limited understanding and way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Given that we are talking about something that can't be known with
1
May 20, 2024, 11:52 AM
|
|
Sure but then using the same criteria you can argue that the universe once existed in a similar state. There is no logical need for a creator god
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14064
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Given that we are talking about something that can't be known with
1
May 20, 2024, 12:13 PM
|
|
Exactly. So the OP question makes no sense. Either the material world had no beginning, or God created it. Neither 'what created the universe', nor 'what created God', can be used to trump the other. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Given that we are talking about something that can't be known with
May 20, 2024, 12:18 PM
|
|
Get over what? Lol calm down mod
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46580
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Again, there's no way to know, but I can believe with no problem that
1
May 20, 2024, 1:12 PM
[ in reply to Re: Given that we are talking about something that can't be known with ] |
|
God has always existed, and is the source of everything else. I can't prove it, and I certainly can't, nor am I interested in convincing anyone else. It's just what I believe based on the totality of my unique experience. I also understand why perfectly good, reasonable people don't accept that, and I'm fine with that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Again, there's no way to know, but I can believe with no problem that
3
May 20, 2024, 1:45 PM
|
|
That's totally fine, I'm on board with that, I'm just saying there is no logical way (currently) to say which happened. If someone says "the universe always existed" it's just an assertion, same for "god created it". We don't have good evidence for anything "before" the big bang. If that's even a sensical question.
I have no problem with people thinking god did it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30153]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8935
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: If God created everything....
2
May 20, 2024, 2:32 PM
|
|
>Re: If God created everything....
Well, we can't be certain that God created 'everything.' That's a modern oral tradition. Look closely at Genesis 1
1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
That's very specific. The "heavens' were an arch over the earth in ancient cosmology, not the full expanse of the universe, as we tend to think of 'the heavens' today.
2 "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
The key phrase here is the Deep, or the primeval ocean, the waters that the spirit of God is hovering over, from the very beginning. God didn't create them. They are as old as he is, presumably. And they exist before God later creates water on earth.
That's very typical of ancient Near East thinking all the way back to Sumeria. Creation comes from ordering chaos, in many early civilizations. And to them, nothing was more chaotic than the raging seas.
That doesn't answer your God question, but the universe to the ancients was more of an infinite sea than infinite empty space. And God, to them, was in, or above, that sea.
So God made a "bubble" in that infinite sea.
6 "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
8 God called the vault “sky.” (That's why the sky is blue, because it's water) And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
And then God cleared out enough water under the vault to make a dry spot, earth.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
And then he populated the earth with everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23066]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7412
Joined: 8/31/03
|
If something didn't create the universe...
2
May 20, 2024, 3:37 PM
|
|
...then how did it come into existence.
Scientists, including atheists and agnostics, overwhelmingly agree that matter, time and space came into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Before that, there was no time, space or matter.
So, if the universe was not created by a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being then how did it come into existence.
Either something or someone created something out of nothing, or nothing created something out of nothing.
There is no proof of either. But, which is more logical and which takes more faith to believe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If something didn't create the universe...
1
May 20, 2024, 4:06 PM
|
|
>Scientists, including atheists and agnostics, overwhelmingly agree that matter, time and space came into existence approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Before that, there was no time, space or matter.
Well, science says that the universe expanded from a single point 13.8 billion years ago, they do not know or claim that it "began" at that point.
>So, if the universe was not created by a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being then how did it come into existence.
That's quite the jump. One can easily ask then where did the immaterial being come from?
>Either something or someone created something out of nothing, or nothing created something out of nothing.
so, you now have the same problem. You are saying something can't from nothing or the universe couldn't have always existed but then turn around and so "oh but this thing can".
That is special pleading. You've only complicated the problem, not solved it.
>There is no proof of either. But, which is more logical and which takes more faith to believe?
Based on the evidence, which is that the universe expanded from a single point, the answer is: "I don't know". There isn't ANY evidence of what's before it, that's why we are playing logical games.
basically the argument is, the universe is too complicated to just have existed forever, or create itself or come from nothing but... this way more complicated thing can.
So I'd say yours requires an additional leap of faith for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23066]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7412
Joined: 8/31/03
|
Thanks, I appreciate the answer.
1
May 20, 2024, 4:36 PM
|
|
So, you are an agnostic. God might exist, you just don't think there is any way to prove He does or doesn't.
So, you choose to live your life as though He doesn't exist.
I appreciate the discussion.
