Who/What is God?

[Biochemist]

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

Sorry, B. I misread your position.

 

Glance at the "plausibility" thread I mentioned above if this interests you.

[Skippy]

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.

:xx: Come on, you're smarter than that. You can use a computer and the internet as evidenced by your posts here. There are papyrus fragments of Bible text in museums dating back to 70 AD. Look it up here.

 

Your assertions here if widely believed would completely shut down every legal proceeding in the world. All prison doors would be immediately opened and the criminals set free...Regardless of the facts against them. Even devoid of tangible, 2000 year old evidence, we could be sure of the authenticity of the Bible we have today. For the most part, the text of the Bible (and the Koran as well) was memorized and spread by mouth from one person to the next. It wasn't until later that it was printed in quantity. "There are over 5,300 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek that have survived until today. Counting an additional 10,000 Latin Vulgate and over 9,300 other early manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, totaling over 24,000 surviving manuscripts of the New Testament. Small changes and variations in manuscripts affect none of the central Christian doctrines, nor do they change the message."

 

You probably would have no problem authenticating a history about Ghengis Khan, yet there is nowhere near the quantity of comparative information on Khan as there is for The Bible.

[nkt]

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_141.html and http://www.enotalone.com/books/0517277956.html both tell us that there is probably more to the Bible than the version the Church puts out.

 

A look at http://www.ucwv.edu/library/rare.aspx shows many original and very, very old bible books with things that are not in my modern copy.

1549 Matthew Bible. Imprinted at London by John Daye dwellynge at Aldersgate, and william Seres dwellynge in Peter colledge towarde Ludgate. The second version of the English Bible edited by John Rogers under the pseudonym of Thomas Matthew. Also known as the "Becke Bible," the "Indecent Bible," and the "Wife Beating Bible.

1549 Great Bible. Imprynted at London in Fletestrete at the signe of the Sunne over agaynst the conduyte by Edwarde Whitchurche. This revision of Matthew's Bible was sponsored by Thomas Cromwell and is sometimes called, "Cromwell's Bible."

1592 Genevan or "Breeches Bible." Imprinted at London by the Deputies of Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie." Edited by religious refugees in Geneva during the reign of "Bloody Mary," this was the Bible of the Puritans. It went through 160 editions. The use of the term "breeches" in Gen. iii, where the Authorized Version has "aprons", gives this version its name.

1899 Polychrome Bible. New York. Dodd, Mead and Company. A new translation from the Hebrew into English under the direction of the great Shakespearean scholar, Horace Howard Furness. Orignal sources used by the translator are indicated by a background of differenct colors. The cost of editing and color printing was so great that only a few books of the Bible were issued before publication was discontinued.

Plus hundreds more!

 

Most of the splits in the Church have been due to the mis-interpretation or slightly different beliefs in what was actually meant by certain actions, words and deeds, and hence we have many slightly different forms of the bible. How anyone can suggest that certain things were not removed entirely is almost beyond me. Then I recall the Holy wars.

 

Personally, I don't believe, but I have nothing against those that do. It's just one of those things - I found answers in science and my own world view, rather than with Sunday School and RE lessons.

[blazer2000x]

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

 

My point was, evolution declares a universe in perfect balance, where virtually no single element could survive alone because they are all dependant on each other, was all created by chance. I think it would seem far more plausible for someone/something to have created it all. Besides, I said they both thought the other was obviously wrong. You are basing it on the evolutionists real assumption that the creationist and he were the only people in the world, so there was no one else that could have put the quarters there. (hence starting the argument, the quarters have always been there)

[GreekTTC]

I think that if there was a God, there would be proof. And if there was proof of God's existence, I believe the world would be a better place (i.e., less breaking of the 10 commandments, etc.). I also think that that's the way God would want this world to be, so why hasn't he proven himself to exist beyond doubt?

 

If our universe was created, the creator is probably an alien vastly larger than anything we can fathom.

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you all think of the Raelian explanation?

