Who/What is God?

[Biochemist]

... If a group of people witnessed a ressurection today, you'd almost certainly think they must have been tricked in some way....

Unless one might have been there (like the apostles, for example) and saw Him before and after. Or unless one got a chance to ask the magician questions (like Thomas). Or unless you saw the morbid events (like the soldeirs or the several witnesses).

 

It is not scientific to rule out evidence because it is not currently explainable.

[nkt]

Well of course. But two thousand years ago illusions weren't anywhere near as good as they are today. You know all those wierd spells and stuff that are in movies and books? People actually used to use those. They seemed to work a long time ago for some reason.

Can you back that up in any way? That's purest conjecture.

 

Just because today we *know* a coin didn't vanish into the aether doesn't mean that the illusion is better or worse. The illusion is still exactly the same, and the people have changed. I would say it was the other way around entirely, since back then no-one knew that matter couldn't vanish without a big bang, or a magic word, whereas now, we have to suspend disbelief, or be stunned totally, as in "How did he do that?", because we *don't* invoke a higher power to explain it.

 

You see something on TV, and you can always think it was a camera trick. Does anyone trust anything they see on the internet 100%? Nope. But when you handle it and see it up close, the reaction is very visceral. It's the difference between watching a war film and getting shot. It's a bit of a difference.

 

David Blaine "flies" and people swear he was a foot off the ground! (And they are 1 and a half right! :xx: You see it on the TV, and he isn't at all, though the educated USA man on the street is stunned, because it happened right there in reality, in front of them.

[blazer2000x]

I didn't say they worked, I said they seemed to work.

[Erasmus00]

Unless one might have been there (like the apostles, for example) and saw Him before and after. Or unless one got a chance to ask the magician questions (like Thomas). Or unless you saw the morbid events (like the soldeirs or the several witnesses).

 

It is not scientific to rule out evidence because it is not currently explainable.

 

It is, however, scientific on the basis that it violates a well-established rule of nature. The dead do not rise, and billions of empirical tests have demonstrated that quite well.

 

Also, as to the seeing him before and after, many people have seen ladies sawn in half, before, after, and during. This is a somewhat morbid event, and the lady can be questioned before and after.

 

I stand by my assertion that anyone who believes in the resurrection believes because they have faith. There is nothing wrong with having faith.

-Will

[emessay]

God = Alien, whatever you've ever imagine it !!!

 

Note : God would never be at center of Milky Way, but it's located 10exp(-100) mtr into your consciousness. Let's investigate it urgently !!!

[Boerseun]

Interesting answer. Any evidence?

Actually, yes.

 

Witnesses today have access to recording equipment. Sure - this can be misused to sucker gullible people out of their money, but evidence can be scientifically scrutinized to ascertain its worth. A photograph can be checked to see wether its been tampered with.

 

Two thousand years ago, there was no video recorders, tape recorders, or cameras. Nada. The Hebrews of old were known to chisel away at a lump of stone to write stuff down. Its rather difficult to lug a lithic encyclopaedia around, and also account for the large illiteracy rates back then. It was the first, last, and only time in the history of the world where the jocks were the librarians - nobody else could carry the books...

 

So - if you saw a burning bush or a whale spit out a soggy human, it'll be a while before you've got it all chiselled down. And that equals bad witnesses, because everything had to be chipped out from memory, and human memory is known to be particularly fallible.

 

So there you go.

[Biochemist]

Actually, yes....So there you go.

B- Lack of evidence, or lack of expectation of evidence is hardly evidence. There was an entire thread here on the plausibility of the resurrection (not the whale or the burning bush). I don't think it changed anyone's mind (of course) but the evidence in support of the resurrection is reasonable.

 

What was most intriging to me in that thread was that some folks rule out the resurrection because it is "impossible". That is, they acknowledge that the quantity of evidence in irrelevant. A before-and-after video tape with confirmation of death by EKG and brain scan would not be adequate evidence because the outcome is "impossible". It sound like you are pretty close that camp.

[Boerseun]

B- Lack of evidence, or lack of expectation of evidence is hardly evidence. There was an entire thread here on the plausibility of the resurrection (not the whale or the burning bush). I don't think it changed anyone's mind (of course) but the evidence in support of the resurrection is reasonable.

 

What was most intriging to me in that thread was that some folks rule out the resurrection because it is "impossible". That is, they acknowledge that the quantity of evidence in irrelevant. A before-and-after video tape with confirmation of death by EKG and brain scan would not be adequate evidence because the outcome is "impossible". It sound like you are pretty close that camp.

Bio, I don't think you should judge to which "camp" I belong because I made a statement as to the trustworthiness of witnesses in relation to the recording equipment at their disposal. That might be slightly prejudiced, don't you think?

 

I am more than willing to accept resurrection as such if you can bring me the evidence. The only problem with this, is that an old manuscript translated, chopped and changed beyond repair, don't count as evidence in my books. Bring me a "before-and-after video tape with confirmation of death by EKG and brain scan", together with the subsequent evidence of life returning to the same specimen, and I'll believe you - right after I've had independent people verify the originality of these recordings.

 

But don't jump the gun on my camp-allegiance.