Your worldview includes, "If God exists, no one can prove it. Therefore, I choose to live my life as though He doesn't."
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Thanks, I appreciate the answer.
2
May 20, 2024, 4:49 PM
|
|
I think the labels are kinda silly, but I am an agnostic atheist.
I don't think we can know, and I currently don't believe. People think atheist means an assertion that there is no god. It just means you lack a belief in one. There are hard-atheist who will assert that, though.
>So, you choose to live your life as though He doesn't exist.
This is so strange to me. How am I choosing it, exactly? I don't have evidence of Bigfoot, am I "choosing" to live as though he doesn't exist? No, I just don't have evidence he exists. There is no reason for me to live otherwise.
You make it sound like I actually do know Bigfoot is there, but I'm "choosing" to act like he's not.
It's exactly the same position.
>I appreciate the discussion.
I do too, let's do it more often.
>Your worldview includes, "If God exists, no one can prove it. Therefore, I choose to live my life as though He doesn't."
No, not quite, as I explained above. I would say, though, it would be strange to live like something exists when there isn't a reason to, regardless of whether said thing actually did exist.
For example, let's say I have a father who's never around. Should I choose to act like he actually is even though there is no sign of him in my experience? That's what it sounds like you are saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23066]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7412
Joined: 8/31/03
|
We're saying essentially the same thing.
2
May 20, 2024, 10:21 PM
|
|
You describe yourself as an "agnostic atheist." 50 years ago, that would have been considered an oxymoron. But, words change in meaning, so I think I understand what you are saying.
Yes, I choose to live my life as though Bigfoot does not exist. Whether he exists or not has no impact on my life.
I think you would say that is essentially the same way you feel about God.
And, I'm not meaning that as a slight, just an observation.
I know many people who I refer to as "apathetic agnostics." (It's form the old joke "What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?" Answer, "I don't know and I don't care." Many people are in that category. They aren't interested in whether or not God exists. Clearly, you are not in that category.
Unfortunately, I know many people who call themselves Christians but choose to live their lives as if God does not exist. (He has no impact on the way they live.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1414]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 2119
Joined: 4/23/15
|
Re: We're saying essentially the same thing.
2
May 21, 2024, 12:07 AM
|
|
Not to answer for Echoes, so I’ll speak for myself and many agnostic like myself. I’ve said many times on here, that I’ve seen no evidence of God, certainly not the Christian version. For those of you that have heard voices, or some other moment that made it clear that he’s real…well I have heard no such voice, and if I did I would certainly have a different view
I think that if there was a God and he was “all mighty” and wanted us to know him, he would make himself known, as he did (allegedly) in ancient times. Those people dint believe coz they heard a story, they saw miracles, resurrections, and those sorts of things.
I think with good evidence most of us would change our tune. I don’t think most Christian’s would. Most that I know would just say the evidence is wrong, like how many argue that carbon dating is wrong OR they somehow fold science into religion like how when I was younger Christian said the Big Bang was a lie, then that evolved into the 1st mover. Agnostics look at the evidence, while if you don’t need evidence (faith) then evidence is not gonna change your mind
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: We're saying essentially the same thing.
2
May 21, 2024, 6:40 AM
|
|
I mean look at the thread on textual criticism. Erhman can literally point at older manuscripts and newer ones and point out changes, you know, hard evidence and as you’ll see they will call him a f’n liar. Meanwhile, you must totally take religious peoples word for it from thousands of years ago for which you have no way to verify the claims
It’s pretty clear who is being unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: If something didn't create the universe...
1
May 20, 2024, 4:09 PM
[ in reply to If something didn't create the universe... ] |
|
I actually agree with that.
But it's a long jump from what you just said to the Christian worldview that everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus (whatever that actually means) gets to burn for eternity.
You have ZERO proof for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23066]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7412
Joined: 8/31/03
|
You are correct, believing a timeless, spaceless, immaterial...
2
May 20, 2024, 4:40 PM
|
|
....being created the universe and everything in it is a long way from believing that being is the God og the Christian worldview.
So, if you believe there is a creator of the universe, who do you think he or she or they or it is?
I appreciate listening ot other people and trying to get a better understanding of how thye think and what they believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: You are correct, believing a timeless, spaceless, immaterial...
2
May 20, 2024, 4:50 PM
|
|
I don’t know but I can say I honestly have Christianity a chance. Too many flaws with it logically to overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30153]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8935
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: You are correct, believing a timeless, spaceless, immaterial...
