Totally serious question:
What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?
Full Version: Proof Of God/proof Of Jesus
QUOTE (gobears @ Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 4:08 PM) 
Totally serious question:
What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?
Direct evidence would be sufficient, where by direct evidence I mean his appearing to me and performing some action for which there is no plausible natural explanation.
I cannot think of any indirect evidence that would be sufficient to make me believe, although a prepoderance of indirect evidence might move me from atheist to agnostic.
Regarding Jesus if I first came to believe in god then his telling me that Jesus is his son would be sufficient.
Alternatively, Jesus himself could provide that first direct evidence of his divinity.
QUOTE (gobears @ Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 12:08 PM)
Totally serious question:
What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?
What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?
those are different questions. not sure on the first, but god would have to at least appear and prove he was the universal creator and not just a more advanced alien life form
the second would take a lot - god would have to appear and not only validate jesus, but also give a reasonable explanation why the bible is so self-contradictory about god's nature and many other things, why he decided to create the universe to appear that it operates utterly mechanically with no evidence that it was designed, why the apparently nonsensical plan of salvation was necessary at all, etc etc.
obviously no written historical evidence would ever be enough by itself, nor should it be.
QUOTE (copernicus @ Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 12:30 PM)
Direct evidence would be sufficient, where by direct evidence I mean his appearing to me and performing some action for which there is no plausible natural explanation.
I would argue that there is no such thing as an event with no plausible natural explanation. Even if an event seemed this way, it could just as easily be explained by the fact that your senses have misinterpreted it.
You can't prove God exists, but you cannot disprove his existence either. Belief in God is simply, a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
QUOTE (fckthis @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 8:14 AM)
You can't prove God exists, but you cannot disprove his existence either. Belief in God is simply, a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
As Mr This pointed out, there is no proof for God, Jesus the son of God or even Jesus the man.
So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'
The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling
Now lets say that void exists.
Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.
I'd be convinced if Jesus flew off of the top of the Empire State Building and juggled 7 elephants
I have an open mind
I have an open mind
This is why I never got all the Medieval attempts at proving God's existence. I choose to believe in God, by having faith that God exists.
Faith in something is the antithesis of having proof of something.
To prove God exists, destroy's the necessity for faith.
If God wishes for faith to be the pillar of belief in God's existence, then God would not provide proof of God's existence.
On top of all of that...
What is proof?
Proof of a hypothesis is the amount of information the recipient accepts as sufficient to support the hypothesis against other possibilities.
Proof is clearly subjective. Some people require more proof than others. Some would say, that our existence is proof of God. Others would say that Einstein's theory of general relativity has been "proven."
Neither of these statements is an absolute truth.
God provides a description of the way we came into existence. A scientific theory provides a description of phenomena that are perceived.
The only main difference, is that the scientific theory can be "proven" to be wrong at a later date and supplanted with a more accurate scientific theory.
Someone's belief in God cannot be disproven, therefore it can not be proven, either.
If you can't turn the light off, you can't turn it on either. It's either on or it's not.
Monty
Faith in something is the antithesis of having proof of something.
To prove God exists, destroy's the necessity for faith.
If God wishes for faith to be the pillar of belief in God's existence, then God would not provide proof of God's existence.
On top of all of that...
What is proof?
Proof of a hypothesis is the amount of information the recipient accepts as sufficient to support the hypothesis against other possibilities.
Proof is clearly subjective. Some people require more proof than others. Some would say, that our existence is proof of God. Others would say that Einstein's theory of general relativity has been "proven."
Neither of these statements is an absolute truth.
God provides a description of the way we came into existence. A scientific theory provides a description of phenomena that are perceived.
The only main difference, is that the scientific theory can be "proven" to be wrong at a later date and supplanted with a more accurate scientific theory.
Someone's belief in God cannot be disproven, therefore it can not be proven, either.
If you can't turn the light off, you can't turn it on either. It's either on or it's not.
Monty
QUOTE (keith crime @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 6:27 AM)
I'd be convinced if Jesus flew off of the top of the Empire State Building and juggled 7 elephants
I have an open mind
I have an open mind
How could you distinguish between Jesus and Superman?
Kryptonite, sorry, this is then an acceptable proof to me also.
QUOTE (Canada @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 3:21 AM)
As Mr This pointed out, there is no proof for God, Jesus the son of God or even Jesus the man.
So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'
The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling
Now lets say that void exists.
Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.
So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'
The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling
Now lets say that void exists.
Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.
no serious historian in this field will deny that Jesus didnt live. The fact on whether he was God or not is what the question. This is both religious and secular that will agree with it. It is usually the uninformed layperson that will try to say there is no evidence Jesus lived
QUOTE (fckthis @ Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 11:14 PM)
You can't prove God exists, but you cannot disprove his existence either. Belief in God is simply, a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
this statement sounds a little less religion friendly if you frame it in this equivalent way-
You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?
