Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A sceintifical approach to seeing God

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 7:29:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "
That's a broad, descriptive definition, Bigotry, encompassing everything from the earliest scientific experiments to the modern day.

But not everything meeting that definition would be accepted by modern science, because as a systematic study, science is constantly self-improving. Methods acceptable in Newton's day are no longer acceptable now. Consequently, conclusions drawn by those methods, valid in Newton's time, are also no longer valid now, simply because we have better methods.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity.
Unfortunately, virtually none of those count as a scientifically valid observation or experiment because they do not use modern methods to eliminate inaccuracies arising from (for example) bias, ignorance, and unauthenticated and imprecise recording.

It's unscientific to argue veracity from invalid data. What you need is valid data, and that requires either a validation of past reports (difficult, and not always possible), or repeating observations under conditions that would validate them (easier but also not always possible.) But it also requires you to make valid analyses and inferences, and for a number of reasons, it's not valid scientifically to take a wondrous and use it to infer a miracle, much less a divine agency.

You'd actually have to define miracle and god validly to start with, and that means defining it in such a way that it accords with the observable world and can be subjected to systematic and repeatable testing, yet other observable things cannot be mistaken for miracles and gods, or vice-versa.

Can you do that with gods or miracles? I believe that probably, nobody can because they're not defined coherently and accountably enough.

Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to,

Key reasons not to are that:
1) The authors and the people they wrote about are largely unauthenticated -- we don't know whether they existed, whether they were one person or several, and cannot be sure that documents attested to one author weren't written or redacted by several;
2) The incidents they report are for the most part, not valid observations. They lack the minimum methods, information and independence needed to validate them, and the witnesses may have lacked the skills needed to employ those methods; and finally
3) The inferences are generally invalid anyway. If any wondrous events actually occurred in the first place, that demands further investigation, not fanciful stories explaining them.

By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real
Actually, if the reports are invalid you don't have to claim they're false -- you can outright ignore them as unusable. The most you can do is try to reproduce them under clinical observational conditions, and of course people who believe in religion or magic are always welcome to do that.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 4:23:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 7:29:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "
That's a broad, descriptive definition, Bigotry, encompassing everything from the earliest scientific experiments to the modern day.

But not everything meeting that definition would be accepted by modern science, because as a systematic study, science is constantly self-improving. Methods acceptable in Newton's day are no longer acceptable now. Consequently, conclusions drawn by those methods, valid in Newton's time, are also no longer valid now, simply because we have better methods.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity.
Unfortunately, virtually none of those count as a scientifically valid observation or experiment because they do not use modern methods to eliminate inaccuracies arising from (for example) bias, ignorance, and unauthenticated and imprecise recording.

It's unscientific to argue veracity from invalid data. What you need is valid data, and that requires either a validation of past reports (difficult, and not always possible), or repeating observations under conditions that would validate them (easier but also not always possible.) But it also requires you to make valid analyses and inferences, and for a number of reasons, it's not valid scientifically to take a wondrous and use it to infer a miracle, much less a divine agency.

You'd actually have to define miracle and god validly to start with, and that means defining it in such a way that it accords with the observable world and can be subjected to systematic and repeatable testing, yet other observable things cannot be mistaken for miracles and gods, or vice-versa.

Can you do that with gods or miracles? I believe that probably, nobody can because they're not defined coherently and accountably enough.

Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to,

Key reasons not to are that:
1) The authors and the people they wrote about are largely unauthenticated -- we don't know whether they existed, whether they were one person or several, and cannot be sure that documents attested to one author weren't written or redacted by several;
2) The incidents they report are for the most part, not valid observations. They lack the minimum methods, information and independence needed to validate them, and the witnesses may have lacked the skills needed to employ those methods; and finally
3) The inferences are generally invalid anyway. If any wondrous events actually occurred in the first place, that demands further investigation, not fanciful stories explaining them.

By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real
Actually, if the reports are invalid you don't have to claim they're false -- you can outright ignore them as unusable. The most you can do is try to reproduce them under clinical observational conditions, and of course people who believe in religion or magic are always welcome to do that.

