Really...well, this was my first post on the matter and, if I'm not mistaken, it was not directed at guisslap. But, thanks for contributing your same old song and dance...again.Originally Posted by randerizer
|
|
|
|
|
Really...well, this was my first post on the matter and, if I'm not mistaken, it was not directed at guisslap. But, thanks for contributing your same old song and dance...again.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
None...you just restated my exact point. Coupled with my next statement that you also cannot 100% confirm that they did not exist...which then leads to the overall point of that section of my post that:
Stating that Jesus existed and is the Son of God "based on the evidence" at hand, from either arguement, is no more firmly based than the other. Likewise, those that say he did not exist, or that God does not exist based on the evidence that they have...or I would normally use the word interpret...this also becomes a matter of opinion. WHY???
Because we do not have suffient scientific evidence to confirm that God or Jesus did/does not exist, you cannot, IMO, use "physical evidence" as reasoning to reach a conclusion as to whether or not they exist. It is a matter of faith and what you choose to believe.
(JL, I am rebuting the non-believers' argument on evidence :icon_wink: )
Well, I'm not sure that I agree completely. If this is directed at me, I have used scientific evidence to answer supposed philosophical proofs of the existence of god. Specifically, they are addressed at the prime mover arguments that have been promoted circa Aquinas.
I think a correct use of physical evidence will lead you to the conclusion that "I can find no support for an existence of a god." You are right, also, that the statement is equally true that "I can find no evidence contrary to the existence of a god." God then becomes a gremlin of sorts.
But, since all evidence is originally physical evidence, or at least directly related to the senses (see how people get knowledge, epistemology thread), I'd think that sound metaphysics would at the very least make the notion of a god as creator highly unlikely. That is, if consciousness means to be conscious of something (other than oneself), then existence must be present before consciousness can. So for a conscious god to create existence, it is worse than arbitrary (the gremlin); it goes against how we know the universe operates.
This was not directed at anyone specifically, but thank you for responding. You can, in fact, use scientific evidence to answer supposed philosophical proofs of the existence of God, but due to the philosophical nature of the issue, would the answer not be more than a hypothesis?
So, if there is an equally strong arguement opposing your "conclusion," can your supposed "conclusion" actually be a conclusion at all, based on said evidence? And by the way...I am totally against and offended by ANYTHING that would attempt to kill, dismember, or eat any part of Phoebe Cates. That is CERTAINLY against my religion!I think a correct use of physical evidence will lead you to the conclusion that "I can find no support for an existence of a god." You are right, also, that the statement is equally true that "I can find no evidence contrary to the existence of a god." God then becomes a gremlin of sorts.
We don't know how everything in the universe operates. And if I had the time and desire, I could make an equally strong testiment to the existence of God based on metaphysical philosophy. The variation on thinking about the major principles of metaphysics is due to one's own interpretation. For every point ever made with regard to this "science," an opposite and equally controversial point has been offered. I don't believe metaphysics leads us anywhere closer to a consensual conclusion than anything else...with all due respect of course. :icon_wink:But, since all evidence is originally physical evidence, or at least directly related to the senses (see how people get knowledge, epistemology thread), I'd think that sound metaphysics would at the very least make the notion of a god as creator highly unlikely. That is, if consciousness means to be conscious of something (other than oneself), then existence must be present before consciousness can. So for a conscious god to create existence, it is worse than arbitrary (the gremlin); it goes against how we know the universe operates.
Well, well. You guys have certainly been at it.
I don't have time this morning to read through everything that has been written. I will, however, make some comments.
Comment #1
To a critical non-believer, there is no way IMO that one can 100% confirm based on scientific evidence currently available, that Jesus lived, is our Savior, or that God exists. I must also point out that, it is also not possible to 100% confirm that the opposite is true either. Stating so "based on the evidence" at hand, from either arguement, is no more firmly based than the other. It is opinion. Period.
I can say with confidnece that, in whatever opinion you hold the validity of any historical document, you must account for the Bible and its contents. It is widely accepted by "authorities" that the Bible is a historical document, though, from a non-believer's perspective, biased by the writters in favor of Christianity. But so is every other historical document. That is why you can have multiple historical accounts of the same event, depending on the writter and their POV of that particular event.