QUOTE (SilentSnow @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 12:22 PM)
this statement sounds a little less religion friendly if you frame it in this equivalent way-
You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?
You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?
since Adam was created in God's likeness we tend to think Hes a man thats why
QUOTE (SilentSnow @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 10:22 AM)
and how do you know God is a "he" anyway?
I, being male, tend to write with the male personal pronoun. I edited as I wrote to alter "he" or "him" or "his" to "God," but I missed a few apparently ;P
I don't think God has a gender at all, the concept of God having a gender is patent nonsense. The mortal form of Jesus obviously had a gender, but that doesn't seem particularly vital one way or the other.
QUOTE
this statement sounds a little less religion friendly if you frame it in this equivalent way-
You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
You can't prove omniscient flying pink penguins from pluto exist, but you cant disprove their existence either. Belief in pink penguins from pluto is simply a leap of faith. Some take it, some don't.
Belief in flying pink penguins from Pluto is a leap of faith, and it is an EV+ leap of faith. But the difference lies in what that leap provides you.
Belief in FPPFP does not provide a coherent explanation for our existence, belief in God does this and more.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 1:55 PM)
Belief in FPPFP does not provide a coherent explanation for our existence, belief in God does this and more.
it does? how? belief in the christian god doesn't fit empirical evidence any better than belief in anything else, so i'm not sure what you mean by coherent.
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 1:48 PM)
it does? how? belief in the christian god doesn't fit empirical evidence any better than belief in anything else, so i'm not sure what you mean by coherent.
I was pointing out the difference between BIFPPFP and belief in God.
The difference is:
BIFPPFP does not provide -any- explanation for why we are here; belief in God provides an -unprovable by empirical explanation- explanation for why we are here.
I'm not arguing that God is provable, I claim God is not.
But belief in God does provide a coherent explanation for why we are here.
Coherence is an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.
Belief in God provides an orderly explanation for our existence (whether it can be proved or not)
Belief in God provides a logical explanation for our existence (first cause, etc. etc. etc., people would argue that belief in something you can't prove is illogical, but that is either a) a good argument against God; or
semantics)Belief in God provides an aesthetically consistent relation of parts.
BIFPPFP does not provide an orderly, logical or aesthetically consistent anything.
Flying penguins from Pluto may be orderly in flight, logical is certainly a stretch and I can see nothing aesthetically consistent about such a thing.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 3:13 PM)
Coherence is an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts.
eastern religions tend to be much more internally logical and consistent than christianity. and aesthetics are purely in the eye of the beholder. i see no difference between belief in the christian god and any other religion/belief in that sense.
QUOTE
Belief in God provides a logical explanation for our existence (first cause, etc. etc. etc., people would argue that belief in something you can't prove is illogical, but that is either a) a good argument against God; or semantics)
semantics)the point (as usual) is those arguments can only be used generically and in no way support the christian god specifically as the "first cause".
QUOTE
BIFPPFP does not provide an orderly, logical or aesthetically consistent anything.
again the way you are using those things is leaving them wide open to personal interpretation.
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 2:56 PM)
eastern religions tend to be much more internally logical and consistent than christianity. and aesthetics are purely in the eye of the beholder. i see no difference between belief in the christian god and any other religion/belief in that sense.
I think you are making assumptions about what I am arguing.
I am a christian, but I love reading on Eastern religions, and I believe that there are multiple roads to God, and that Hinduism and Buddhism are two of those roads (in their manifold permutations).
My point that belief in God provides a coherent structure was simply a response to a statement made regarding how belief in God is different from belief in the purple penguins.
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 2:56 PM)
the point (as usual) is those arguments can only be used generically and in no way support the christian god specifically as the "first cause".
I'm not particularly interested in supporting the idea that the christian God is specifically the "first cause." I just believe that there is a first cause, that said first cause can be explained in many ways, I choose to explain it via my christian God, but do not hesistate to agree that there are other ways of looking at the phenomena.
In addition, all of the ways of looking at the first cause can be right. Just like it can be right for you to bet with the best hand and your opponent to call with the worst hand. Two people in different situations have different cards to play with and different decisions to make.
(This is no way is equating christianity or any other religion with the "best hand" or the "worst hand" or with "betting" or "calling", it's just a simple analogy)
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 2:56 PM)
again the way you are using those things is leaving them wide open to personal interpretation.
I like things wide open to personal interpretation. The world is a better place for it.
Monty
QUOTE (Canada @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 3:21 AM)
As Mr This pointed out, there is no proof for God, Jesus the son of God or even Jesus the man.
