Jesus liked a bit of the ole Judean sausage!

[Cisco]

Part 1 of Tektonics link - deals with: "General Case for Insufficiency: The Event is Not Proportionate to the Theory"
Part 2 of tektonics deals with: Probability of Survival vs. Miracle
Part 3 deals with : General Case for Spiritual Resurrection

None of them address the main historical points of his “Main Argument” and the main argument stands independent of the other parts. The other parts are arguing quite different things (whether a resurrection is enough to make someone equal to God, etc) Quite different from what we are talking about on this forum.

As it stands you failed to address the specific historical refutations Carrier presented and failed to provide a response to his “main argument”. Therefore, the credibility of your bible stories is extremely dubious, the authenticity of the “martyrs argument” is not historically supported, and the logic behind all of this is lacking.

Overall, you haven’t given me anything useful. Those other links are not what we are arguing. You have failed to support your case and have bored me. So I’m done explaining things to you, thanks for trying and failing.

Net, the link in tektonics attacks the historical and academic areas supporting Carrier’s article, you seem to miss the point. The historical points in the main argument are supported by the contents tektonics combats, what is the historical points in the main argument with out the supporting contents? There is no historical basis yet in the main argument but in the contents of Carrier’s article; it’s the contents that support his arguments being historical fact. And as i said, this article isn’t the only anti-resurrection related to carrier’s. There are others that differ yet cosigned. Which one is the right one? You just want to hold on to a source for your argument yet refuse to take in that it isn’t that academically valid. What kind of reason is “he just attacks the other contents yet leaves out the main argument”? Do you know that stature of thesis? Contents are the support of the main argument because with out them then how does the main argument validate? You are only taking out pieces with in the tektonics yet leave out the rest that take out all of the support for Carrier’s information. A main argument is rather useless if the contents are not validated.

[gkrohwon]

Those are bad examples of the triad claw.

the pope is doing it very clearly and several are very clear

[gkrohwon]

helen mirrin no?

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/ss128/blackpope1/supergirl_new.jpg

daisy duke?

tinker bell

[Digital]

Sir Elton John stated that Jesus was gay?? It MUST be true!

[Lebowsk1]

I will say, I’ve been reading John Stott’s “Basic Christianity,” and he makes a point that helps me understand where you’re coming from.

He says " Much of the controversy between science and religion has arisen through a failure to appreciate this point. The empirical method is largely inappropriate in the sphere of religion. Scientific knowledge advances through observation and experiment. It works on data supplied by the five physical senses. But when we inquire into the metaphysical, no data are immediately available. God today is neither tangible, visible nor audible. Yet there was a time when He chose to speak, and to clothe himself with a body which could be seen and touched."

Is this essentially what you’re saying about the metaphysical nature of God or is there more to it than that?

Yeah, my point is that if there was a time when God ‘spoke’, and made himself known, then good for the people who were around to verify it because he sure as hell isnt around now.

I mean, you could say that “God is the world”, like the pantheists, but I don’t think that is meaningful unless God is the world AND ALSO MORE (panentheism). You need that transcendent quality of God, to metaphysically exist ‘beyond’ our world. And yet if he expects to be known by his creation, he needs to find a way to ‘step into’ it.

Miracles would appear to be the most effective way because they demonstrate the fact that his existence goes beyond the natural world. I don’t have a problem with the logic of the ressurection, in a way (although there are probably better miracles than that you could think of… like, if Jesus’s body was burnt to cinders, and he resurrected from that, that would be less ambiguous, but crucifiction aint bad going), I just take issue with the idea that it happened at all in the first place.

Where’s Dr Manhatten when you need him. He’s a fascinating character, I recommend everyone go check out Watchmen…

[Soul_Bushido]

Cisco - As a pseudo intellectual, condescending apologist, SURELY you must know that assumptions will be the downfall of any argument. You, “sir” fail on many levels based on your idiotic assumptions.

1. Try and keep your logical fallacy count to less than 10 per post where you call another person a moron. You clearly do not understand that “Question the credibility of someone with an agenda and propensity to believe in fantastical nonsense i.e. dedicated Christian” is a legitimate concern. For you to comment on my intelligence and then look at a story like the resurrection and without good cause say “Yea…that totally happened.” is complete hypocrisy and hilarious.

2. Do NOT assume that I don’t know the bible. I do. You think I don’t KNOW what happened to Goliath or in the Garden of Eden? Again. GTFO. The fact is your explanations (that were unnecessary anyway) do not help your case. Little boy’s do not beat monster-esque fighters with a slingshot and a stone, men do not gain and lose superhuman strength by the length of their hair, and yet you would say that absolutely they do. But now…god playing a direct role in the affairs of humans CONVENIENTLY stop now that we can sufficiently document these events for all to see. You have still not answered this point to satisfaction.

3. Do NOT assume that just because apologists have tried to answer the problem of suffering, it does not mean it has been answered sufficiently. What you don’t realize is while you spew your IMMORAL “God is all powerful but it’s up to us yay!” nonsense both of us and ultimately god, would know that there are many things outside of humanity’s power, whether in literal or practical terms. Look at Haiti. It’s government nor it’s people could handle what happened to it. Dozens of countries attempted to help, but a sea of suffering rushed through…If god is a father figure he is the most disgustingly apathetic father ever conceived.