So why do Christians see the Bible differently from a historical perspective, with regards to the life of Jesus and whether he existed? The historical accounts present in the Bible, including those surrounding Jesus, can be found in many other religious and non-religious documents, including texts of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish nature. Also contained within the Bible are, not simply one account of the events, but multiple accounts from multiple sources. You can even make out the varying points of view as, though all of the accounts agree, certain writters seem to place importance on different specific details as they each even leave out certain details that others may include (particularly with reference to the 4 gospel accounts of the life of Jesus). I even distinctly recall my high school World History book noting the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" and commenting on his importance as a major religious figure in Middle Eastern and World History.
Beyond deciding what may or may not be considered historical fact, or what text may be literal or parable for the sake of making a point that is difficult to understand (for that is another thread), Christians believe that the text within the Bible is true.
Comment #2
I actually had a friend of mine who simply reads BBB criticize my posts in this thread as being "dangerous" and potentially "non-Christian." His primary evidence of this is that it seems that most (but not all) of the agreement my posts have received have been from the self-professed non-believers. Also, many of my posts seem to be in opposition to those posting in this thread who profess Christ as their Savior. He seems to think that I am not helping lead others to Christ, but rather giving them fuel to strengthen their atheistic or agnostic beliefs. I appreciate his criticism.
I respond to this first by saying that I have made my Christian beliefs known in this thread. I also challenge this thinking of the manner in which I have posted asking the question: If those who do not believe in God decided to have a one on one philosophical conversation about the existence of God and Christ as our Savior, would they choose to have this conversation with me, or with a believer who tells them upfront that they are wrong? Furthermore, I am not challenging anyone's beliefs. I am challenging the foundation behind them, and more importantly, why you chose to believe what you believe.
Some people mention that, because none of this can be proven factually either way, a universally accepted consensus will never be reached. There is no reasoning behind trying to justify reasoning, because there will always be a rebutle. We should spend our time telling others what we believe and influencing them to believe the same because we are right, rather than trying to understand what they believe and risk getting into a convesation such as what we have been having. Thus, conversations such as this are pointless. I have to disagree...
I believe, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, all must have respect for others knowing that they will have their own opinion and it may not be yours. Shutting down an opposing opinion by telling them they are wrong and being unwilling to explore their opinion with them and consider their reasoning behind it, you close a door. I believe in God, and I want to lead others to believe in Him as well. But telling others who stand as firmly in their belief that God does not exist as you do about His existence that they are wrong, will not provide you with an opportunity to engage in a spiritual conversation that may lead them to Christ. It is not our job to save people. We are simply called to provide witness, testimony, and evidence to others about God's existence in our own lives. God will do the rest. Whether or not a person chooses to believe is their choice. Taking the time to explore and understanding the views and opinions of non-believers and why they have them will better equip you to discuss and challenge their current method of thinking. Ignoring challenges and questions from others does not encourage others to be open to what you believe either.
In my opinion, the most important result of the questions and challenges contained within this thread is that we, believers and non-believers alike, are talkingabout it.
All too often......
The only result of true tolerance, is being assailed from every possible direction. - Spinoza
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
...that's assuming you are in the center.
Well, well. You guys have certainly been at it.
I don't have time this morning to read through everything that has been written. I will, however, make some comments.
Comment #1
To a critical non-believer, there is no way IMO that one can 100% confirm based on scientific evidence currently available, that Jesus lived, is our Savior, or that God exists. I must also point out that, it is also not possible to 100% confirm that the opposite is true either. Stating so "based on the evidence" at hand, from either arguement, is no more firmly based than the other. It is opinion. Period.
I can say with confidnece that, in whatever opinion you hold the validity of any historical document, you must account for the Bible and its contents. It is widely accepted by "authorities" that the Bible is a historical document, though, from a non-believer's perspective, biased by the writters in favor of Christianity. But so is every other historical document. That is why you can have multiple historical accounts of the same event, depending on the writter and their POV of that particular event.
So why do Christians see the Bible differently from a historical perspective, with regards to the life of Jesus and whether he existed? The historical accounts present in the Bible, including those surrounding Jesus, can be found in many other religious and non-religious documents, including texts of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish nature. Also contained within the Bible are, not simply one account of the events, but multiple accounts from multiple sources. You can even make out the varying points of view as, though all of the accounts agree, certain writters seem to place importance on different specific details as they each even leave out certain details that others may include (particularly with reference to the 4 gospel accounts of the life of Jesus). I even distinctly recall my high school World History book noting the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" and commenting on his importance as a major religious figure in Middle Eastern and World History.
Beyond deciding what may or may not be considered historical fact, or what text may be literal or parable for the sake of making a point that is difficult to understand (for that is another thread), Christians believe that the text within the Bible is true.