So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'
The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling
Now lets say that void exists.
Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.
So what you are really asking is, 'What would it take to believe in a sentinent greater power that created the universe and all within it.'
The short answer is: An emotional void that needed filling
Now lets say that void exists.
Why choose the Christian teachings to place your faith in? As stated you can't disprove the existance of God, but similarly you can't disprove the existance of any other religion's deities.
Why is it more likely that there is no sentinent greater power and that the universe "just is"?
As for your second point, the religion you choose depends greatly on your environment, culture, and what you are exposed to. So here in the U.S., it's more likely that one would pick the Christian faith if one believes in God.
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 4:08 PM)
I choose to explain it via my christian God, but do not hesistate to agree that there are other ways of looking at the phenomena.
yes, like purple penguins. there is no difference. as long as we are *choosing* to explain phenomena a certain way, purple penguins provide exactly the same "coherent structure" you say god does.
QUOTE (gobears @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 4:41 PM)
Why is it more likely that there is no sentinent greater power and that the universe "just is"?
Because the universe doesn't NEED a "sentient greater power." It exists and functions on its own. If there is a God, he hasn't done anything at all since the Big Bang.
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 3:48 PM)
yes, like purple penguins. there is no difference. as long as we are *choosing* to explain phenomena a certain way, purple penguins provide exactly the same "coherent structure" you say god does.
You're talking nonsense.
In an earlier post, I said something along the lines of:
"You can't prove God, and that's part of the point of believing in God, you have to take it on faith"
Someone responded:
"That seems less religion-friendly when you consider that you can't prove FPPFP but you can take them on faith"
I responded:
"God provides an explanation for existence, whereas FPPFP do not provide an explanation for existence."
What on Earth are you trying to argue? You aren't making any sense. No one has offered the hypothesis that flying purple penguins from Pluto offer an explanation for the existence of the Universe. Such a hypothesis is nonsense because it is not coherent, logical, etc. For such a hypothesis to be coherent, etc., the FPPFP have to be omnipotent and all-knowing in order to create the Universe and then all you've done is say that possibly FPPFP created the Universe because FPPFP is omnipotent and all-knowing which isn't any different from saying YHWH created the Universe. Offering that hypothesis is the same as offering the hypothesis of God.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 4:55 PM)
For such a hypothesis to be coherent, etc., the FPPFP have to be omnipotent and all-knowing in order to create the Universe and then all you've done is say that possibly FPPFP created the Universe because FPPFP is omnipotent and all-knowing which isn't any different from saying YHWH created the Universe. Offering that hypothesis is the same as offering the hypothesis of God.
my point.
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 9:07 PM)
my point.
Took long enough for everybody to get there!
I shouldnt be critical though, since I have had the benefit of an ephiphany while anointing some Pasta Primavera with what unbeknownst to me was holy Parmigaino Reggiano.
I have decided that the only route to world piece is to convert radical Islamists to Pastafarians, and will be soliciting donations for a Mission to Adequately Inform Muslims (MAIM).
I first need to research the role of wheat in Islam however.
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 4:07 PM)
my point.
Then I don't understand what you are trying to say? All you are doing is substituting letters of the alphabet. Using the letters F, P, P, F, P instead of the letters G, O, D.
That has very little to do with the original distinction I made between FPPFP and God, and once you make that point you eliminate all distinctions between FPPFP and God.
You do understand that once you make FPPFP omnipotent and all-knowing, then it's not flying purple penguins from pluto anymore, now it is an omnipotent and all-knowing entity that can manifest itself in any form, and the name and visualization you put on the thing means absolutely nothing.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 5:48 PM)
and the name and visualization you put on the thing means absolutely nothing.
if god can be anything what's the point of religion?
QUOTE (copernicus @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 6:39 PM)
Took long enough for everybody to get there!
I shouldnt be critical though, since I have had the benefit of an ephiphany while anointing some Pasta Primavera with what unbeknownst to me was holy Parmigaino Reggiano.
I have decided that the only route to world piece is to convert radical Islamists to Pastafarians, and will be soliciting donations for a Mission to Adequately Inform Muslims (MAIM).
I first need to research the role of wheat in Islam however.
I shouldnt be critical though, since I have had the benefit of an ephiphany while anointing some Pasta Primavera with what unbeknownst to me was holy Parmigaino Reggiano.
I have decided that the only route to world piece is to convert radical Islamists to Pastafarians, and will be soliciting donations for a Mission to Adequately Inform Muslims (MAIM).
I first need to research the role of wheat in Islam however.
for somebody who claims to know all about philosophy this is one of dumber statements ive heard from you
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 4:59 PM)
if god can be anything what's the point of religion?