Look it would be much more to the chase if you simply said "I dont believe anyone who wrote anything regarding supernatural events"
Now as to your claim that these people are being unscientific I just dont see how thats possible to see it that way. You have in the bible for example time and time again God doing wonders before large groups of peoples eyes. Its not just limited to the bible in this respect either. The most brilliant cultures of their day talked extensivley about various gods and supernatural occurences and explain what the driving force behind them were. You have to be willing to discount all of human history as being nonsensical tall tale story tellers.
As to the method those people used to verify supernatural occurences, they simply saw them and wrote them down or passed them along in one way or another. No different than today. As my example above explained, we see things in space, we explore it and its alll done by a comparativley extremely small group of people. They write what they are witnessing and things they did or discover, its passed on to people who have not witnessed it and its taught to us. What is the difference?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 4:30:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

Ok. Lets do it this way. What supernatural event do you think was documented by eye witnesses?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 4:40:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

I saw Jesus yesterday. He said you are wrong.

I am writing this after the fact, but according to my own testimony I saw Jesus on the road to Superfresh. Now, you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occurred, but it is documented by me. I am not at all in a position to convert to Christianity and from a worldly perspective I have no reason to. I already have power among Internet forums and Christians are being argued on the Internet left and right. There's no motive to lie at all.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:15:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:40:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

I saw Jesus yesterday. He said you are wrong.

I am writing this after the fact, but according to my own testimony I saw Jesus on the road to Superfresh. Now, you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occurred, but it is documented by me. I am not at all in a position to convert to Christianity and from a worldly perspective I have no reason to. I already have power among Internet forums and Christians are being argued on the Internet left and right. There's no motive to lie at all.
Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:22:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:15:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:40:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

I saw Jesus yesterday. He said you are wrong.

I am writing this after the fact, but according to my own testimony I saw Jesus on the road to Superfresh. Now, you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occurred, but it is documented by me. I am not at all in a position to convert to Christianity and from a worldly perspective I have no reason to. I already have power among Internet forums and Christians are being argued on the Internet left and right. There's no motive to lie at all.
Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:22:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:30:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

Ok. Lets do it this way. What supernatural event do you think was documented by eye witnesses?
Well this is besides the point. Im not in any authoritative position to speak on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of testimonies to the super natural. All Im saying is that all these people over possibly tena of thousands of years and for all we know even more time thab that have recorded supernatural things or interactions with supernatural beings that told them things. Even up to this present day you still have this going on. Aliester crowley for example. What do you make of his experience and influence he has put into the world? Even the scientific community?
Im not in this thread attempting to defend any particular account. However I would gladly participate in a new thread about the verability of various supernatural accounts. I do personally believe the bible to be true but I also believe these other groups of people were not making things up either. I would say there are many spirits both false and real that have passed things along to mankind throughout the ages and still do till this very day.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:22:09 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:15:12 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:40:43 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

I saw Jesus yesterday. He said you are wrong.

I am writing this after the fact, but according to my own testimony I saw Jesus on the road to Superfresh. Now, you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occurred, but it is documented by me. I am not at all in a position to convert to Christianity and from a worldly perspective I have no reason to. I already have power among Internet forums and Christians are being argued on the Internet left and right. There's no motive to lie at all.
Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius, aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day. It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event. If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:03:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius,

So was I.

aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day.

Same here. That's exactly what my account states. All supernatural and accepted by all the eye witnesses I spoke to.

It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event.

Like I said. If I get a thousand people to repeat this, you'll believe it?

If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:22:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 6:03:10 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius,

So was I.

aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day.

Same here. That's exactly what my account states. All supernatural and accepted by all the eye witnesses I spoke to.

It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event.

Like I said. If I get a thousand people to repeat this, you'll believe it?

If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
So you would like to dodge the end part which is the point of the discussion?
Again, no just solely on the basis of a thousand people saying one thing doesnt make it true. You would have to provide evidence for your testimony which you are yet to provide.
So wheres your evidences? This should be amusing as we both know your making it all up. But I like to entertain nonsense here and there. Maybe youd like to post your name and address for us all, give up a thousand phone numbers Names and adresses of the people you know believe you, provide some documentation from various sources supporting your claim. Ect.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:23:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I think this will be a good teaching moment for ya since you are having a hard time understanding how biblical verification works.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:26:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 5:22:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:30:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

Ok. Lets do it this way. What supernatural event do you think was documented by eye witnesses?
Well this is besides the point. Im not in any authoritative position to speak on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of testimonies to the super natural. All Im saying is that all these people over possibly tena of thousands of years and for all we know even more time thab that have recorded supernatural things or interactions with supernatural beings that told them things. Even up to this present day you still have this going on. Aliester crowley for example. What do you make of his experience and influence he has put into the world? Even the scientific community?
Im not in this thread attempting to defend any particular account. However I would gladly participate in a new thread about the verability of various supernatural accounts. I do personally believe the bible to be true but I also believe these other groups of people were not making things up either. I would say there are many spirits both false and real that have passed things along to mankind throughout the ages and still do till this very day.