[keshav_1983]

God is unknown

people assume that God does exist or doesn't, depending on their belief and experiences.

but before concluding anything they should understand the meaning of existence.

Something we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, makes us believe of its existence. If we judge the existence of something by our senses can we prove the things in our dreams nonexistent.

" I really don't know " and " I want to know " are the best answers to the question of God's existence, rather concluding anything. i know i sound like Morpheus. but think a while.

[eMTee]

God is unknown

people assume that God does exist or doesn't, depending on their belief and experiences.

but before concluding anything they should understand the meaning of existence.

Something we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, makes us believe of its existence. If we judge the existence of something by our senses can we prove the things in our dreams nonexistent.

" I really don't know " and " I want to know " are the best answers to the question of God's existence, rather concluding anything. i know i sound like Morpheus. but think a while.

 

God does exist, even natural experienes prove that.

 

I think that if there was a God, there would be proof. And if there was proof of God's existence, I believe the world would be a better place (i.e., less breaking of the 10 commandments, etc.). I also think that that's the way God would want this world to be, so why hasn't he proven himself to exist beyond doubt?

 

If our universe was created, the creator is probably an alien vastly larger than anything we can fathom.

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you all think of the Raelian explanation?

 

one thing, the 10 commandments are strickly a Jewdicial and Christian set of laws put down in the old testament..If we where to start going by them, that would prove only the God of the Bible. God would like the world to be a better place, and he will perfect it some day.

 

There is proof, physical proof, if you cannot see the vast complex organization of the universe, and say that it had to be inteligently designed, then I say look again, and again. The fact that many of the stories in the Bible have been proven reliable (even the miricals in them) should also suport it's God and religion.

 

When it comes to a huge alian creating the universe...God is not only mentaly and spiritualy here...but also very physicaly here.

[Skippy]

I think that if there was a God, there would be proof. And if there was proof of God's existence, I believe the world would be a better place (i.e., less breaking of the 10 commandments, etc.). I also think that that's the way God would want this world to be, so why hasn't he proven himself to exist beyond doubt?

If our universe was created, the creator is probably an alien vastly larger than anything we can fathom.

Oxford University is a pretty prestigious university, correct? Have you read any of the books of one of its most well known professors, C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity will help explain how an intellectual found his way to God using logic and reason. Lewis also had some interesting fiction, you might enjoy his Space Trilogy. Try it, you might like it.

[GreekTTC]

God does exist, even natural experienes prove that.

 

 

 

one thing, the 10 commandments are strickly a Jewdicial and Christian set of laws put down in the old testament..If we where to start going by them, that would prove only the God of the Bible. God would like the world to be a better place, and he will perfect it some day.

 

There is proof, physical proof, if you cannot see the vast complex organization of the universe, and say that it had to be inteligently designed, then I say look again, and again. The fact that many of the stories in the Bible have been proven reliable (even the miricals in them) should also suport it's God and religion.

 

When it comes to a huge alian creating the universe...God is not only mentaly and spiritualy here...but also very physicaly here.

 

The God of the bible is what I'm talking about here. It was my understanding that that's the God we were talking about. If I was mistaken, my apologies.

 

Also, it's GREEK. Not "geek," as you wrongly authored into my quote.

[GreekTTC]

Oxford University is a pretty prestigious university, correct? Have you read any of the books of one of its most well known professors, C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity will help explain how an intellectual found his way to God using logic and reason. Lewis also had some interesting fiction, you might enjoy his Space Trilogy. Try it, you might like it.

 

Thanks. I'll look into that. I've read some Lewis, but not much...

 

Another question: If someone found God through logic, why isn't it common knowledge that God does, in fact, exist? I don't buy it. I'm sure most believers and those who have faith in God are just waiting for proof. As soon as irrefutable proof is offered, they'll eat it up like Takeru Kobayashi and hot dogs. Perhaps someone will write a sequel to the Good Book.

[Biochemist]

...If someone found God through logic, why isn't it common knowledge that God does, in fact, exist? ...

Common knowledge does not mean universal acceptance. It certainly is common knowledge that God exists.