Your question is illustrative of the issue in some degree I think.
Okay... let's start with God being anything in terms of visualization.
If God is omnipotent and omnipresent, then a painting depcting God as a old man with a white beard is just the painters imagination putting a picture on God. Obviously something that is omnipotent and omnipresent is beyond comprehension, so whenever it is reduced to physical or visual form, the form will be 100% innacurrate.
So a painter could paint God as a flight of flying purple penguins from Pluto, or an old man with a white beard. It doesn't really matter. He can paint God as a flower.
Maybe the artist is Hindu. Maybe he carves God into a huge granite outcropping and his depiction of God consists of a dozen different Gods and scenes of nature.
Whatever name or visualization people give to God or the creator, or the cessation of suffering, or the first cause or whatnot, it doesn't alter or effect the underlying thing that they are giving mental form to.
On a side note, the question "if God can be anything, what is the point of religion" answers itself, in part. Part of the point of religion -is- that God can be anything. God is the fount from which all things spring.
If God exists and created the Universe, obviously, manifesting a flight of flying purple penguins from Pluto is hardly a feat of any effort.
Modern physics can take us back to the first billionths of a second after the Big Bang, and future scientific developments will doubtless take us all the way to the Big Bang, perhaps beyond.
But one question will always remain...
Why?
We can explain how everything happened, but we can't explain why everything happened.
God -is- anything, and religion is our effort to explain why anything -and- everything happened.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 6:21 PM)
But one question will always remain...
Why?
We can explain how everything happened, but we can't explain why everything happened.
Why?
We can explain how everything happened, but we can't explain why everything happened.
who says "everything" has a purpose? i'm not assuming that.
QUOTE (Mattnxtc @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 10:14 PM)
for somebody who claims to know all about philosophy this is one of dumber statements ive heard from you
for someone with no sense of humor, i fully expected this from you And ive never claimed anything about philosophy. Logic, yes, Philosophy no
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 5:31 PM)
who says "everything" has a purpose? i'm not assuming that.
I am not going to claim that everything has a purpose, or that anything has a purpose.
From my POV, it seems self-evident that there is some kind of purpose at work.
But...
Let's say there is no purpose at all. There is no why. That there's no reason for any of this, for what anything is, for you, for me, for why we are sitting at computers communicating over the internet....
If that's true...
If there is no purpose, no answer to the question why...
It's still +EV to believe there to be a reason, because otherwise this whole joint is a pretty bleak place
Monty
QUOTE (copernicus @ Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, 3:30 PM)
Direct evidence would be sufficient, where by direct evidence I mean his appearing to me and performing some action for which there is no plausible natural explanation.
I cannot think of any indirect evidence that would be sufficient to make me believe, although a prepoderance of indirect evidence might move me from atheist to agnostic.
Regarding Jesus if I first came to believe in god then his telling me that Jesus is his son would be sufficient.
Alternatively, Jesus himself could provide that first direct evidence of his divinity.
I cannot think of any indirect evidence that would be sufficient to make me believe, although a prepoderance of indirect evidence might move me from atheist to agnostic.
Regarding Jesus if I first came to believe in god then his telling me that Jesus is his son would be sufficient.
Alternatively, Jesus himself could provide that first direct evidence of his divinity.
I find it interesting that you except many ideas with next to no proof, but this would take Jesus himself actually appearing to you. It's also interesting that people think that Jesus is a completely stupid thing, all the while, actually helping prove that he is God. Let's assume that Jesus is God for a second... it is pretty ironic that so many people make fun of the 'invisible man in the sky' when there is so much evidence SCREAMING that Jesus is God and that God is real.
EDIT: #1 & #2 are hypotheicals in my mind, but just very interesting... (thanks LongLiveYorke)
1) The entire calendar as we know it is based on Jesus' life. Forget CE and BCE, nice try public schools. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
2) "Jesus" is a 'cuss' word the world over. Strange that no one says, "Allah" when someone tells them a cool story. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
3) Every non Christian in the world for 8,000 years have been trying to disprove the Bible and the exsistance and power of Jehovah God, who sent his son Jesus to die for the worlds' sin. Well, there's always next year I guess.
4) Many many leading atheists have switched their views and become thiests, seriously..... how could this happen even once. It makes no sense. The big name athiests? C.S. Lewis and Antony Flew. This is a letter that Flew wrote, pretty interesting coming from a life long atheist.
QUOTE
Professor Antony Flew, who is famous for his philosophical arguments in favour of atheism, has contributed these tantalising comments to the debate.
Dear Editor,
The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. In the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species Darwin himself – apart from noticing certain short (a mere handful of million years long) geological periods in which the fossil record reveals the occurrence of inexplicably rapid evolution – wrote:
“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype.... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”
Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.