4. lol your human nature shit is not “simple logic” it’s borderline nonsensical. Human nature? What you’re actually speaking of is empathy you dumbass. Empathy is intrinsically the BASIS FOR OUR MORALS. People with no empathy are psycho/sociopaths and are unable to operate under this basic trait. This has NO bearing on whether or not god could/would/should positively effect needless suffering. Also you make a terrible logic leap by assuming a snowball effect of ALL problems being solved when heinous superfluous problems (like a girl kidnapped, locked away in a basement. Raped and tortured for 5 years until finally she is killed). Where would human nature be to “heal” that situation?

You can see where (or perhaps you can’t because you’re a pretentious cunt) a world created and maintained by an all knowing all powerful all loving being, should NOT feature that level of suffering anywhere in it.

Here’s the kicker. There is ONLY a problem when god is actually in the equation. When we look at the properties that god possesses and we look at the state of our world. Unfortunately for you everything makes PERFECT SENSE when your worldview features all of us on this rock by ourselves without a loving father/creator watching overhead…or wherever the fuck he’s supposed to be.

[Capn_Spanky]

@Soul Bushido: Could you please give me the reference to the verses you’re using regarding the answering of prayer? Are they in John 14 and 16?

@Lebowsk1: I’ve read The Watchmen and am a big fan.

[Cisco]

You can approach it from the perspective of what used to be known as “natural theology”. This means just approaching the question of God using reason and the things we experience in the world. It’s like philosophical theism, as opposed to religious theism.

But academics are still needed for a solid point. What you are asking is nothing else than an understanding of biblical points of view, and i’ve been telling you to trace the academics first because you will not be able to understand a Christian concept yet, it doesn?t fit your convience. It?s best that you allow the theist to ?stretch around? and not only rely on a biblical standpoint, but also go out of the Bible and go for the other academic fields just so you can see are reason for validity. Points of view are seriously a hassle in debates, which is why i prefer academic sources to actually see where you get your stance other wise it’s like the arguments are from self-observance.

You know by now that I consider the standards of proof required for historical validity are different from those required for the kinds of metaphyiscal claims the Bible makes, so I won’t comment further on that. I will just say however that philosophical debates can be just as thorough as historical debates (by using rigorous logic and also incorporating evidence from the sciences).

Forget about the metaphysical and stick to the academics first. How do we know if the metaphysical teachings of the bible are indeed face-to-face supernatural details with out examining the academics? We can’t just believe writings with out a good basis, it’s an error to think that is the area of a Christian?s mentality. Because most of the supernatural things in the bible are actually just symbolic metaphorical speeches and not records of a divine super natural power show. When i mean academics, i mean lets step out of the bible first and see the other things to actually come to a realization of validity.

This is just flat-out wrong. I studied philosophy for a year and during that time I was introduced to the concept of a “theodicy”, which is an academic, philosophical attempt by a theist to solve the problem of evil (I can’t remember the name of the specific one we studied, but will post here if I do).

The most impressive academic handling of the p.o.e I’ve read can be found here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/evil_laws.html

Exactly, this is what i meant. The debate of “why God allows evil” is a debate that is centred on skeptic and religious points of view, not actually academic sources. The Theist will use the Bible as his basis in answering that philosophy just so the atheist will actually notice the wrong perception he has of God. There is no other source for the christian to use on morality other than the word of God. That is why, it is an uninteresting debate because there is only one source and that is the Bible. Atheists do use the Bible as a main source for this also, because their general challenge is “if this loving God from the Bible exists then why does these things exist in the world”, therefore they get the idea of their case from the Bible. So the theist will show that they misunderstood the Biblical God by referencing the Bible verses in relation to the answer.

So you’ve made it clear that you DO believe in miracles generally, but you have your canon of specific ones which you believe actually happened (resurrection being the core one). I’ve been thinking a bit more about this concept of ‘recorded miracles’, and why I’m so skeptical of them, and think I might be figuring out why that is exactly. If I could figure this out then I could explain to you more thoroughly why I require different standards of proof for historical truth as opposed to metaphysical truth.

If the miracles have academics to support it’s validity, then i would believe it to be a super natural divine miracle (the one that you perceive). If there is a reported supernatural miracle yet no good valid basis, then i reject it. You know the present day recorded miracles, right? Visions, blood crying statues, stigmata, then those tv shows of churches playing around with snakes or causing a seizure by placing the bible on a persons head. Those are the present day miracles, yet they are so untrue and are not the example of the God of the bible.

I think the concept of a ‘supernatural miracle’ is, at the core, all about the relation between mind and matter. What is required for a miracle to have been said to occur is that a mind has totally transcended the laws of matter. God is of course the proposed ‘ultimate mind’, and is supposed to have created matter and the laws that govern it. So it follows that miracles should be possible for God, and would be excellent proof.