OK. We may want to do just that. The overall point is, history written in the way it was and is, is not very good at providing the sort of proof that would satisfy many as to the authenticity of the supernatural.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:32:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 6:22:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:03:10 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius,

So was I.

aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day.

Same here. That's exactly what my account states. All supernatural and accepted by all the eye witnesses I spoke to.

It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event.

Like I said. If I get a thousand people to repeat this, you'll believe it?

If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
So you would like to dodge the end part which is the point of the discussion?
Again, no just solely on the basis of a thousand people saying one thing doesnt make it true. You would have to provide evidence for your testimony which you are yet to provide.
So wheres your evidences? This should be amusing as we both know your making it all up. But I like to entertain nonsense here and there. Maybe youd like to post your name and address for us all, give up a thousand phone numbers Names and adresses of the people you know believe you, provide some documentation from various sources supporting your claim. Ect.

Ok. Give me all the names and addresses of the people in support of Paul.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:48:22 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 6:26:20 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:22:26 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:30:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:13:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:30:06 AM, TBR wrote:
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.
So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.
So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?
Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

I stopped reading I have to say. Here is a nugget for you. None of this was written during the time of the events. Paul (NT), for example, never knew Jesus. These are story's told and re-told.

Obviously paul and his 13 letters were written after the fact but acccording to his own testimony he saw Jesus on the road to damascus. Now you are more than welcome to simply not believe this occured but its documented by paul. Paul was not at all in a position to convert to christianity and from a worldly perspective had to reason to. He already had power amongst the Jews and christians were being massacred left and right. Theres no motive to lie at all...
Then of course you have to gospels which have all been shown to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D (im not 100% of the exact date but if that dates wrong let me know) Jesus dying around 35 A.D puts the gospels being written within the lifetime easily of those who witnessed his life. This is all besides the point though because thats just one example of thousands of testimonys if not hundreds of thousands throughout history documenting the spiritual worl and the supernatural

Ok. Lets do it this way. What supernatural event do you think was documented by eye witnesses?
Well this is besides the point. Im not in any authoritative position to speak on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of testimonies to the super natural. All Im saying is that all these people over possibly tena of thousands of years and for all we know even more time thab that have recorded supernatural things or interactions with supernatural beings that told them things. Even up to this present day you still have this going on. Aliester crowley for example. What do you make of his experience and influence he has put into the world? Even the scientific community?
Im not in this thread attempting to defend any particular account. However I would gladly participate in a new thread about the verability of various supernatural accounts. I do personally believe the bible to be true but I also believe these other groups of people were not making things up either. I would say there are many spirits both false and real that have passed things along to mankind throughout the ages and still do till this very day.

OK. We may want to do just that. The overall point is, history written in the way it was and is, is not very good at providing the sort of proof that would satisfy many as to the authenticity of the supernatural.
Well sure! That would be a very good topic indeed. I certainly have nothing against ya for saying that and if its not satisfactory to you or others that is more than ok. Im just pointing out there is more than enough data throughout history and even till today to point to the existence of the supernatural and that there is no difference in trusting what these people all said over many many years and accross every group of people on the globe, than trusting what a group like nasa says, as you cannot verify their documentations yourself. To me it just seems like picking and choosing.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 6:55:53 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 6:32:40 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:22:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:03:10 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius,

So was I.

aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day.

Same here. That's exactly what my account states. All supernatural and accepted by all the eye witnesses I spoke to.

It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event.

Like I said. If I get a thousand people to repeat this, you'll believe it?

If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
So you would like to dodge the end part which is the point of the discussion?
Again, no just solely on the basis of a thousand people saying one thing doesnt make it true. You would have to provide evidence for your testimony which you are yet to provide.
So wheres your evidences? This should be amusing as we both know your making it all up. But I like to entertain nonsense here and there. Maybe youd like to post your name and address for us all, give up a thousand phone numbers Names and adresses of the people you know believe you, provide some documentation from various sources supporting your claim. Ect.

Ok. Give me all the names and addresses of the people in support of Paul.
Apparently you dont understand the time in which everything was written and mass copies were produced. Take some time to go through the new testament and read all the various witnesses accounts, read some of the secular history at the time. Then you should probably go through all the various manuscripts written by many authors all saying the same stuff. Like I said there are thousands. Maybe some good literature to start with could be lee strobles case for christ, dr. James white did a good debate with bart erham, Id reccomend that as well.

