Agnostic, Religious or Atheist

[Malanu]

Why would I be proud of something that billions of others can claim TFP? Now being the father of 2 happy children and being married to my lovely wife for 23 years, That's worth being proud of in my eyes.

 

[GetOutOfBox]

The idea that you needed to come here to "state the facts and end this" is an arrogant one.

It's not arrogance, it's truth. This thread has gotten way derailed, people state opinions and evidence, which is turn ignored and then repeated by someone else. The thread is going nowhere exact into Hurricane WTFRELIGION territory.

First of all, remember, since numerous scientists (and science aficionados on these forums) have stated that it is unfair to expect absolute proof of scientific theories, I just want to make sure you aren't expecting absolute proof of God before it is reasonable to believe He exists.

I don't expact absolute, 100% proof from Christians. I expect some proof. There is none. Not even 1%.

Second, yes, there is evidence even outside the Bible that Jesus performed supernatural deeds.

Pleas elaborate upon this, as I have seen no such evidence.

By what precise mathematical method do you show that the existence of God is "extremely unlikely"? Do you have figures, or did you just create that idea out of nothing?

An answer so simple as a formula would be nice, but no, I don't expect a formula to provide the answer to life (42 xD). What I expect is some kind of evidence to even simply suggest he exists, such as massive eyewitness occurances that cannot be disproved as a hoax (eyewitness reports from thousands of years ago are not reliable, since without rigid scientific method and todays technology, discovering something as a hoax was much more difficult, and people were more gullible).

You do know Christians have never actually stated that God is actually a man in the sky, and that just because some paintings happen to give God a beard doesn't mean we believe He has one, right?

What I said was intended to be a humerous allusion to the belief that Christians have, that an entity who bears much in common with us, yet denies such things (he claims to be perfect, yet has shown many examples of jealousy and wonton killing). I guess the humor went right over your head.

I'm not denying the Big Bang theory. I think God caused the "stuff" of the universe to "bang"!

That's great, and I applaud that you, unlike some Christians are at least reasonable enough to realize that Science is not about the "Why?" question, it's about the "How?". If you choose to believe that there are reasons behind certain scientific phenomenae, that's your choice and is still perfectly compatible with Science. However the issue that has become the topic of this thread, "Does God exist?" is at question, and hence I am asking you to prove your God's existence.

That sounds a lot like rambling, and you ignored what I said: No, "Who made God?" is not valid.

Hypocricay seems to be a common theme amongst many religous people during debates, which is one of the reasons this thread is going nowhere. Earlier you stated that if Science should not be expected to provide 100% proof for something, neither should religion be expected to, which I respected. Why is religion exempt from the question "Who/what created God/How did God come to exist?" It's a perfectly valid question.

The biblical documents were written by humans. In the specific case of the gospels, the authors don't claim that they got their message from God. They can't be dismissed as though the authors claimed to go off in a cave somewhere and get a word from God. They claimed to be passing on information about Jesus, and they did. They undoubtedly are valid as a source. Even extremely liberal scholars know these four documents are the primary sources on he life of Jesus, even if they don't believe all of the things told about Him.

When discussing various internal debates in Christianity (personal lives of gospels, the meaning of their statements, etc), than yes, the Bible is a valid source. However, it is not proof of the existence of God, as it is simply a collection of various people's opinion, who's opinion in turn were based upon faith, not evidence. One could easily explain various acts allegedly performed by Jesus as A) Propaganda, which has been often used by various branches of Christianity B)Hoaxes. In the time period of Jesus, people were very superstitious and most were uneducated, making them highly vulnerable to hoaxes from the people that were.

And he burden of proof is on you to prove that the Bible has been substantially and fundamentally altered. I have read books on textual criticism, and I know a few things about the differences between manuscripts. This means I know that many atheists/agnostics misrepresent the manuscript data.