I kind of agree, my view of God is that he doesn’t need to use his power in unexplainable ways. Mysterious ways and unexplainable ways are different. Unexplainable to me is something identical to characters in comic books. I don’t see why it is wrong to think of God using the atoms, molecules, and all these scientific things in creating his miracles. Just because things are unexplainable doesn’t mean it’s from God, and just because they are explainable doesn’t disqualify they are his acts. Why can?t you understand that God uses natural power more than the choosing of anything that fits your concept? This is where your problem comes from why you have a problem with God’s existence is because your perception to him is like a comic book character or a cosmological god - which of course are all fictional - and it is a wrong and unbiblical perception. You saw the movie 300? 300 is actually based on one of the biblical books; the book known as Esther. The Book Esther is the only book in the Bible in where God isn?t even present nor even mentioned; there is no lord, God, IAM, etc? yet why is it in the Bible then? This book shows God?s sovereignty; that regardless of us not seeing, hearing, or feeling his power ? he is still at work with the whole situation. The answer of God not making super powered events to prove himself (which is what you ask for) is found in Jesus? temptation at the desert ? which on and on I have told you to read. What were the things he was tempted with? Turning stone into bread, ruling all the kingdoms, having angels catch him in front of everybody? These temptations are an example of what you atheists use as your support of God not existing. Turning the stones into bread would feed the homeless; having angels catch him would instantly show to everybody to believe why he should be followed/listened to; and having rule to all the kingdoms of the world will instantly make him followed as the highest. Doesn?t a loving God want to feed the poor, and doesn?t God want us to solidly believe and serve him? So why were those temptations rejected by Jesus? In fact, why go through the whole human life and suffering on the cross anyway? Why couldn?t he just zap away sin with a mere command and return the world into paradise, likewise? There is a bigger picture as to why and this also reflects God?s conservativeness towards his power.

However, appeals to God as an explanatory device for seemingly miraculous things has been challenged by science. For instance: rainbows. Such a beautiful arc of colour, appearing in the sky seemingly randomly like that, well. That has to be the work of a divine artist’s brushstrokes, right? Only, people started to notice that they only occur during certain periods: when it is raining AND the sun is out. And so eventually an explanation for rainbows was arrived at which involved the scientific theory of light.

That is your perception on how God creates miracles (God just randoming a rainbow), but i’ve been explaining, just because it is scientifically explained doesn’t mean it refutes God’s power. Since God did create the universe, and all the systems and functions of the world, why is it incoherent to think that he uses the atoms, molecules, etc in creating things for this world? Such as rainbows? It wasn’t a divine “paint brush” God used in creating it, he used the sunlight and h20. It being formed randomly out of nothing is just based on your wrong perception, because of the whole supernatural concept you have. God works naturally, yet in ways we can not fathom.

So I think that whenever there is a claim made for a miraculous occurence, science needs to be let loose on it with all of its rigours. Science is a framework with which we attempt to get a real understanding of the world we live in. It is a particularly successful branch of applied philosophy, if you will. It just WORKS (the computers we are using are evidence of that). Now of course the best branches of history will be strongly scientific of course. We will attempt to date the sources we find as accurately as possible, and logically build a narrative from various sources of various degrees of reliability. But then there is also the history of mythology, and of fiction.

The latter are of course filled with miraculous occurences because, well, they didn’t actually happen. We live in a world where things can be written that did not occur, either because people were exercising their creative abilities, they were mistaken, or because they were deceptive.

So when an account of a miraculous occurence from the past emerges, the very highest levels of skepticism need to be applied because it is claming that an event with the very lowest probability of occuring actually happened. I agree with you that crying statues and the like are not miracles. I do not believe miracles happen in the modern world. So to convince me that they used to happen in the past will require the highest standards of proof.

But is that even possible in the case of the resurrection? What scientific tests could be applied?

Science isn’t an opponent of God/Bible, we can also see science as a frame work of how God actually created things and how he works. If science says: ?oh this occurs due to the fusion of this and that?, why is it something incoherent to God being behind it? Take a look at the creation, and see how he creates things… the first thing that comes is the ?Light?. The Hebrew word for light translates as an illumination. I believe I?ve explained the rest in the rest of my responses to your post above this one I quoted.

But then what? There are a million and one reasons for there not being any remains there after such a long period. It was so long ago that we cannot even make enquiries with witnesses. I mean there is only one thing that could conclusively prove the resurrection of Jesus and that is

• to have him present in the modern world.

This is because he could then submit himself to scientific research, and PROVE that he was an immortal man (which is a spectacular violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics)

This is an interesting part of your post. However, Jesus being physically here in the modern world for solid evidence for you, is really just your idea of solid evidence. If so a man does appear and claim him self to be Jesus and proves it by irregular blood testing or scientific results, he will seriously not be accepted as the true God by us Christians or probably by most people anyway.

Would take more than a stroke to convince me, as plenty of people have those.

Same with me, but ironically I don?t really expect anything super powered like from God. The whole thing with Deedat is an argument where I wish valid sources of him getting that after his blaspheming spree so I can actually set my foot that God probably answered his prayer.

An example of a “divine smack” which would convince me would be at the moment Richard Dawkins, giving a public lecture, makes some particularly anti-God remark, he turns to stone. That would convince me, right there and then. The wikipedia entry would be interesting huh.

If your example actually does happen then this will cause me to start questioning the existence of the God in the Bible.