 

The acceptance issue usually relates to the acceptance of the fact basis, or more commonly, the interpretation of the fact basis.

 

As I have mentioned in several threads, several philosphers (like Francis Schaeffer) have posited rational arguments against Naturalism. Naturalism generally assumes/expects that any state of nature was a "natural" resultant of a previous state of nature. Man is not different, in that we are the resultants of many previous states of nature. We may be the most complex animal, but that is still all we are to a believer of Naturalism. Many agnostic scientists fall into this category. This view is perfectly internally consistent.

 

But the problem is that the elements of "life" that many hold dear, such as love, purpose, beauty, etc, are only the resultant of previous events to a Naturalist. That is, we feel/act/desire only becaue of a biologically tuned proclivity that somehow advantages us in the world. If that is true, the above items (love, purpose, beauty) are illusions, and we percieve them only because they are to our advantage.

 

Given this dichotomy, some agnostics scientists believe love (etc) is an illusion. There are indeed some members on this site that think this. Others think that the personal experience of relationships and personal values are so obvious that the claim of illusion is silly.

 

Who is correct? Is either argument "silly"?

[blazer2000x]

In all things in of which we know, logic implies an intricate design is caused by a more intricate author. If you see a beautiful painting, you know a skilled artist must have created it. It is not so with nature. Men see, but they can only see what the devil wants them to see, because they refuse to accept they are being decieved. Please, step out of every context of the universe as you know it, forget everything that explains where it came from, and think, if you saw something so wondrous would logic actually tell you it came to be by chance?

 

"Your fierceness has deceived you,

The pride of your heart,

O you who dwell in the clefts of the rock,

Who hold the height of the hill!

Though you make your nest as high as the eagle,

I will bring you down from there," says the LORD.

Jer 49:16"

 

"But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

2 Cor 11:3"

 

 

As to why their is no proof yet for God's existance, it is because he has called a people to believe in Him despite all opposition. If He revealed unquestionably that He was God, there would be no need for faith. So He has allowed Satan to blind every person on earth.

 

"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,

Lest they should see with their eyes,

Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,

So that I should heal them.

John 12:40"

 

But there is still hope, to all those who believe in Him.

 

"To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.

Luke 8:10"

[blazer2000x]

Try to think about it this way, why can't there be a creator? Why does everything have to be by chance? If that should be the more logical answer, why don't you believe it? What would you actually have to receive that would be sufficient proof that God existed, and why do you require proof at all? I think, since evolution has so many things that are purely chance, it is the theory that should require mountains of evidence before anyone considered believing it.

[Erasmus00]

I think, since evolution has so many things that are purely chance, it is the theory that should require mountains of evidence before anyone considered believing it.

 

Characterizing evolution as simply "chance" is pretty absurd. It is a bit more than that. Also, there is "mountains" of evidence supporting it.

-Will

[Biochemist]

Characterizing evolution as simply "chance" is pretty absurd. It is a bit more than that. Also, there is "mountains" of evidence supporting it.l

Please debate this in the "evolution" forum. I assure that there are many who dispute the "mountains" in that forum. But don't start it here.

[GreekTTC]

Common knowledge does not mean universal acceptance...

Agreed.

 

...It certainly is common knowledge that God exists.

 

But I would argue that it's common acceptance that God exists...not common knowledge. KNOWING that God exists would require irrefutable proof, not an argument evidenced by logic only. Right?

[Biochemist]

...KNOWING that God exists would require irrefutable proof, not an argument evidenced by logic only....

Interesting question. I suspect the answer is "no" for most folks. I suspect that most folks are closer to a "true beyond a reasonable doubt" standard than an "irrefutable proof" standard. Given our understanding of most things in basic sciences (for example) I think it is safe to suggest that nothing is irrefutable. But most of us believe pretty strongly in relativity, Newtonian mechanics (as modiified by relativity), some quantum physics (even though some of it is pretty odd) and genetics.

 

But I can't really think of any of that that I think is irrefutable. I have been surprised by refutations before.