The Bible is so old and has not only made transitions between multiple languages (it was likely originally written by the mother languages of the individual gospels, later translated into Latin, and then in turn translated into English) and formats, all of which on their own introduce a high likelyhood of meaning being warped. Their is also the fact that the Bible that most churches use today is a descendant of the King James Authorized Bible, which King James gave specific orders that the Bible would be altered to reflect the beliefs of his particular branch of the church (Now the Anglican Church). Yes, it is essentially the same content (I'm not claiming that the Latin Version is entirely different), however there are frequent changes in dialogue and story to reflect what the Puritans (an important group of Protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries) believed appropriate.

My religion does not rebel against logic or science. My beliefs are based on evidence.

You believe in something merely because you were raised to see it as true. Some people convert because they're desperate to find meaning in life. Either way, the fact remains that there is no evidence beyond the claims of a book and word of mouth to support the existence of God. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus really did perform the miracles credited to him in the Bible. Beyond the Bible of course.

The idea of multiple universes is not based on observation, but on interpretation of a few observations that may be explained much more easily.

The concept of multiple universes is very new, and though there are a moderate amount of valid theories and proofs suggesting the possibility, it's currently not accepted as likely by the majority of the scientific community. The current evidence proves that multiple universes can and could exist, however there is no evidence signifigant enough to convince the scientific community that there are multiple universes.

Remember, if we have no observations of things outside the universe, I can't say that the multiverse theory could not be true. However, for this idea to be scientific, it must be observable in some way. The idea of a being setting off the mass-energy of our universe also doesn't ignore Occam's azor, while he multiverse theory does.

Observation is an importan step in validation of a theory as a law (when something is called a law in science, it generally means it is the most accepted theory behind phenomenae), however just because something is not directly observable does not mean it is scientifically impossible. Theoretical evidence (proving that such a thing could exist, and hence increasing the likelihood of it's existence in the eyes of Science) is acceptable, and depending on how radical it is, usable as direct proof.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Why would I be proud of something that billions of others can claim TFP? Now being the father of 2 happy children and being married to my lovely wife for 23 years, That's worth being proud of in my eyes.

I'm confused. You don't want to be proud of something that billions of others can claim, but you're proud of being a married father of two, which I'd hazard a guess at least a half a billion men can claim. Being a father sounds awesome. I don't see how being proud of something is dependant on how many other people are proud of the same thing. Pride =/= Uniqueness.

People of a huge sprawling nation have just as much a reason to be proud of their nationality as a small island nation.

This is something SPPF debate can't seem to deconstruct - pride in your identity is often incredibly significant. It's not the same as hubris. Boastfulness and arrogance is different than loyalty to your roots. Pride is such an all-encompassing term that we assign all sorts of meanings to it, and then when we talk about vices, suddenly the whole word and everything that uses it becomes a vice, and that isn't right.

 

[PokeJustice]

Their is also the fact that the Bible that most churches use today is a descendant of the King James Authorized Bible, which King James gave specific orders that the Bible would be altered to reflect the beliefs of his particular branch of the church (Now the Anglican Church). Yes, it is essentially the same content (I'm not claiming that the Latin Version is entirely different), however there are frequent changes in dialogue and story to reflect what the Puritans (an important group of Protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries) believed appropriate.

Authenticate these accusations, if you will.

I don't expact absolute, 100% proof from you. I expect some proof. There is none. Not even 1%.

 

[)WisP(]

Everyone, stop asking for proof. No-one has proof that there is a God, no-one has proof that there isn't a God. Especially when asking for proof of something like the bible, think about the time that's passed since the events happened, proof is going to be very hard to come by, especially as few people at that time were literate.

 

[GetOutOfBox]

Authenticate these accusations, if you will.

I don't expact absolute, 100% proof from you. I expect some proof. There is none. Not even 1%.