But unfortunatley for you we live in a day and age where the people you know that believe you have addresses and phone numbers we can verify this through. So post a thousand phone numbers and the names and addresses. You can use white pages if you forgot where one of your followers lives or their phone number. Also your own name and address. Comon out yourself out there to scrutiny. The biblical writers did. Your yet to still explain why I can trust nasa but by the same token cant trust even one of the authors of hundreds of thousands of texts that exist in human history.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 7:08:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 6:55:53 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:32:40 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:22:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:03:10 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius,

So was I.

aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day.

Same here. That's exactly what my account states. All supernatural and accepted by all the eye witnesses I spoke to.

It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event.

Like I said. If I get a thousand people to repeat this, you'll believe it?

If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
So you would like to dodge the end part which is the point of the discussion?
Again, no just solely on the basis of a thousand people saying one thing doesnt make it true. You would have to provide evidence for your testimony which you are yet to provide.
So wheres your evidences? This should be amusing as we both know your making it all up. But I like to entertain nonsense here and there. Maybe youd like to post your name and address for us all, give up a thousand phone numbers Names and adresses of the people you know believe you, provide some documentation from various sources supporting your claim. Ect.

Ok. Give me all the names and addresses of the people in support of Paul.
Apparently you dont understand the time in which everything was written and mass copies were produced. Take some time to go through the new testament and read all the various witnesses accounts, read some of the secular history at the time. Then you should probably go through all the various manuscripts written by many authors all saying the same stuff. Like I said there are thousands. Maybe some good literature to start with could be lee strobles case for christ, dr. James white did a good debate with bart erham, Id reccomend that as well.

But unfortunatley for you we live in a day and age where the people you know that believe you have addresses and phone numbers we can verify this through. So post a thousand phone numbers and the names and addresses. You can use white pages if you forgot where one of your followers lives or their phone number. Also your own name and address. Comon out yourself out there to scrutiny. The biblical writers did. Your yet to still explain why I can trust nasa but by the same token cant trust even one of the authors of hundreds of thousands of texts that exist in human history.

You haven't explained why you are placing a higher standard on me than a single text written a thousand years ago that merely says there were thousands of witnesses. Or are you suggesting there are thousands of primary sources about the subject?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 7:23:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 7:08:29 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:55:53 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:32:40 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:22:05 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:03:10 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 6:00:56 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:49:12 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 12/23/2015 5:24:33 PM, bigotry wrote:

Theres several things wrong with your comparison. Paul certainly could have made it all up but a man named aninious was told to go meet saul of tarsus because he was told to meet aninius by the spirit. Also paul built an entire ministry and suffered for that ministry. He was not at first recieved well because of his reputation but because of aninius who also was skeptical of Paul was told about his conversion, so it was verifiable.
If you dont see the incredible difference between this and your attempt at something, I dont know what that was, I cant really do much for ya.

I've built a ministry and suffered for it too. No difference, really.
If you honestly cant see the difference and are not just being feceasious than I again cant do much from this point. Even with that statement you dont have any reliable documentation to back you up. We have thousands of manuscripts backing paul.

So if I get a thousand people to repeat what I said, you'd believe it?
Well again I dont really see how you still dont see the difference. Paul was told he would be found by a man aninius,

So was I.

aninius was told to go meet paul who was at the time feared by people like aninius for his persecution. Every element of the account is supernatural and was accepted by the eye witnesses of their day.

Same here. That's exactly what my account states. All supernatural and accepted by all the eye witnesses I spoke to.

It was documented and we have thousands of written manuscripts detailing this event.

Like I said. If I get a thousand people to repeat this, you'll believe it?

If paul took the same approach you are no one would believe him just as no one is going to believe you. Me being a witness to the convenience of your statement and knowing you have no historicity of this event in your life can easily attest you are a liar. Just as could have those with paul at the time and those that were with paul after his conversion. His was verifiable, yours simply is not.
Look if you dont see the difference its probably because you need to brush up on your biblical knowledge and the surrounding documented history of that time.
But this is all besides the point. I assume that you take the position that all of humanity has lied to us accross the world since the the beginning of mankind itself. Its ok to reject the data but its still there. You also need to explain the difference between not trusting a single persons account out of hundreds of thousands of people over possibly tens of thousands of years and trusting something Im sure you do which is nasa scientists telling us all these things about space ect. Which you yourself cannot verify.
So you would like to dodge the end part which is the point of the discussion?
Again, no just solely on the basis of a thousand people saying one thing doesnt make it true. You would have to provide evidence for your testimony which you are yet to provide.
So wheres your evidences? This should be amusing as we both know your making it all up. But I like to entertain nonsense here and there. Maybe youd like to post your name and address for us all, give up a thousand phone numbers Names and adresses of the people you know believe you, provide some documentation from various sources supporting your claim. Ect.