I hope you can understand the logic as to why atheists won’t accept Christian miracles, now.

I understand your logic, yet I hope you can understand that God isn?t about showing his super powers. It?s like your definition of super natural is equivalent from what you see in comic books and in tv shows… that is a wrong perception of super natural/divine power.

This is again a theistic argument on general grounds, so I’d be more inclined to take it seriously. Do you see the divide now? You do not have to use the Bible to defend God, and I’d always reccomend to practitioners of the revelatory faiths to shift over to general theism and see how they get on with that.

I used to call myself a “symbiotic panentheist” y’know. :looney:

That?s is my desired debate in where I don?t need to use the Bible to defend the existence of God. However, your arguments on super natural, the existence of evil, the existence of suffering people triggers for biblical sources. These accusations against the Biblical God are actually biblically answered. I find your arguments interesting from all the others I have debated against because your side of scepticism is actually reasonable. However, the main problem I see with you is your misunderstanding of the word ?super natural? because you are giving these needed super natural evidence that doesn?t actually fit the attribute of God.

EDIT: for me, when I was a theist, my “ressurection” if you will was “abiogenesis” (the origin of life from non-life). While it too happened a long-ass time ago, it is a subject that can be studied now because we have access to everything that was presumably there when it occured. We don’t need a SPECIFIC miracle, but a GENERAL one. Argh anyway I hope some of this makes sense, gone a bit outside my comfort zone in this post. Anyway you get the gist of it.

EDIT2: ah shit I knew I forgot something: the Turin Shroud case. Look at that one, that’s a case of Christian scientists getting hold of a miracle from the past and giving it the treatment. Turned out not to come to anything though. But there’s no physical remains of the resurrection, so it has even less chance of being proven than the shroud.

Well I don?t believe that the Turin is the Shroud of Jesus nor do I believe the story, so I won?t bother with that. The real remains of the resurrection is what I?ve been discussing about the apostles. The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because they felt that he was stirring up the people with false teachings that where increasing the confidence and bravery of the jews ? they thought that this would probably cause a revolt against the Romans. The point of executing Jesus was because they felt this was the only way to silence him and put an end to the current ?phase? the Hebrew people were going through because of him. Yet out of the resurrection, the whole thing grew stronger that other men actually chose to sacrifice themselves for it, and the words of Jesus never stopped. It got stronger and stronger, to the point that it was changing the religions of the super powered nations during that time (Greece, Rome, Egypt) and then the whole world (just like Jesus said would happen). He stated that regardless of what will happen to the Earth, his words will never go… And for the last 2,000 years it has appeared to be an accurate claim. It never disappeared.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

It isn?t just because of the Bible (not technically) because there have been many cults who?s rendered doctrines and then faded once the teacher and the contemporaries where silenced. Historians themselves have said that historical impact is the main evidence in identifying historical facts, and you can not deny that there is no story or teacher that has impacted the world, unlike the whole story and teachings of Jesus.

[Cisco]

Cisco - As a pseudo intellectual, condescending apologist, SURELY you must know that assumptions will be the downfall of any argument. You, “sir” fail on many levels based on your idiotic assumptions.

LOL. Aw bashido, you know very well that the argument of “God hates amputees” is only convenient for those with low logic. It is an argument demolished by basic equations. This whole post is just a bunch of e-thugging to save yourself from actually looking logically low. Due to this you’ve decided to give a post filled with insults to attack me just to impress your self. Thanks for showing the immaturity side it further shows your narrow thinking.

1. Try and keep your logical fallacy count to less than 10 per post where you call another person a moron. You clearly do not understand that “Question the credibility of someone with an agenda and propensity to believe in fantastical nonsense i.e. dedicated Christian” is a legitimate concern. For you to comment on my intelligence and then look at a story like the resurrection and without good cause say “Yea…that totally happened.” is complete hypocrisy and hilarious.

That is actually what you are doing. You just can’t come into terms with the fact that the whole “God doesn’t exist because amputees are not healed” is an actual illogical argument ones the whole picture is smacked at your face.

2. Do NOT assume that I don’t know the bible. I do. You think I don’t KNOW what happened to Goliath or in the Garden of Eden? Again. GTFO. The fact is your explanations (that were unnecessary anyway) do not help your case. Little boy’s do not beat monster-esque fighters with a slingshot and a stone, men do not gain and lose superhuman strength by the length of their hair, and yet you would say that absolutely they do. But now…god playing a direct role in the affairs of humans CONVENIENTLY stop now that we can sufficiently document these events for all to see. You have still not answered this point to satisfaction.

LOL, not only are you ignorant of the Bible but you are also ignorant. It is possible for a rock to knock out or even kill any man of any sized when it hits hard in between the eyes. It isn’t a fantasy-like occurrence because it is actually a factual possible. You probably picture David like Denis the Menis holding a Y shaped sling shot and using a small pebble and Goliath being a 10 foot hulk. The story of Samson is proverb, not a historical/literate story. What idiot you are, eh? This is actually a funny part of your post, because instead of proving the Bible fiction with Samson as an example, you just showed that you’re suffering from literalism, or that uneducated to actually think of a proverb as a literate description. Can i expect more showing of ignorance attached with e-thugging in your next reply to me?