Comment #2
I actually had a friend of mine who simply reads BBB criticize my posts in this thread as being "dangerous" and potentially "non-Christian." His primary evidence of this is that it seems that most (but not all) of the agreement my posts have received have been from the self-professed non-believers. Also, many of my posts seem to be in opposition to those posting in this thread who profess Christ as their Savior. He seems to think that I am not helping lead others to Christ, but rather giving them fuel to strengthen their atheistic or agnostic beliefs. I appreciate his criticism.
I respond to this first by saying that I have made my Christian beliefs known in this thread. I also challenge this thinking of the manner in which I have posted asking the question: If those who do not believe in God decided to have a one on one philosophical conversation about the existence of God and Christ as our Savior, would they choose to have this conversation with me, or with a believer who tells them upfront that they are wrong? Furthermore, I am not challenging anyone's beliefs. I am challenging the foundation behind them, and more importantly, why you chose to believe what you believe.
Some people mention that, because none of this can be proven factually either way, a universally accepted consensus will never be reached. There is no reasoning behind trying to justify reasoning, because there will always be a rebutle. We should spend our time telling others what we believe and influencing them to believe the same because we are right, rather than trying to understand what they believe and risk getting into a convesation such as what we have been having. Thus, conversations such as this are pointless. I have to disagree...
I believe, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, all must have respect for others knowing that they will have their own opinion and it may not be yours. Shutting down an opposing opinion by telling them they are wrong and being unwilling to explore their opinion with them and consider their reasoning behind it, you close a door. I believe in God, and I want to lead others to believe in Him as well. But telling others who stand as firmly in their belief that God does not exist as you do about His existence that they are wrong, will not provide you with an opportunity to engage in a spiritual conversation that may lead them to Christ. It is not our job to save people. We are simply called to provide witness, testimony, and evidence to others about God's existence in our own lives. God will do the rest. Whether or not a person chooses to believe is their choice. Taking the time to explore and understanding the views and opinions of non-believers and why they have them will better equip you to discuss and challenge their current method of thinking. Ignoring challenges and questions from others does not encourage others to be open to what you believe either.
In my opinion, the most important result of the questions and challenges contained within this thread is that we, believers and non-believers alike, are talkingabout it.
Regarding Jesus Christ as a historical figure......
I have given this matter a goodly deal of thought throughtout my life, and the following is a summary of my conclusions to date.
If Jesus Christ ever lived...... He was a citizen of country ruled by the Roman Empire.
It is an historical fact that the Roman Empire kept what would be considered meticulous records for their era.
No Roman records regarding Jesus Christ have ever been found.
Does this mean that Jesus Christ did no exist?
Absolutely not!
Just as there are 1,000's of records of grain shipments, and soldiers pay, and road construction and so forth...... There are also 1,000's of such Roman records that have certainly been lost or destroyed over the last 2,000 plus years.
But the fact that there is no mention of Jesus Christ in all known Roman records (and no mention (to my knowledge) of Jesus Christ in any "local" Jewish records of the time ...... Prompts me to believe that if Jesus Christ did exist, he was not an individual deemed worthy of any major personal consideration throughout his life by either the Romans or the Jews.
Ergo......
If Jesus Christ did live and did die on a Roman cross...... I suspect he was crucified as a minor Roman and/or Jewish criminal/nuisance, with nothing but an insignificant Roman record of such a relatively commonplace occurance to mark the actual event.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
But if Jesus Christ did not impress the Romans......
Or "messiah" move any significant number of warrior Jews......
There is little doubt in my mind that he INSPIRED some number of the human beings whom he touched with his life and philosophy......
To the extent that he was both remembered and revered...... Long after his insignificant Roman crucifiction.
IMNHO......
I do not doubt for a LOGICAL MOMENT that Jesus Christ once walked this earth, and that he left his philosophical footprint...... For any who care to follow.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Well, well. You guys have certainly been at it.
I don't have time this morning to read through everything that has been written. I will, however, make some comments.
Comment #1
To a critical non-believer, there is no way IMO that one can 100% confirm based on scientific evidence currently available, that Jesus lived, is our Savior, or that God exists. I must also point out that, it is also not possible to 100% confirm that the opposite is true either. Stating so "based on the evidence" at hand, from either arguement, is no more firmly based than the other. It is opinion. Period.
