Thread: God

"These are sets of elements of the universe not numbers.
You cannot speak of any element, event, or some atom's position,
whatever, that differentiate god's existance"

I'll try one more time:

You have a cupboard, you know somethings in it, you dont know what.

The probability that it will be any one "possibility" is 1/infinity.

Could be God, could be an invisible kangaroo, etc. etc.

Each cupboard represents a given possiblity in the universe, only a finite number can be true.

Ok thats it im done trying to explain it, if you don't get it i don't think i can get it across.

"Does god need logic? No, he's all powerful. "

God might not need logic, but we do, to determine whether he's real or not.

"Yes it does but you have to define where it exist. Why did
does 2 exist. Because we can prove that if 0 exist and
1 exist then if we define 2 = 1 + 1 we can then prove that
2 is different than 1 and different than 0. Thus it exist in
the mathematical realm."

Mathematics does not relate the physical existance of objects, there are many different mathematical geometries ALL of which are mathematically valid, yet not all apply to our universe and the ONLY way of telling which do is through evidence ie. NOT through maths.

A mathematical proof is not the same as accumulating evidence for something. The two are completely different.

"No, just no evidence that contradicts god's existance"

Thats inherently impossible, just as its impossible to disprove my imutable kangaroo.

"We haven't had any new evidence of god"

Belief in God makes about as much sense as believing that a pack of wolves are about to materialise 2 feet above your head.

They both have no evidence supporting them, nor against them.

Zzzzzz, zzzzzzz, zzzzzz....
Where's Sentaku when you need him? Could always count on him to rile Clyde up, and vice versa. Nick, you seem to be a nice guy but, sorry, Sentaku is one of a kind. That's why I use a line from one of his posts as my signature line.
[disclaimer] I'm not mocking Sentaku, or showing disrespect towards him. His views, yes, but not him personally. I respect him for at least thinking about these issues and debating his point of view. Although much of his reasoning seems ludicrous to me, he is trying to understand, which is more than many do. [/disclaimer]

I had to write a paper for english so the evidence of Jesus Resuraction was pushed off. Before I contiune though do you have any problems with the following:

Death of John the Baptist: Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote for the Roman government in 70’s AD confirms that John the Baptist was killed by Herod.

Death of James, brother of Jesus: Josephus confirms this also:
"...So he [Albinus the new procurator of Judea] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ [later translations give the so-called Christ], whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done..." [Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk XX, Ch IX, SN1]

The Crucifixion:
Cornelius Tacitus was a roman historian born around AD 53.
"Christus (Christ), the founder of the name ("Christians"), was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition (Christianity), repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." - Annals XV. 44

The Tomb and Guards:
John was buried in Peter Jennings Tomb, and a squadron of police officers guarded it.
If this were read to the people of New York they would laugh at anyone telling such a thing. Yet apparently the people in Jerusalem were so gullible that they would beloved that the Biblical account of Jesus tomb and the Guards that guarded it were in fact believed even though it did not happen.

Empty Tomb:
Had the tomb not been empty the idea of retrieving the body of Jesus must of slipped the Jewish and Roman authorities as well as any skeptics.

I have a question for you Cyde have you ever been in love?

"Clyde, I mostly agree with you on your proof of god's existence being 1/infinity, but I have a couple of questions which I am unsure of."

Ok.

"First off, doesn't this assume that only one of the infinite amount of possibilities are true?"

Well, i deliberately simplified it to that scenario, in fact of course many possibilities will be true BUT it will be a FINITE number, because of that the probability effectively stays at 1/infinity.

I suppose to be more accurate i should say X/infinity where x = an integer.

"Second, I can see the 1/infinity if all infinite examples are weighted equally, but is it possible that possibility of God is greater than possibility of invisible kangaroo? It seems with cupboard analogy that the probability of Loch Ness Monster is equal to probability of aliens beaming down three headed kangaroos to come give me a wedgie then taking off within the next hour. Neither have any proof, yet I see the Lock Ness Monster as being more probable."

Thats a very good point but you see, you are using other information, you are no longer choosing things "at random", atleast not from all the possibilities.

I talked a bit about this in a previous post explaining how to go about "guessing" what was on Sentaku's wall at home.

If we randomly guess a single possibilty in the universe we get a 1/infinity probability: A Solid gold live pixie could be hovering by his wall.