But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.
I will here confine myself to recommending two books by individuals who started as believers in two different revealed religions. The author of the first started as, and remains, a Protestant Christian. The author of the second started as, and remains, an Orthodox Jew. The first book is Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonderful World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Fountain Hills, Arizona;Tyr Publishing 2003). The second book is Gerald L Schroeder’s The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone; New York 2001)
Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’. That book was a study of the arguments for Christian theism, first published in 1966 in various editions in both hardcover andpaperback in both the USA and the UK. My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”
Yours,
Antony Flew
Dear Editor,
The publication of ‘The Alleged Fallacies of Evolutionary Theory’ by Massimo Pigliucci and others in Issue 46 of Philosophy Now provides a convenient occasion for pointing out the limits of the negative theological implications of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. In the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species Darwin himself – apart from noticing certain short (a mere handful of million years long) geological periods in which the fossil record reveals the occurrence of inexplicably rapid evolution – wrote:
“Analogy would lead me one step further, namely to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from one prototype.... Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings that have lived on the earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”
Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.
But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.
I will here confine myself to recommending two books by individuals who started as believers in two different revealed religions. The author of the first started as, and remains, a Protestant Christian. The author of the second started as, and remains, an Orthodox Jew. The first book is Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonderful World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God (Fountain Hills, Arizona;Tyr Publishing 2003). The second book is Gerald L Schroeder’s The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone; New York 2001)
Anyone who should happen to want to know what I myself now believe will have to wait until the publication, promised for early 2005, by Prometheus of Amherst, NY of the final edition of my God and Philosophy with a new introduction of it as ‘an historical relic’. That book was a study of the arguments for Christian theism, first published in 1966 in various editions in both hardcover andpaperback in both the USA and the UK. My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”
Yours,
Antony Flew
5) Please Read this... Atheist Becomes Theist because the guy that it's about is smarter than you, and judging by how you treat people dumber than you, (which is everyone on this site and 2+2, no?) that should matter.
QUOTE (brvheart @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:50 PM)
1) The entire calendar as we know it is based on Jesus' life. Forget CE and BCE, nice try public schools. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
2) "Jesus" is a cuss word the world over. Strange that no one says, "Allah" when someone tells them a cool story. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
2) "Jesus" is a cuss word the world over. Strange that no one says, "Allah" when someone tells them a cool story. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
I really hope you're joking when you say that these are evidence that "Jesus is God and God is real."
You're kidding, right?
QUOTE (LongLiveYorke @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:32 PM)
I really hope you're joking when you say that these are evidence that "Jesus is God and God is real."
You're kidding, right?
You're kidding, right?
Never once did I say it was evidence... because clearly it's not... it will simply be very ironic for people when they die.
QUOTE (brvheart @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:50 PM)
it is pretty ironic that so many people make fun of the 'invisible man in the sky' when there is so much evidence SCREAMING that Jesus is God and that God is real.
1) The entire calendar as we know it is based on Jesus' life. Forget CE and BCE, nice try public schools. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
2) "Jesus" is a 'cuss' word the world over. Strange that no one says, "Allah" when someone tells them a cool story. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
1) The entire calendar as we know it is based on Jesus' life. Forget CE and BCE, nice try public schools. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
2) "Jesus" is a 'cuss' word the world over. Strange that no one says, "Allah" when someone tells them a cool story. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
QUOTE (brvheart @ Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 12:34 AM)
Never once did I say it was evidence
QUOTE (brvheart @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 7:34 PM)
Never once did I say it was evidence... because clearly it's not... it will simply be very ironic for people when they die.
Dude....
Can you see Jesus saying:
"it will simply be very ironic for people when they die"
?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I can't put enough wtf?! euphemisms in this post.
What is the world coming to!!!! This isn't the point of Christianity.
QUOTE (brvheart @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 7:50 PM)
1) The entire calendar as we know it is based on Jesus' life. Forget CE and BCE, nice try public schools. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
all that proves is jesus was an important historical figure. that doesn't make him god.
QUOTE
2) "Jesus" is a cuss word the world over. Strange that no one says, "Allah" when someone tells them a cool story. When person A, an agnostic, dies, he goes to the gates of heaven... and Jesus says, "How was this hint not obvious to you?"
that's just stupid, proves nothing. purely a cultural phenomena - i seriously doubt non-christian (non english speaking people) regularly use the name of jesus as a swear word. and if they don't use their own cultural icons (such as allah) as swear words it's most likely because there is severe punishment for it.