Go to your Church, open your Bible. You'll see "Authorized King James Version" or similar written in the first few pages. Go to the library, open a history book/use google, read that King James commissioned a translation of the latin Bible, and had the translated copy culled for things that the Puritans (modern day protestants) did not agree with. I don't know why people always focus on this point when I make it, regardless of whether or not King James edited the Bible, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is just a collection of unvalidated opinions written thousands of years ago.

Everyone, stop asking for proof. No-one has proof that there is a God, no-one has proof that there isn't a God. Especially when asking for proof of something like the bible, think about the time that's passed since the events happened, proof is going to be very hard to come by, especially as few people at that time were literate.

The point is that there is no proof that suggests God exists, while there is tons of evidence to suggest that the various controversial events such as the creation of Humans, birth of the Universe, etc, have autonomous scientific explanations.

 

[)WisP(]

The point is that there is no proof that suggests God exists, while there is tons of evidence to suggest that the various controversial events such as the creation of Humans, birth of the Universe, etc, have autonomous scientific explanations.

I have never denied that at all. I support both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. I follow a view where science explains how, and religion explains why.

 

[Auraninja]

You don't need proof to prove in what you believe. It is your belief. However, it is not evidence until you are able to prove it.

So saith the words of a pronounced deist...

 

[Moneyy]

I have never denied that at all. I support both the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. I follow a view where science explains how, and religion explains why.

It's really one or the other, as they are almost completely different from each other.

 

[Auraninja]

It's really one or the other, as they are almost completely different from each other.

I am a Big Bang Theorist/Evolutionist/Christian. You can believe in any mindset you want to believe. I left my words of wisdom on my previous post.

Edit: Also tell Albert Einstein that.

 

[Moneyy]

I am a Big Bang Theorist/Evolutionist/Christian. You can believe in any mindset you want to believe. I left my words of wisdom on my previous post.

The two ideas conflict with each other, so I don't know how it is POSSIBLE to believe in them both.

 

[Auraninja]

The two ideas conflict with each other, so I don't know how it is POSSIBLE to believe in them both.

Maybe if you believe in the Bible in an utmost fashion, but I've actually compromised some of my believes to accept scientific doctrines.

Also, Albert Einstein was a Jew, and he was very religious, as well as scientific. You should see his quote base.

 

[Pesky Persian]

The two ideas conflict with each other, so I don't know how it is POSSIBLE to believe in them both.

That's not necessarily true. Someone can believe in scientific theories and still be religious. It certainly depends on a person's perception. If someone takes the Bible literally, of course those things are going to conflict. If someone is of the opinion that much of it is metaphor and/or up for interpretation, the ideas aren't necessarily conflicting at all.

 

[)WisP(]

It's really one or the other, as they are almost completely different from each other.

I'm a pagan though... I believe in more shaped creationism that straight up random in it's early stages followed by survival of the fittest. The odinist creationism myth works reasonably well with science, the meeting of a world of fire and a world of ice (early volcanic earth and ice ages, both of which have shaped the earth), and the mythology isn't meant to be taken literally anyway.

 

[PokeJustice]

Go to your Church,. . .

Don't have one.

Go to the library, open a history book/use google, read that King James commissioned a translation of the latin Bible,. . .

The Old Testament of the AV was translated from the Masoretic text, that is, Hebrew, and the New Testament was translated from the Antiocheian texts, that is, Greek. It was not a translation from Latin, so you are certainly wrong in saying as much.

...and had the translated copy culled for things that the Puritans (modern day protestants) did not agree with.

Any evidence of this?

I don't know why people always focus on this point when I make it,. . .

Maybe because it's false.

 

[Moneyy]

That's not necessarily true. Someone can believe in scientific theories and still be religious. It certainly depends on a person's perception. If someone takes the Bible literally, of course those things are going to conflict. If someone is of the opinion that much of it is metaphor and/or up for interpretation, the ideas aren't necessarily conflicting at all.

Maybe if you believe in the Bible in an utmost fashion, but I've actually compromised some of my believes to accept scientific doctrines.