[blazer2000x]

It is, however, scientific on the basis that it violates a well-established rule of nature. The dead do not rise, and billions of empirical tests have demonstrated that quite well.

 

Also, as to the seeing him before and after, many people have seen ladies sawn in half, before, after, and during. This is a somewhat morbid event, and the lady can be questioned before and after.

 

I stand by my assertion that anyone who believes in the resurrection believes because they have faith. There is nothing wrong with having faith.

-Will

 

There is a difference between the magician's common tricks and these. The disciples truly believed Jesus had rose from the dead. They were absolutely convinced to such a degree that they went out yelling it in the streets, compared to their former position of hiding behind locked doors scared of there own shadow. They and hundreds of Christians afterwards have given their life because they would not deny their savior. Do not think for a moment that a magician would go through all they went through for one of his tricks, no matter how much he valued his career. It's rare to find a person who will die for something they know to be true. No one will ever give their life for a lie.

[niviene]

Bio, I understand your frustration there. I don't rule it out as impossible (well, I don't rule anything out as impossible, except that the Iraq war will end anytime soon...). It is just difficult for someone, anyone, who is exploring religion, is unsure of the scriptures, etc to accept resurrection when death is something most of us have experienced and have been taught that our loved ones will not ever be coming back (depending on what you believe.. as always), etc. When we see something every day - and for anyone else who has ever been around cadavers - you certainly hope resurrection isn't possible, even though you want to believe it's not. It's difficult to finally accept something as truth and then still have to face others who don't believe it - and not only don't, but tell you that it's just impossible. Well, nothing is impossible - everyone with a mind should know that. (And I agree with Erasmus - this is something believed on faith, in my opinion, at this point...)

 

But, you already know where I stand on the issue. I just feel your frustration. This is not something I rule out, and some of us are just still searching. Anyone who says anything is impossible is pretty much a lost cause, anyway, in my humble opinion. George Bush might give a speech tomorrow and sound brilliant... you never know. (But, uh, don't hold your breath...)

[blazer2000x]

By the way, most people won't believe no matter how much evidence is submitted. When it comes to proof, the believer needs none, the unbeliever excepts none. Don't believe me? Then why hasn't anybody said anything about the Howard Storm issue yet?! Just a thought.

[Boerseun]

...They and hundreds of Christians afterwards have given their life because they would not deny their savior.... It's rare to find a person who will die for something they know to be true. No one will ever give their life for a lie.

That being the case, it seems obvious that evolution will select against Christianity.

[Biochemist]

...I am more than willing to accept resurrection as such if you can bring me the evidence....

There is an entire thread on this topic ("Is Jesus' Resurrection Plausible?"). Scan the first 20 or 30 posts and let me know what you think. I don't expect it will change your mind, but the evidence in not non-existent, and it is reasonable.

[blazer2000x]

This is a modyfied version of something similar to an opinion I saw on a website. It deals with who is really being more logical, creationists or evolutionists. I can't seem to find the site again, hence the modification. Or else I would simply quote it.

 

An evolutionist and a creationist are walking down a sidewalk. They both notice a quarter lying on the ground. They conclude that somone must have dropped it and both continue to walk, undisturbed by the others oppinion.

Another creationist and evolutionist are walking down a sidewalk, when they come across a handful of quarters in there path. They conclude that someone must have a very large hole in their pocket, or ripped a role of quarters without noticing it. They continue on there seperate ways, not really concerned as to the answer, though they never rightly reached a solution.

Another creationist and evolutionist are walking down the street, when they come across an entire block, covered with quarters, all lined up in perfect rows, and each balanced delicately on its edge. The creationist looks in wonder and declares, "Who could have put so much effort into to this?" The evolutionist is aghast as how the other could be so rediculous, "What do you mean, it's obvious that sombody happened to have many quarters about them, dropt them accidently, and they all just happened to land in rows and on there edge. There is no wonder or awe, it is just simple chance." Both depart believing they are correct and that the other is nothing but a naive fool.

 

So, who would you logicaly side with in this case? I know whose side I'm on.

[Erasmus00]

<stuff about quarters>

 

So, who would you logicaly side with in this case? I know whose side I'm on.

 

That is a ridiculous straw man argument against evolution. It doesn't sum up the thinking on either side at all. I could just as easily put together a silly "a creationist and an evolutionst were walking down the street" argument that "proved" evolutionists more logical.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

There is a difference between the magician's common tricks and these. The disciples truly believed Jesus had rose from the dead.

 

And I have met people absolutely convinced that John Edwards can talk to the dead and Uri Geller can bend spoons. That doesn't mean they are right.

-Will

[eMTee]

The disciples truly believed Jesus had rose from the dead.

I truely believe that Jesus rose from the grave.

And I have met people absolutely convinced that John Edwards can talk to the dead and Uri Geller can bend spoons. That doesn't mean they are right.

-Will

the most he might be doing is talking to the Devil.

 

That is a ridiculous straw man argument against evolution. It doesn't sum up the thinking on either side at all. I could just as easily put together a silly "a creationist and an evolutionst were walking down the street" argument that "proved" evolutionists more logical.

-Will

try putting togeather logic, organization, order and evolution.