I can say with confidnece that, in whatever opinion you hold the validity of any historical document, you must account for the Bible and its contents. It is widely accepted by "authorities" that the Bible is a historical document, though, from a non-believer's perspective, biased by the writters in favor of Christianity. But so is every other historical document. That is why you can have multiple historical accounts of the same event, depending on the writter and their POV of that particular event.
So why do Christians see the Bible differently from a historical perspective, with regards to the life of Jesus and whether he existed? The historical accounts present in the Bible, including those surrounding Jesus, can be found in many other religious and non-religious documents, including texts of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish nature. Also contained within the Bible are, not simply one account of the events, but multiple accounts from multiple sources. You can even make out the varying points of view as, though all of the accounts agree, certain writters seem to place importance on different specific details as they each even leave out certain details that others may include (particularly with reference to the 4 gospel accounts of the life of Jesus). I even distinctly recall my high school World History book noting the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth" and commenting on his importance as a major religious figure in Middle Eastern and World History.
Beyond deciding what may or may not be considered historical fact, or what text may be literal or parable for the sake of making a point that is difficult to understand (for that is another thread), Christians believe that the text within the Bible is true.
Comment #2
I actually had a friend of mine who simply reads BBB criticize my posts in this thread as being "dangerous" and potentially "non-Christian." His primary evidence of this is that it seems that most (but not all) of the agreement my posts have received have been from the self-professed non-believers. Also, many of my posts seem to be in opposition to those posting in this thread who profess Christ as their Savior. He seems to think that I am not helping lead others to Christ, but rather giving them fuel to strengthen their atheistic or agnostic beliefs. I appreciate his criticism.
I respond to this first by saying that I have made my Christian beliefs known in this thread. I also challenge this thinking of the manner in which I have posted asking the question: If those who do not believe in God decided to have a one on one philosophical conversation about the existence of God and Christ as our Savior, would they choose to have this conversation with me, or with a believer who tells them upfront that they are wrong? Furthermore, I am not challenging anyone's beliefs. I am challenging the foundation behind them, and more importantly, why you chose to believe what you believe.
Some people mention that, because none of this can be proven factually either way, a universally accepted consensus will never be reached. There is no reasoning behind trying to justify reasoning, because there will always be a rebutle. We should spend our time telling others what we believe and influencing them to believe the same because we are right, rather than trying to understand what they believe and risk getting into a convesation such as what we have been having. Thus, conversations such as this are pointless. I have to disagree...
I believe, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, all must have respect for others knowing that they will have their own opinion and it may not be yours. Shutting down an opposing opinion by telling them they are wrong and being unwilling to explore their opinion with them and consider their reasoning behind it, you close a door. I believe in God, and I want to lead others to believe in Him as well. But telling others who stand as firmly in their belief that God does not exist as you do about His existence that they are wrong, will not provide you with an opportunity to engage in a spiritual conversation that may lead them to Christ. It is not our job to save people. We are simply called to provide witness, testimony, and evidence to others about God's existence in our own lives. God will do the rest. Whether or not a person chooses to believe is their choice. Taking the time to explore and understanding the views and opinions of non-believers and why they have them will better equip you to discuss and challenge their current method of thinking. Ignoring challenges and questions from others does not encourage others to be open to what you believe either.
In my opinion, the most important result of the questions and challenges contained within this thread is that we, believers and non-believers alike, are talkingabout it.
"We are simply called upon to provide witness, testimony, and evidence to others about God's existence in our own lives"......
Just one simple question......
Is there any better way to FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST......
Than to deny EVERYTHING demanded by Old Testament barbarism......
And EVERY INTOLERANT tenet preached by others (LATER) in the New Testament......
That does not honestly mesh with THE MORE THAN OBVIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS CHRIST?
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Does it bother you not......
That YOUR ALL POWERFUL AND WISE AND BENEVOLENT GOD......
Was once unable to DEAL WITH SIN without maniacal BLOOD LUST and CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT...... FOR ETERNITY?
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Yes.
God just appeared before me and told me that you are wrong about that. :icon_wink:
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
so, if a fetus is unable to biologically and environmentally "sense" god, does that make it not a person? :icon_wink:
^ Game, set, match.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
"MULTIPLE TIMES IN YOUR LIFE"......?
WHY NOT EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY...... While OUR little grey cells still have the opportunity to function on a par (at minimum) with a random grain of seemingly settled sand?
I sincerely hate to be the one to hand you this metaphysical message......
But EGO and SELFISHNESS have NEVER constructed any impregnable fortress that does not become readily transparent...... When viewed either objectively or philosophically.
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said...... But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