Also, Albert Einstein was a Jew, and he was very religious, as well as scientific. You should see his quote base.

If you believe the Bible word for word, than no, you cannot believe in both. Like you both said, you can modify them so that they fit together. I was assuming that he/she was taking both theories literally, in which case it is impossible to believe in both.

 

[ebilly99]

If you believe the Bible word for word, than no, you cannot believe in both. Like you both said, you can modify them so that they fit together. I was assuming that he/she was taking both theories literally, in which case it is impossible to believe in both.

Well sure you can, if you mind adding a little in gen 1-1. It's called the gap theroy, and god does not create earth but recreates it 6000 years ago after the war between the angels and devil destroy it.

 

[GetOutOfBox]

It's really one or the other, as they are almost completely different from each other.

I am a Big Bang Theorist/Evolutionist/Christian. You can believe in any mindset you want to believe. I left my words of wisdom on my previous post.

Edit: Also tell Albert Einstein that.

I have to agree with you on that point. Unless you follow the Bible LITERALLY, without being flexible or making any exceptions, science can happily coexist with religion. The only time it's a problem is when you claim your religion to be scientifically validated. If all you want to do is believe God is the guy behind it all, but you believe that Evolution was the method, etc, well great. Science is appeased.

Don't have one. [A religion]

Cool story bro.

The Old Testament of the AV was translated from the Masoretic text, that is, Hebrew, and the New Testament was translated from the Antiocheian texts, that is, Greek. It was not a translation from Latin, so you are certainly wrong in saying as much.

You are partially correct. I slipped up. However, so did you . Parts of the Bible were translated from Hebrew, some Greek, and some from Latin. Specifically: New Testament - Greek, Old Testament - Hebrew, Apocrypha - Latin+Greek.

Regardless of what language the Bible was originally translated from, my point remains that the Bible has gone through being collected from scrolls, translated into Greek/Latin, then being translated into English. That's a lot of room for translation errors, let alone intentionally culling of information.

Any evidence of this?

Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300099304

I'm sure your local public library has a copy of his published work.

Maybe because it's false.

Maybe it is . You still haven't proved it false however, nor has anyone else. It's not like the fact that King James commisioned his own "Anglican Approved" version of the Bible is some kind of secret. It's written in nearly every Bible in the world, and well documented both by Churches and scientific establishments. Therefore saying "maybe because it's false" is meaningless.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I'm only going to respond to a few things:

That's great, and I applaud that you, unlike some Christians are at least reasonable enough to realize that Science is not about the "Why?" question, it's about the "How?". If you choose to believe that there are reasons behind certain scientific phenomenae, that's your choice and is still perfectly compatible with Science. However the issue that has become the topic of this thread, "Does God exist?" is at question, and hence I am asking you to prove your God's existence.

I'm not saying that the beginning of the universe proves God's existence. I'm saying that the universe began in an event, and this event demands an explanation. The competing hypotheses invoke invoke undetectable entities (like another universe), hence the theories are currently untestable and unfalsifiable. In short, they aren't science. Not only that, they invoke many more undetectable entities than the idea of some form of God starting the universe off with a bang. The idea of some kind of God starting the universe need not pretend to be a scientific hypothesis; it is the hypothesis that does not blatantly ignore Occam's Razor.

You can pretend there is some logical reason to reject it, yet it truly is the best logical inference. It is certainly no credit to science to claim that certain currently-untestable theories are better alternatives.

Hypocricay seems to be a common theme amongst many religous people during debates, which is one of the reasons this thread is going nowhere. Earlier you stated that if Science should not be expected to provide 100% proof for something, neither should religion be expected to, which I respected. Why is religion exempt from the question "Who/what created God/How did God come to exist?" It's a perfectly valid question.

Only events need causes. You didn't see me ask, "Where did the mass-energy of the universe come from?" There is no reason why this mass-energy had to come into existence, and for the sake of debate, I assume that it always existed. In the same way, it is conceivable that our universe began because of some event in another universe, a universe that had no beginning. If someone suggests this, I can't say, "Who made that universe?" because I can't tell them it began to exist.