3. Do NOT assume that just because apologists have tried to answer the problem of suffering, it does not mean it has been answered sufficiently. What you don’t realize is while you spew your IMMORAL “God is all powerful but it’s up to us yay!” nonsense both of us and ultimately god, would know that there are many things outside of humanity’s power, whether in literal or practical terms. Look at Haiti. It’s government nor it’s people could handle what happened to it. Dozens of countries attempted to help, but a sea of suffering rushed through…If god is a father figure he is the most disgustingly apathetic father ever conceived.

Ah, no i’m not assuming based on what Apologists’ have said… quoting CS lewis is just for the purpose of point support. And CS lewis was an anti-theist before; you should see all his earlier works before he converted to Christianity. The whole thing is just common sense. I’ve already cleared up the rest effectively you just seemed to pass a bit of it and decided to further augment your arguments of destruction around the world with newer examples such as what happened in Haiti. This next quote below is in relation…

4. lol your human nature shit is not “simple logic” it’s borderline nonsensical. Human nature? What you’re actually speaking of is empathy you dumbass. Empathy is intrinsically the BASIS FOR OUR MORALS. People with no empathy are psycho/sociopaths and are unable to operate under this basic trait. This has NO bearing on whether or not god could/would/should positively effect needless suffering. Also you make a terrible logic leap by assuming a snowball effect of ALL problems being solved when heinous superfluous problems (like a girl kidnapped, locked away in a basement. Raped and tortured for 5 years until finally she is killed). Where would human nature be to “heal” that situation?

No, it is simple logic. We all have a humanity in us, now taken in consideration that “if” this God exists then the humanity and morality we feel in observing these things are featured in us for a reason. What is it that makes us care about those people that we come to the decision of donating food, money, clothes, medicine, etc? It is our humanity that triggers us to do this kind of Good and show this kind of love to people we don’t even know. If God does heal everything, then what was the point of the humanity he gave us? Up to where do we do good? If his commandment was to love one another, what strong ways can we do to makes us show it? By helping and saving them. His power of healing is in us, not in a super natural sense, but in an actual reality. That we will actually sacrifice ourselves, share what we have, and inspire them to rise up. Quit being a hypocritical brat whining around about what you see is wrong and try to bring out good from it instead.

You can see where (or perhaps you can’t because you’re a pretentious cunt) a world created and maintained by an all knowing all powerful all loving being, should NOT feature that level of suffering anywhere in it.

Here’s the kicker. There is ONLY a problem when god is actually in the equation. When we look at the properties that god possesses and we look at the state of our world. Unfortunately for you everything makes PERFECT SENSE when your worldview features all of us on this rock by ourselves without a loving father/creator watching overhead…or wherever the fuck he’s supposed to be.

But the world isn’t all maintained by God. I thought you knew the Bible? Doesn’t Jesus’ prayer say "Let your will be done on earth AS it is in heaven? We have every power to actually make a difference in this world, and rise up good from evil, so let us use it and give significance to the humanity installed in us. If this God does exist, then what is our compassion for these unfortunate people for? This compassion/humanity is from our Moral code, and their must be a significance to it. The significance isn’t for sitting down and acting like a punk, which is what you are doing, but actually bringing the good to overshadow the evil that has happened to them/going on with them.

[Lebowsk1]

Cisco: please define “academic”, as you are using it because the article I linked to came from an institution of higher learning and was published in an international journal. The author’s use of formal logic is highly rigorous.

Edit: does anyone else see the irony in Christians hand-waving away the problem of evil joking about babies in microwaves?

EDIT2: “However, your arguments on super natural, the existence of evil, the existence of suffering people triggers for biblical sources.”

Do you know why? It’s because there’s no rational explanation, so you have to resort to irrational appeals to a book which you really, really, REALLY believe is true.

[Cisco]

Cisco: please define “academic”, as you are using it because the article I linked to came from an institution of higher learning and was published in an international journal. The author’s use of formal logic is highly rigorous.

The facts, the only way we can except the Bible is by seeing the support from academics. We can’t just dismiss nor accept it blindly with out a great reason to. A good example for what i mean is one of the greatest Apologists of all time, CS Lewis. Now CS lewis never started as an apologist but an anti-theist. Making claims that all religions are myths, Christ being no different from Loki. A few years later in his career he begins to open mindfully find out if Jesus was indeed historical, and the facts all came in that Jesus actually existed. Yet at that time, he said “I now know that it is factual that Jesus was a historical person but not divine”… he then goes on to further study and research and then he becomes the apologist known as the “Apostle for the Skeptic”. Ofcourse his research wasn’t on the Bible alone, and certainly he didn’t see angels flying around, or random punks being turned to smoke for talking shit against God. The academics were compelling to him. As a normal atheist, of course he had those same questions due to the existence of suffering, the concept of the trinity, why Jesus died, etc… these are all illogical reasonings point blank until you actually understand the greater picture. He checked other sources/academics to help him solve all those skeptic like questions, those even similar to yours. In reality, academics for this topic is just philosophical points of view. There are no historical records and no academician writings of different times. The link you gave is a skeptical philosophical view… and i can give a biblical based philosophical view that would show this link and it’s arguments to be inadequate to the God of the Bible.

here is an example.