QUOTE
3) Every non Christian in the world for 8,000 years have been trying to disprove the Bible and the exsistance and power of Jehovah God, who sent his son Jesus to die for the worlds' sin. Well, there's always next year I guess.
it's impossible to try to disprove something you believe through faith. otherwise there is plenty of logical/historical evidence the bible isn't likely to be the inspired word of a universal creator. note that the majority of the world believes it isn't.
QUOTE
4) Many many leading atheists have switched their views and become thiests, seriously..... how could this happen even once. It makes no sense. The big name athiests? C.S. Lewis and Antony Flew. This is a letter that Flew wrote, pretty interesting coming from a life long atheist.
if you wallow in philosophy enough you can convince yourself of anything. i'm familiar with lewis's conversion and i don't see the logic in it.
I can't quote you LongLiveYorke, because both your statements are quotes... but 2 shay... those first 2 should definately be separated.... you should read my thoughts better... or I should take an English class.
I don't understand what you're saying or I would respond.
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:45 PM)
Dude....
Can you see Jesus saying:
"it will simply be very ironic for people when they die"
?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I can't put enough wtf?! euphemisms in this post.
What is the world coming to!!!! This isn't the point of Christianity.
Can you see Jesus saying:
"it will simply be very ironic for people when they die"
?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I can't put enough wtf?! euphemisms in this post.
What is the world coming to!!!! This isn't the point of Christianity.
I don't understand what you're saying or I would respond.
QUOTE (brvheart @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 8:01 PM)
I can't quote you Longshanks, because both your statements are quotes... but 2 shay... those first 2 should definately be separated.... you should read my thoughts better... or I should take an English class.
I don't understand what you're saying or I would respond.
I don't understand what you're saying or I would respond.
I am saying that you are taking smug satisfaction in the fiction that some people will "ironically" meet their fate at the gates to heaven.
It's not your job to judge people, and if you think it is, you are sorely mistaken.
Monty
QUOTE
it's impossible to try to disprove something you believe through faith. otherwise there is plenty of logical/historical evidence the bible isn't likely to be the inspired word of a universal creator. note that the majority of the world believes it isn't.
for a long time the majority of the world felt the earth was flat...what happened with that one? Ignorance isnt an excuse
QUOTE (crowTrobot @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:46 PM)
all that proves is jesus was an important historical figure. that doesn't make him god.
Maybe... but most historical figures don't have the ENTIRE world adjust everything to coincide with their birth... and remember while in my 1st post I did say that this and the 'cuss' word were evidence it was not intentional on my part... it's just interesting to think about.
QUOTE
that's just stupid, proves nothing. purely a cultural phenomena - i seriously doubt non-christian (non english speaking people) regularly use the name of jesus as a swear word. and if they don't use their own cultural icons (such as allah) as swear words it's most likely because there is severe punishment for it.
It is used throughout Europe, Australia, South America and parts of Asia that I know of... I can only assume that parts of Africa this occurs as well... but even without Africa I would say that's pretty much 'all over the world'. Again, say what you will, but it's pretty interesting. And if you were Jesus, maybe a little ironic?
QUOTE
it's impossible to try to disprove something you believe through faith. otherwise there is plenty of logical/historical evidence the bible isn't likely to be the inspired word of a universal creator. note that the majority of the world believes it isn't.
I'm not talking about the existance of God here, but instead, the fact that the Bible as a historical document can not be disproven. And people have had a LOT of time to try. About the existance of God though... why do you think that extremely intelligent people like Antony Flew have changed their minds? Did you read the interview? you should.
QUOTE
if you wallow in philosophy enough you can convince yourself of anything. i'm familiar with lewis's conversion and i don't see the logic in it.
I agree with you... it's not logical... so why did it happen? God maybe?
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 12:08 AM)
I am saying that you are taking smug satisfaction in the fiction that some people will "ironically" meet their fate at the gates to heaven.
It's not your job to judge people, and if you think it is, you are sorely mistaken.
Monty
It's not your job to judge people, and if you think it is, you are sorely mistaken.
Monty
got it. You are misreading me big time monty. One thing that sucks about text is how impossible it is to read into people motives. I am not judging anyone. The Bible says that:
1) Jesus is God
2) Jesus died for sin
3) People will be blinded to this fact
4) People will be arrogantly disbelieving in this fact
5) People will find out the truth when they die
6) It's God's wish that everyone would come to him
and although not in the Bible
7) I wish that as well
I am not disputing any of your numbered points. I am just saying that it smacks of arrogance to presume that God cannot work in manifold ways.
If answer A is correct, this does not automatically mean that answer B is incorrect.
People don't say Allah! when they hear a story, because we live in the United States. They might say Allah! over in the middle east, I don't know. But there sure as heck don't say Jesus! either.
The billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that have lived over the past two millenia are not condemned, they will not be turned back at the gates to heaven, they are not lost to salvation, just because they didn't go to the local methodist church last Sunday.
Being close-minded and dogmatic does -not- help the cause of Jesus or of Christianity, it hurts those causes.
Monty
If answer A is correct, this does not automatically mean that answer B is incorrect.
People don't say Allah! when they hear a story, because we live in the United States. They might say Allah! over in the middle east, I don't know. But there sure as heck don't say Jesus! either.
The billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that have lived over the past two millenia are not condemned, they will not be turned back at the gates to heaven, they are not lost to salvation, just because they didn't go to the local methodist church last Sunday.
Being close-minded and dogmatic does -not- help the cause of Jesus or of Christianity, it hurts those causes.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 12:24 AM)
I am not disputing any of your numbered points. I am just saying that it smacks of arrogance to presume that God cannot work in manifold ways.
If answer A is correct, this does not automatically mean that answer B is incorrect.
People don't say Allah! when they hear a story, because we live in the United States. They might say Allah! over in the middle east, I don't know. But there sure as heck don't say Jesus! either.
The billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that have lived over the past two millenia are not condemned, they will not be turned back at the gates to heaven, they are not lost to salvation, just because they didn't go to the local methodist church last Sunday.
Being close-minded and dogmatic does -not- help the cause of Jesus or of Christianity, it hurts those causes.
Monty
If answer A is correct, this does not automatically mean that answer B is incorrect.
People don't say Allah! when they hear a story, because we live in the United States. They might say Allah! over in the middle east, I don't know. But there sure as heck don't say Jesus! either.
The billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that have lived over the past two millenia are not condemned, they will not be turned back at the gates to heaven, they are not lost to salvation, just because they didn't go to the local methodist church last Sunday.
Being close-minded and dogmatic does -not- help the cause of Jesus or of Christianity, it hurts those causes.
Monty
Here's the thing though... I totally disagree with you. If the Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY way, I must believe that. If it's close minded, then I, by necessity, must be close minded.
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 10:24 PM)
I am not disputing any of your numbered points. I am just saying that it smacks of arrogance to presume that God cannot work in manifold ways.
If answer A is correct, this does not automatically mean that answer B is incorrect.
People don't say Allah! when they hear a story, because we live in the United States. They might say Allah! over in the middle east, I don't know. But there sure as heck don't say Jesus! either.
The billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that have lived over the past two millenia are not condemned, they will not be turned back at the gates to heaven, they are not lost to salvation, just because they didn't go to the local methodist church last Sunday.
Being close-minded and dogmatic does -not- help the cause of Jesus or of Christianity, it hurts those causes.
Monty
If answer A is correct, this does not automatically mean that answer B is incorrect.
People don't say Allah! when they hear a story, because we live in the United States. They might say Allah! over in the middle east, I don't know. But there sure as heck don't say Jesus! either.
The billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that have lived over the past two millenia are not condemned, they will not be turned back at the gates to heaven, they are not lost to salvation, just because they didn't go to the local methodist church last Sunday.
Being close-minded and dogmatic does -not- help the cause of Jesus or of Christianity, it hurts those causes.
Monty
And yet you cannot provide a single biblical verse that says that people of other religions are saved? In fact please supply one verse that says that you can be saved without being righteous or a believer in Jesus. The fact is you cant. The fact is these "other religions" are mans attempt to become greater than God. The fact is that while I feel for them, they have all had a chance to know God. If you feel so bad for them, then go over to those countries. Share the Gospel with them. But dont sit here and try to add to the bible in order to allow for nonbelievers to be acceptable for God. It wont work
QUOTE (Mattnxtc @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 8:29 PM)
The fact is these "other religions" are mans attempt to become greater than God.
?!
Approximately 2 billion people practice "other religions" that existed in specific form or in an infant form before the Roman empire was a glint in Romulus' eye. How are they "man's attempt to become greater than God?"
The concept of a single God didn't even exist when Hinduism first started coming into being.
How then can Hinduism be "man's attempt to become greater than God?"
Are you familiar with Hinduism at all? At the most basic level, Hindus believe in a single, all-powerful supreme being, the same creator that Christians call God.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Thursday, April 20th, 2006, 12:33 AM)
?!
Approximately 2 billion people practice "other religions" that existed in specific form or in an infant form before the Roman empire was a glint in Romulus' eye. How are they "man's attempt to become greater than God?"
The concept of a single God didn't even exist when Hinduism first started coming into being.
How then can Hinduism be "man's attempt to become greater than God?"
Are you familiar with Hinduism at all? At the most basic level, Hindus believe in a single, all-powerful supreme being, the same creator that Christians call God.