The Bible is so old and has not only made transitions between multiple languages (it was likely originally written by the mother languages of the individual gospels, later translated into Latin, and then in turn translated into English) and formats, all of which on their own introduce a high likelyhood of meaning being warped. Their is also the fact that the Bible that most churches use today is a descendant of the King James Authorized Bible, which King James gave specific orders that the Bible would be altered to reflect the beliefs of his particular branch of the church (Now the Anglican Church). Yes, it is essentially the same content (I'm not claiming that the Latin Version is entirely different), however there are frequent changes in dialogue and story to reflect what the Puritans (an important group of Protestants in the 18th and 19th centuries) believed appropriate.

PokeJustice already nailed you for this, but I should respond as well. You seem to have mistaken something that actually happened, something I pointed out in my first post of this debate. (You remember this debate, right?) King James wanted the translation to conform to Anglican church practice. This doesn't mean they altered it; for example, despite the fact that Anglican's baptize by sprinkling/pouring, Jesus and John the Baptist still come up out of the Jordan river after Jesus' baptism.

And the burden of proof is on you to prove that dialogues were changed. You must present these.

You believe in something merely because you were raised to see it as true. Some people convert because they're desperate to find meaning in life. Either way, the fact remains that there is no evidence beyond the claims of a book and word of mouth to support the existence of God. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus really did perform the miracles credited to him in the Bible. Beyond the Bible of course.

And that is an ad hominem argument, because you don't know what's in my head.

The concept of multiple universes is very new, and though there are a moderate amount of valid theories and proofs suggesting the possibility, it's currently not accepted as likely by the majority of the scientific community. The current evidence proves that multiple universes can and could exist, however there is no evidence signifigant enough to convince the scientific community that there are multiple universes.

Logic proves that they could exist. No observation actually suggests it.

You are partially correct. I slipped up. However, so did you . Parts of the Bible were translated from Hebrew, some Greek, and some from Latin. Specifically: New Testament - Greek, Old Testament - Hebrew, Apocrypha - Latin+Greek.

Go to a Protestant church that uses the King James as the Bible in the pews, open it up, and tell me if you see the Apocrypha there.

Regardless of what language the Bible was originally translated from, my point remains that the Bible has gone through being collected from scrolls, translated into Greek/Latin, then being translated into English. That's a lot of room for translation errors, let alone intentionally culling of information.

Room for translation error does not prove there were errors. The King James Version made errors, but your original claim was that the translators (not to mention King James himself) actively rewrote the Bible. The burden of proof is still on you to show where this was done and what they altered.

Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300099304

I'm sure your local public library has a copy of his published work.

You must quote the book. Don't just tell us, "This book proves you wrong." I could quote from plenty of sources that show that the King James Version, while far from perfect, is not the horribly distorted thing your conspiracy theory suggests.

I don't know why people always focus on this point when I make it, regardless of whether or not King James edited the Bible, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible is just a collection of unvalidated opinions written thousands of years ago.

We focus on this because you do not present the evidence for this. You display a reckless disregard for evidence when you spout this without proof.

 

[PokeJustice]

Cool story bro.

What are you getting at?

Regardless of what language the Bible was originally translated from, my point remains that the Bible has gone through being collected from scrolls, translated into Greek/Latin, then being translated into English. That's a lot of room for translation errors, let alone intentionally culling of information.

Most modern Bibles are not translations of translations.

Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300099304

This book's discussion of the Authorized Version, while excellent, in no way bears you out.

Either provide evidence of the expunction of unfavorable renderings in transitioning from the Bishops' or Tyndale to the AV on the part of its editors or, alternately, evidence of their interposition of atextual renderings within the work for reasons of political or theological ideology, or back away from your accusations to that effect.

You still haven't proved it false however, nor has anyone else.

I don't have to.