The “why evil exist is a proof for atheism” is really a refutation that is incoherent with the God of the Bible because the Bible shows a bit of God’s reasons and how he works. Through people. I really didn’t need to give this link because it’s still a link based on Christian Point of view and also about the right persona of Jesus Christ. The Bible is actually the primary basis for the argument on both sides, and please don’t deny that because this argument is concerning the God of the Bible so lets see if the Bible actually covers those skeptic complaints.

EDIT2: “However, your arguments on super natural, the existence of evil, the existence of suffering people triggers for biblical sources.”

Do you know why? It’s because there’s no rational explanation, so you have to resort to irrational appeals to a book which you really, really, REALLY believe is true.

No, what you are asking for are irrational appeals and proofs for them. I’ve been putting this in every post, God is not a God who works out of super power display, all those things you say you would call “miracles” (Dawkins being turned into stone; the Bible having a divine shield to protect it from physical destruction) are not miracles that would be done from the Christian God. Again, read the Temptation in the desert to actually see that your idea and concept is inadequate to the God in the Bible.

[HeavyD853]

So uh, smart guys…how long does it take for something to fossilize?

found this on some creation site

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

a fossilized felt hat!

wth…i thought fossil records were infallible and could scientifically determine the age of the world

also to play more devils advocate (the irony), why do fossil record layers prove the sequence of the things that have died? isnt it possible that a cataclysmic flood might’ve buried much life on earth at the same time and the heavier things (dinosaurs) went to the bottom and the lighter animals have gone to the top? ive heard science say a few times that birds being on top proves that they came after and that somehow dinosaurs have evolved into birds.

Radiometric dating, and you are oversimplifying the argument about identifying somethings age by their strata location by a mile.

[gkrohwon]

Other problems with geological clocks

Cosmic rays

It appears that cosmic ray penetration into our atmosphere depends upon the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. The rock record indicates that the magnetic field has varied in both strength and direction over time. This has serious implications on C14-C12 chemistry in the upper atmosphere.

Lava flows

Students studying the relationship of lava flows have discovered that certain lava flows on the island of Hawaii are very similar to each other and related to each other. That indicates that they were expelled within a 3 to 6 month time frame to each other. The reason for that short time frame is suggested by the fact that in the process of lava extrusion, the magma chamber becomes depleted in various elements. This, in turn, causes changes in the makeup of lava flows over time. Therefore, when very similar lava compositions are found, this suggests very short periods between extrusions. Radiometric dates show millions of years between these lava flows. Therefore the results of chemical composition and radiometric dates do not match. This is not understandable unless the ages are not correct.

The importance of blind tests:

A blind test requires that the person making the measurements does not know (or is “blind” to) which of several specimens is the one of interest. For example, to measure a rock’s age by some radiometric method, similar rocks - but of different ages - must accompany the rock. Only after measurements are announced, can the technicians making the measurements be told the history of any specimen. To allow persons with vested interests in the outcome of the measurement - persons who know which sample they hope will produce a given measurement - to take the measurement, or in any way influence those who do, opens the experimental procedure to subtle biases. Blind tests insure objectivity.

A special type of blind test commonly used in medicine. is a “double-blind test.” Neither the doctor nor patients know who has received the special treatment being tested. A random selection determines which test patients receive the special treatment and which receive a placebo - something obviously ineffective, such as a sugar pill.

Experienced researchers give little credence to any medicine or treatment that has not passed a well-designed and rigorously executed double-blind-test. If “medicines” and “health foods” which have not demonstrated any significant effectiveness in double-blind-tests were removed from the market, consumers would save billions of dollars each year. In the field of education, those proposals for enhancing learning that have not been subjected to blind tests have usually been shown to be ineffective or so marginal that the effectiveness cannot be measured. Astrological forecasts that have undergone blind tests have also been shown to be worthless.

The shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. What actually happened was, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could tell which specimen was from the Shroud. [Personal communication with one scientist who participated in the measurement.] The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories.

Radiometric dates that do not fit a desired theory are often thrown out by alleging contamination. Few hear about such tests. If those who are unhappy with the results of a blind radiometric dating have not previously identified the contamination, their charges should carry little weight. If contamination is alleged before the test, the test may not be needed. Therefore, careful researchers should first objectively evaluate the possibility of contamination.

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see and explain away unwanted data. This applies especially to those proposing theories. Scientists and historians are not immune to these shortcomings.

C-14 dating problems:

Dr. Libby once expressed his shock when he found that radio carbon dates for human artifacts extended back only 5000 years and older dates were found to be unreliable.[110]

By this time tens of thousands of C-14 dates have been published from tests performed by various laboratories around the world. In the annual volumes in which the dates are published, concerns have been expressed about many relatively young dates that violate established geological age notions. One example given was Ice-Age materials that were dated by C-14 to fall within the Christian era [120] In his book Ceram notes a classic case of difficulties that befall C-14 dating. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years. [180]

Archaeology and C-14 dating:

Basically, it is surprising that all organically derived material on earth can be dated by the C-14 method even though it shouldn’t be. If some material is really the many millions of years old, no C-14 should remain in it. This, scientists find now, is not the case.