If we work within what there is evidence for in the universe ie. stuff that doesn't break/rewrite fundamental laws of physics, we now have a stupidly large yet finite number of possibilities. So we choose one: The head of pig might be nailed to his wall, well now we have increased our probability because we are working within a framework already established.

We can increase it further by looking at what we see on other walls, and incorporating that knowledge into our guess, ie. posters, pictures, etc. etc.

My point is that by using information we consider "true" about the world we can improve our odds.

Firstly the Loch Ness Monster does not break any laws of physics, ie. it works within the a number of "allowed" possibilities given what we know about the universe. There have been several supposed sightings of the Loch Ness monsters, and whilst the Ness has been scanned several times, it hasn't been scanned in its entirety. Further more we know that Loch Ness type monsters did roam the Earth at one point. All these aspects add up to making it more probable than a purely random guess.

To clarify what i mean by "works within the number of "allowed" possibilities" i'll use a simplified version of the cupboard analogy:

Say you had 100 cupboards, you can see into 80 of them and in each one you found a different kind of fruit, you now deem the probability of finding fruit in the remaining 20 to be fairly high compared to a random guess.

Now with the real universe there are billions and billions of cupboards and they ALL obey the same set of rules: The laws of physics, so we deem the unknown ones more likely to also follow those rules.

"If this were read to the people of New York they would laugh at anyone telling such a thing. Yet apparently the people in Jerusalem were so gullible that they would beloved that the Biblical account of Jesus tomb and the Guards that guarded it were in fact believed even though it did not happen."

That's your proof?

"Had the tomb not been empty the idea of retrieving the body of Jesus must of slipped the Jewish and Roman authorities as well as any skeptics"

conjecture != proof.

It makes a load assumptions that i have to see ratified by evidence:

Was Chrsitianity realy so much of a force back then, to justify the Romans diggging up a tomb? Possibly but i'm dubious given that the bible wasn't even written for another 50 odd years.

Were their really guards guarding his tomb? Was he really even put in a tomb? Oh wait i know it says in the bible!

One of my friends is a theology student, he got a first, he spent his entire degree studying ancient religious texts, hes doing a masters on the dead sea scrolls. He thinks it's all bollocks.

In fact EVEN the theology students who DO believe in God seem to think that the major religions are all bollocks, what does that tell you? Even the ones who do believe do not think there is evidence for the ressurection.

That's un-biased teaching of all the religions in light of real evidence btw. Not your Christian history.

"I have a question for you Cyde have you ever been in love?"

Yes, I am very much in love with my girl-friend of two years........... relevence?

"If this were read to the people of New York they would laugh at anyone telling such a thing. Yet apparently the people in Jerusalem were so gullible that they would beloved that the Biblical account of Jesus tomb and the Guards that guarded it were in fact believed even though it did not happen."

That's your proof?

"Had the tomb not been empty the idea of retrieving the body of Jesus must of slipped the Jewish and Roman authorities as well as any skeptics"

Why would the Romans have bothered?

This is all complete conjecture, conjecture != proof.

It also makes a load assumptions that i have to see ratified by evidence:

Was Chrsitianity realy so much of a force back then, to justify the Romans diggging up a tomb? Possibly but i'm dubious given that the bible wasn't even written for another 50 odd years.

Were their really guards guarding his tomb? Was he really even put in a tomb? Oh wait i know it says in the bible!

One of my friends is a theology student, he got a first, he spent his entire degree studying ancient religious texts, hes doing a masters on the dead sea scrolls. He thinks it's all bollocks.

In fact EVEN the theology students who DO believe in God seem to think that the major religions are all bollocks, what does that tell you? Even the ones who do believe do not think there is evidence for the ressurection.

That's un-biased teaching of all the religions in light of real evidence btw. Not your Christian history.

Let's get rid of your legend Idea:

"Several of the tombs in the Dominus Flevit ['the Lord wept'] catacombs outside Jerusalem bear inscriptions like, 'Jesus, have mercy', and 'Jesus, remember me in the resurrection', inscriptions thought to date from the 40's or late 30's, and indicating the presence in Jerusalem from a fairly early date of a community that believed in resurrection and in the power of someone named Jesus to see the believer safely through death and beyond."
- Alan Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus


Now, I have people beliving that Jesus rose from the dead only a couple of years after his death. In rome there are catacombs that date to 70 AD, showing how fast christinity spread.