Monty
Approximately 2 billion people practice "other religions" that existed in specific form or in an infant form before the Roman empire was a glint in Romulus' eye. How are they "man's attempt to become greater than God?"
The concept of a single God didn't even exist when Hinduism first started coming into being.
How then can Hinduism be "man's attempt to become greater than God?"
Are you familiar with Hinduism at all? At the most basic level, Hindus believe in a single, all-powerful supreme being, the same creator that Christians call God.
Monty
While this is wonderful... the simple truth is that Jesus is the only way to heaven. We must go tell the world so that they too can be forgiven of their sin and enter heaven.
QUOTE (brvheart @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 8:37 PM)
While this is wonderful... the simple truth is that Jesus is the only way to heaven. We must go tell the world so that they too can be forgiven of their sin and enter heaven.
So you're in Iowa right now? Better get out to India.
Seriously, if you believe in a God that will condem people in isolated places because missionaries didn't get there fast enough, we're not going to get very far with our debating.
I provided a bible verse in the agnostics/atheists thread regarding the issue of people who haven't been brought the good news going to heaven.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 10:47 PM)
So you're in Iowa right now? Better get out to India.
Seriously, if you believe in a God that will condem people in isolated places because missionaries didn't get there fast enough, we're not going to get very far with our debating.
I provided a bible verse in the agnostics/atheists thread regarding the issue of people who haven't been brought the good news going to heaven.
Monty
Seriously, if you believe in a God that will condem people in isolated places because missionaries didn't get there fast enough, we're not going to get very far with our debating.
I provided a bible verse in the agnostics/atheists thread regarding the issue of people who haven't been brought the good news going to heaven.
Monty
and you are where? I can tell you that when i was raising support to look to go on a trip to East Asia, brvheart was willing to support me. Some arent able to make it over themselves but he is willin to help others who are going.
What are you doing to support missionaries doing Gods work?
QUOTE (Mattnxtc @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 8:56 PM)
and you are where? I can tell you that when i was raising support to look to go on a trip to East Asia, brvheart was willing to support me. Some arent able to make it over themselves but he is willin to help others who are going.
What are you doing to support missionaries doing Gods work?
What are you doing to support missionaries doing Gods work?
I am combatting dogmatic, repressive religious philosophy on the Full Contact Poker forums.
Monty
QUOTE (FullMontyM1 @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 11:08 PM)
I am combatting dogmatic, repressive religious philosophy on the Full Contact Poker forums.
Monty
Monty
so your tryin to change the bible to fit what you think it should be? sweet.
another verse:
1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
1 Corinthians 5:13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
notice the bold. If you are within the church you are open to judgment. Sorry but you are coming up short with the bible verses to help yah out
Whats ironic is if you go back to the very beginning you will find that christian has not wavered. It has never been all inclusive. Why do you think the early Christians were persecuted? B/c they didnt let nonbelievers in to their services. Church history is on my side on this one too
QUOTE (Mattnxtc @ Wednesday, April 19th, 2006, 9:13 PM)
so your tryin to change the bible to fit what you think it should be? sweet.
I am not trying to change the Bible. I am offering my interpretation, to stand up against yours. Your interpretation is not the foundation, not the basis, against which all other interpretations are judged. Do you claim to be the judge of what is God's will, as laid down in the Bible? I do not. I offer my view on what I read. A mortal and flawed view, yes. I do not attempt to force this view on anyone, I simply voice this view.
QUOTE
another verse:
1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
1 Corinthians 5:13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
notice the bold. If you are within the church you are open to judgment. Sorry but you are coming up short with the bible verses to help yah out
1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
1 Corinthians 5:13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
notice the bold. If you are within the church you are open to judgment. Sorry but you are coming up short with the bible verses to help yah out
These two quotes are about incest. They are about Paul's admonition to the Corinthians regarding members of their group practicing incest. This is hardly a template for the resolution of all intrafaith disagreements regarding interpretations of the Bible.
Are you really arguing that disagreements regarding interpretations of the Bible should be based on passages regarding condemnation of incest?
QUOTE
Whats ironic is if you go back to the very beginning you will find that christian has not wavered. It has never been all inclusive. Why do you think the early Christians were persecuted? B/c they didnt let nonbelievers in to their services. Church history is on my side on this one too
Belief in God is not a private club and it doesn't require a card or a waiting list. Nor does belief in Jesus. Christianity IS inclusive. Jesus was inclusive. Jesus overthrew the established order of elitists in the temple and walked in public with whores and beggars and the diseased. Whether 2000 years of man bungling it up muddied the original message is not particularly important at this point in time. His message is one of forgiveness and inclusiveness, not one of superiority and exclusivity.
Monty
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.