1
May 20, 2024, 5:09 PM
|
|
Check out Deism, aka, the uninterested watchmaker
"The belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.
The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2092
Joined: 1/7/00
|
The way I've seen that phrased....
May 21, 2024, 9:52 PM
[ in reply to If something didn't create the universe... ] |
|
"The Big Bang needs a Big Banger. The Big Bang didn't bang itself."
That's how I get to believing that there is a God. There are additional steps to getting to believing in the God of the Bible. But I do like the Big Banger argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: The way I've seen that phrased....
1
May 21, 2024, 9:56 PM
|
|
>That's how I get to believing that there is a God. There are additional steps to getting to believing in the God of the Bible. But I do like the Big Banger argument.
So walk me through it logically:
"[x] needs a [y]. [x] didn't [y] itself."
I'm not being flippant, why do you say that one thing [x] needs a [y] but you don't have the same requirement for [y]. If you say that [y] can exist on it's own, how did you logically arrive that [x] couldn't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [433]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 360
Joined: 2/20/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 20, 2024, 3:38 PM
|
|
I don't really like jumping into these midstream. I am no theologian, biblical historian nor scientist. So if you'll indulge me this rather simplistic rationale:
Take for instance a rose. Our 5 senses and memory tell us it is, in fact a rose.
A poet may say "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
A botanist can tell us genus and species. As well as how they are propagated and effected by disease.
A chemist can show us the chemical compound that makes it a rose.
We can alter it's DNA to produce different varieties, larger flowers, different colors and alter it's fragrance.
With all this knowledge (evidence) at our disposal we can create things that look, smell, feel even taste (?) like a rose. Everything but the rose itself. We still need God for that. There are so many things, human beings for example that simply defy explanation for their creation. We can't (yet?) do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
2
May 20, 2024, 4:08 PM
|
|
Sure, I get that, but adding "god" in the "gaps" of our understanding has historically proven to be unhelpful.
I would completely understand if you lifted up a rose and then god appeared and said, hey i created that for you.
But you are looking at a rose and then saying "I don't know how it was created, must have been god". Where specifically is the evidence for god there other than our ignorance on how it was made?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30153]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8935
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 20, 2024, 5:25 PM
|
|
It's a historical pattern which leads to greater understanding, but ultimately more questions.
Zeus was responsible for lightning, until we attributed it electrostatic discharge, and ultimately electrons. But then, where do the electrons come from? And on down the rabbit hole. Quarks must be made of something, right?
It seems the atomic world is as infinite as the cosmic world. We know more and more about how the 'watch' works, but why is the watch even here, and how?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60524]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22685
Joined: 5/24/17
|
I cant wait to be retired and high
2
May 20, 2024, 4:13 PM
|
|
as a kite everyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1011
Joined: 8/26/10
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 20, 2024, 10:58 PM
|
|
God was not created. He is the Creator. Therefore he always was and always will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2250]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2647
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 21, 2024, 7:35 AM
|
|
How do you know he wasn’t created?
And how do you know there aren’t other beings like him that also existed before time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1011
Joined: 8/26/10
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 11:17 PM
|
|
I don’t know.
It’s just a belief of mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1011
Joined: 8/26/10
|
Re: If God created everything....
May 21, 2024, 11:18 PM
|
|
I’m aware that’s what it is.
That’s pretty much the definition of faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1197]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1657
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: If God created everything....
1
May 22, 2024, 7:01 AM
|
|
Which is totally fine, people are allowed to have faith.
Faith is just not a good way to determine truth, as you can have faith in anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94437]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95622
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The human mind can not comprehend an eternal being.
1
May 21, 2024, 5:33 AM
|
|
We are stuck with the reference that everything has a beginning and end. In eternity that is not so. Everything exist without time. The principle being that time is a measure of the equal distance between repeated, regular occurrences of physical events.
Therefor, without a physical body, either atom, quark or some smaller atomic particle to manifest time, time does not exist.
That sounds all sciency but I'm just a poor, redneck countryboy who is loved by a merciful GOD who doesn't mind explainifying stuff to me when I ask Him.
There is no before or after in eternity. There is no beginning or end and the only work related to time which applies, as far as I know, is 'always.'
You ought to be asking more complicated questions rather than stuff I pondered when I was 14 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24821]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12672
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: If God created everything....
2
May 21, 2024, 11:49 PM
|
|
If there is no infinite being (at least of some sort), then there is no existence.
If something created God, then what created that? At some point there has to be an eternal being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 78
| visibility 506
|
|
|
50