The gospals were very clear on the fact of where Jesus was bured in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and that Josepeh was was a member of the Council. The gospals and acts can not add something or change what the disiples already said. It would be the same as me proclaming that my room is blue for 30 years and then writing down that my room is red.

Now why would the Roman's have bothered, ok if there going to try and kill everyone to stop christinity from spreading producing a body would of been a bit more effective, that never happend therefor the tomb had to have been emptey. This is pure and simple logic. Eather the tomb was emptey, or the Jewish, and Roman authories were to stupid to go and get the body.

Your idea of disregarding something because it was writen by Christians unless you can back it up by another non christian source is just as good as saying that anything writen by vikings can be disregared unless a non viking source proves it. Anything writen by egyptions can be disregared unless backed by a non-egyptian source.


>Yes, I am very much in love with my girl-friend of two years........... relevence?<
Proove it.

" inscriptions thought to date from the 40's or late 30's"

errrrr, is this a joke?

"Now, I have people beliving that Jesus rose from the dead only a couple of years after his death. In rome there are catacombs that date to 70 AD, showing how fast christinity spread"

Oh i see 40 ad, 30 ad, right ok. And how does a few inscriptions indicate anything? Ok some people probably did believe it was true, they also believed the Earth was flat, your point?

So a few members of a gullible and ignorant public bought into the ressurection, thats supposed to convince me that it was fact? .......... try again.

"The gospals were very clear on the fact of where Jesus was bured in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and that Josepeh was was a member of the Council"

Oh i see, the gospels, right right, the gospels....... How many times must I tell you that the bible does not constitute evidence?

Person A: I believe that the moon is made of cheese.
Person B: Where is your evidence.
Person A: Its written in a 2000 year old book.
Person B: Oh right ok, why didn't you say so, is it Brie?

"Now why would the Roman's have bothered, ok if there going to try and kill everyone to stop christinity from spreading producing a body would of been a bit more effective,"

Show me evidence, E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, when did the Romans start "trying to kill everyone to stop Christianity", and why where they doing it, and how do you know they were doing it.

I am not necessarily saying that the Romans weren't trying to wipe out Christianity at that time, but the burden is on YOU to prove that they were.

Anyway how do you know they didn't produce the body? Hmm? Do you think people would just have stopped believeing if they had? Believe me people cling to their beliefs even in the face of logic to the contrary, if the Romans had produced the body, how do you know that people didnt just turn around and say "thats not him, we have faith, etc. etc."?

"Your idea of disregarding something because it was writen by Christians unless you can back it up by another non christian source is just as good as saying that anything writen by vikings can be disregared unless a non viking source proves it"

Do you understand the concept of bias?

"Proove it."

Uh... i bought her flowers and chocolates at Valentines, does that count?

Edit: Incidently i see the idiotic line of "reasoning" you intend to go down, please PLEASE before you do, just think about it a little.

I don't know that anyone is arguing against the existance of a person named Jesus, and that that person was the basis of a religous movement.
This thread has moved from the original question - is there a god - to debating the merits of particular flavors of Christian theology.
To all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc, first prove that there is a god or gods; only after that can you argue about the details. Your 'sacred texts' aren't proof. Get that through your head.

>Uh... i bought her flowers and chocolates at Valentines, does that count?<
Nope I want hardcore scientifc proof.

"Uh... i bought her flowers and chocolates at Valentines, does that count?<
Nope I want hardcore scientifc proof."

*beats head against brick wall*

Ok, seems like im going to have spell out the blindingly obvious YET AGAIN.

Ok, your question can be taken two ways.

What proof do I have for believeing I am in love, and what proof does someone else have for believeing I am in love.

Now i think you're asking me the former, which just make your question all the more stupid.

The answer to the former is because I feel it. The only proof you need of a feeling is the feeling itself!

Now I know what's coming, I really do, you are going to say "Well i feel God, and just as you believe you are in-love because you feel love, I believe in God because I feel God". Is that it? *Sighs*

Can't you see whats so spectacularly wrong with that reasoning?

When I say "I believe I am in love" ALL i am saying is that I FEEL like I am in love, thats it. I Feel like i'm in love, because I feel like i'm in love. Thats all there is to it.

You on the other hand are NOT just saying you feel like there is a God you are saying that one ACTUALLY EXISTS in the universe, thats a very big difference. You are not claiming God is a feeling, you are claiming God is a real entity.

We need OBJECTIVE evidence/theory to justify belief in a real entities, we need sensation to justify belief in sensation.

How can you not see this?