It is already known that samples from certain periods thought to be fixed on the BC time scale are expected to have measurements falling in that range. When samples are measured and dates fall outside this range, unless it is published how often this happens, and the good plus the bad dates [results] are published, under strict `blind’ conditions, we may not have conclusive data.

It may be of interest for the reader to learn what already has been done in the past with regard to obtaining C-14 dates for Egyptian artifacts. Here is that information.

Velikovski on Radio Carbon Dating

"To check on the method before applying it on various historical and paleontological material, Libby chose material of Egyptian archaeology, under the assumption that no other historical material from over 2,000 years ago is so secure as to its absolute dating. When objects of the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom of Egypt yielded carbon dates that appeared roughly comparable with the historical dates, Libby made his method known.

From some correspondence that originated at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I have concluded that when Libby first asked for specimens, he received not only those dating from the Old and Middle Kingdoms, but also from the New Kingdom-but nothing ever was published of those early tries on New Kingdom specimens. A similar situation concerns more recently tested short-living organic material from the tomb of Tutankhamen.

After many efforts (from 1952 to 1963) to have the New Kingdom of Egypt tested in a systematic way I succeeded in having three little pieces of wood from the tomb of Tutankhamen handed over by the Laboratory Director of the Cairo Museum to Mrs. Ilse Fuhr of Munich, who was directed by me to send them to Dr. Elizabeth Ralph of the University of Pennsylvania Laboratory. Two of the pieces were from the comparatively short-lived thorn plant, Spina Christi, and one from the long-living Cedar of Lebanon. The three small pieces were processed together, since a test requires ca. 30 grams (1 ounce) of material. The result was -1120 52 (or following Libby’s half life of C14, -1030 50). Now the accepted chronology has Tutankhamen dying in -1350; my reconstruction has him entombed in ca. -830. According to Dr. Iskander Hanna of the Cairo Museum, the wood was from 30 to 50 years dried before being used for funerary equipment. The Lebanon Cedar would not have been cut as sapling-the tree reaches thousands of years of age. The sample could have been from inner rings of a trunk. Dr. E. Ralph confirmed to me on March 5, 1964, that tree rings, when carbon dated, show the date of their formation, not of the year the tree was felled. I wrote to her on March 2, 1964, suggesting that if short-living material (like seeds, papyrus, linen or cotton) should be subjected to tests from the tomb of Tutankhamen, most probably the result will show " ca. -840." [300]

In spring, 1971, or seven years later, the British Museum processed palm kernels and mat reed from the tomb of Tutankhamen. The result, according to Dr. Edwards, Curator of the Egyptian Department of the British Museum, was -899 and -846 respectively.[310] These results were never published.

These cases make me appeal that all tests, irrespective of how much the results disagree with the accepted chronological data, should be made public. I believe also that the curiosity of the British Museum Laboratory officials should have induced them to ask for additional material from the Tutankhamen tomb instead of discontinuing the quest on the assumption that tested material was contaminated. The tomb of Tutankhamen had not been opened since soon after the entombment. It is dry, water did not percolate through its roof or walls. Another way of dulling the sharp disagreements between the accepted chronology and the results of the tests is described by my librarian assistant, Israel Isaacson.[320] In the case described nothing was purposely hidden but two different approaches were applied.

In one and the same year the University of Pennsylvania Laboratory tested wood from a royal tomb in Gordion, capital of the short-lived Phrygian Kingdom in Asia Minor, and from the palace of Nestor in Pylos, in S.W. Greece. In Gordion the result was -1100; in Pylos -1200. However, according to the accepted chronology, the difference should have been nearly 500 years - [250] the date should have been closer to -700. Dr. Ralph came up with the solution for Gordion. The beams from the tomb were squared and the inner rings could easily be four to five hundred years old when the tree was felled. But in Pylos, the description of the tested wood indicates that these were also squared beams - yet the corrective was not applied - this "because -1200 was the anticipated figure.

However, as I try to show in detail in the planned The Dark Age of Greece', a separate volume ofAges in Chaos’ series, there were never five centuries of Dark Age between the Mycenaean Age and the historical (Ionic) Age of Greece. The Pylos beams are -800, the Gordion beams date from -700, Now the question arises, how can the radiocarbon method be used for deciding between the conventional and the revised chronologies? Many a reader of Volume I of `Ages in Chaos’, and a few readers to whom I made available the sequel volumes in typescript would agree that the reconstruction is built with such profusion of contemporaneities and linked episodes that the credence given to the conventional history to serve as a control over carbon datings should be now transferred to the reconstruction and let it control, not be controlled by, carbon tests. Yet, for less convinced audiences, the method can serve in two manners. For the period before -500, only comparative tests can serve profitably for the solution of the chronological problems: King Saul was a contemporary of kings Kamose and Amose - and lived not 540 years after them; similarly. King Solomon was a contemporary of Queen Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III of Rehoboam of Judea and Jeroboam of the Ten Tribes; and Amenhotep II of King Asa; Amenhotep III of Omri and Ahab; Akhnaton also of Ahab of Samaria and Jehoshaphat of Jerusalem, and of Shalmaneser III of Assyria. Therefore if we can compare material from two areas contemporaneous in my reconstruction but separated by 540 years in the conventionally written history, we may receive the carbon answer as to which of the two time tables is correct and which is wrong. The ivory of the Shalmaneser III fort near Nimrud and the ivory of Tutankhamen’s tomb must yield very close dates.

For the period separated by 200 years from the last cosmic upheaval involving our planet (-687), say for after -500, we may apply the tests without any need to compare contemporaneous samples. Thus the 20th and 21st Dynasties, which in conventional histories occupy the 12th to the middle of the 10th century but in my reconstruction from -400 to -340 (20th) and ca. -450 to -280 (21st), are perfect choices for carbon tests.

Now we see that not only were the warning signals that Libby offered with his method disregarded, but also an unearned reliance on the accepted version of ancient history has caused much stumbling in the dark, more and more tests of diminished value, and a maze of findings, with many undisclosed results of tests, wrong deductions and much exasperation that mark the first 20 years of application of Libby’s most imaginative method."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

[Sharktongue]

2. Do NOT assume that I don’t know the bible. I do. You think I don’t KNOW what happened to Goliath or in the Garden of Eden? Again. GTFO. The fact is your explanations (that were unnecessary anyway) do not help your case. Little boy’s do not beat monster-esque fighters with a slingshot and a stone, men do not gain and lose superhuman strength by the length of their hair, and yet you would say that absolutely they do. But now…god playing a direct role in the affairs of humans CONVENIENTLY stop now that we can sufficiently document these events for all to see. You have still not answered this point to satisfaction.

just wanted to throw this in here.
[media=youtube]SiRFtiKExuE&feature=related[/media]

pretty sure if he wanted to kill you with a slingshot, he could.

[runaround]

snip

You’re not worth my time. I’m sorry, but that’s all there is to it. Pushing what is frankly an absurd religious agenda, (and even as far as religious agendas usually go, your fundamentalism is unusually absurd,) under the guise of skepticism does not deserve an honestly appraising intellectual response. It deserves ridicule.

May your ears be inundated with Hugo Weaving jokes for the duration of this thread.

[ThePurpleBunny]

May your ears be inundated with Hugo Weaving jokes for the duration of this thread.

Yes! Jab, you hear that? We converted one!

Praise Hugo!

[runaround]

Yes! Jab, you hear that? We converted one!

Praise Hugo!

Indeed.

Praise Hugo!

[hadokn]

pretty sure if he wanted to kill you with a slingshot, he could.

That’s cool, but I thought it was a sling that killed Goliath?

[gkrohwon]

i said twice earlier im not even religious, i just study religion.

heres website you might enjoy that refutes christianity

http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/IHS.htm

“Jesus H. Christ” is literally translated ???U? Horas Savior. The monogram for the name “Jesus” is IHS. This is where we get “Jesus H. Christ”. It is a hidden name and acronym for Isis, Horus, and Seb (IHS). IHS is derived from the pagan Greek word form Jesus ???U?. In the pagan religion, Horus was the divine son of Seb and Isis (Father/Holy Spirit). This is where the false doctrine of the Trinity originated and why the “Virgin Mary” was elevated to Queen of Heaven and Mother of God. So, the term we use “Jesus H. Christ” in reality H stands for Horas the divine pagan son of Isis. ** YHVH was given pagan symbols such as the blazing sun and associated with Appolo the sun god and worshipped on Sunday the day of the Sun God**.

yes this site does much to support my arguement that the papacy is the anti-christ. with the “monstrance” (where the wafer of bread goes) being a blatant form of the baal-hadad, the sun inside the crescent symbol. which is exactly what islam is if you go google that up. the wafer in roman catholicism represents the “son” of jesus (but not really it actually represents the SUN).

also the bolded part of the paragraph fails to mention at all that the sabbath used to be saturday, not sunday. therefore we can throw that association out the window.

see i cant tell you whether religion is real or not, i can only highlight what i know about the papacy that it is blasphemous against its original idea.

also remember where i said i was going to play the devils advocate (an ironic cliche)

play the devils advocate

play…advocate

PLAY

^^

if you dont even understand that, then you’re the moron who deserves ridicule.

and you didnt even have to read into that, i said twice earlier im not religious.

http://www.prophezine.com/Portals/0/article_images/baal-crescent2a.jpg

baal hadad

another one

[Cisco]

I don’t believe the pope is the anti-christ, it’s an anti-catholicism attack. The upside down cross is a memorial to the apostle peter because they believe he was the first Pope and that he died crucified upside down.

The whole anti-christ being a political/religious leader, who many will believe in and actually be called the Christ by the Jews, and possibly make all sorts of magic powers is nothing but a movie concept. The anti-christs could be any person just bearing false testimonies or doctrines that are way contrary to Jesus’: ie, fred phelps, shogo, john smith, the authors of Zeitgeists… etc. They aren’t Satan kids, Satan in the Flesh, or anything of the pop culture concept. But they do corrupt the minds of people with lies and hate that they believe is right. The Anti-Christ could just be a title for all of them.