Ok. Give me all the names and addresses of the people in support of Paul.
Apparently you dont understand the time in which everything was written and mass copies were produced. Take some time to go through the new testament and read all the various witnesses accounts, read some of the secular history at the time. Then you should probably go through all the various manuscripts written by many authors all saying the same stuff. Like I said there are thousands. Maybe some good literature to start with could be lee strobles case for christ, dr. James white did a good debate with bart erham, Id reccomend that as well.

But unfortunatley for you we live in a day and age where the people you know that believe you have addresses and phone numbers we can verify this through. So post a thousand phone numbers and the names and addresses. You can use white pages if you forgot where one of your followers lives or their phone number. Also your own name and address. Comon out yourself out there to scrutiny. The biblical writers did. Your yet to still explain why I can trust nasa but by the same token cant trust even one of the authors of hundreds of thousands of texts that exist in human history.

You haven't explained why you are placing a higher standard on me than a single text written a thousand years ago that merely says there were thousands of witnesses. Or are you suggesting there are thousands of primary sources about the subject?
No the standard is the same. Feel free to post these names addresses and phone numbers anytime.
Paul would not have been recieved at all had he been lying and the occurence would not have been recorded if it were false. Else we would see as we do today, a competing writing of the story saying this thing never happened. The holocaust for example is actually denied by a great deal of people, one can certainly doctor video footage and all the Jews could be lying about it, but we have many testimonies and even after tge camps wither away and archaelogical evidence fades away, their testimony still stands to what happened in that period. So is the same of Jesus time. We dont have any manuscripts saying paul was a false teacher and that his road to damascus was some kind of ploy. We have consistent copies among copies...among copies all saying this happened. Why? Because it simply did. I do believe we are in possesion of many prinary sources btw. We also can put this alongside secular history and we can look at the historys of the various churches that were written to and everything is consistent. Now of course your welcome to dismiss it all on the basis of you simply not wanting to believe them.
Applying this standard to nasa allows us to believe what they are saying. Using a different standard which Im not sure what yours is for verability, doesnt let us trust nasa. I mean you wont even post your own name and address and phone number so people all over can verify your claim. It must not be an important claim at all or else you might try a little harder to get the word out
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 7:24:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:23:42 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 7:29:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You'd actually have to define miracle and god validly to start with, and that means defining it in such a way that it accords with the observable world and can be subjected to systematic and repeatable testing, yet other observable things cannot be mistaken for miracles and gods, or vice-versa.
Can you do that with gods or miracles? I believe that probably, nobody can because they're not defined coherently and accountably enough.
Look it would be much more to the chase if you simply said "I dont believe anyone who wrote anything regarding supernatural events"
But it's not that I do or don't believe them, Bigs.

When ignorant people produce far-fetched ideas based on sloppy and unexamined methods, they've already given you good reason to reject their claims: ignorance, sloppiness and unexamined methods offer a better explanation for anything seemingly wondrous, than that a far-fetched belief is true.

Now as to your claim that these people are being unscientific I just dont see how that's possible to see it that way.
Well, science is a formal, organised process, Bigs. You can make a cake by lucky accident, but you can't do valid science by accident.

As to the method those people used to verify supernatural occurences, they simply saw them and wrote them down or passed them along in one way or another.
Actually, you don't know what was seen, by whom, who wrote it down, when, or who may have altered it later. And if you'd studied history you'd know why there are good reasons to doubt the authenticity of claims in any ancient document.

No different than today. As my example above explained, we see things in space, we explore it and its alll done by a comparativley extremely small group of people. They write what they are witnessing and things they did or discover, its passed on to people who have not witnessed it and its taught to us. What is the difference?
How about: honesty, accountability, transparency, diligence, repeatability, independent scrutiny, advanced numeracy and measurement, meticulous documentation and record-keeping, a vast body of tested, proven knowledge to draw on, international standards for validation and verification, a culture of continuous improvement and a dedicated, highly-trained profession with an explicit set of ethics?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 7:57:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 7:23:27 PM, bigotry wrote:

You haven't explained why you are placing a higher standard on me than a single text written a thousand years ago that merely says there were thousands of witnesses. Or are you suggesting there are thousands of primary sources about the subject?
No the standard is the same. Feel free to post these names addresses and phone numbers anytime.

You first.

Paul would not have been recieved at all had he been lying and the occurence would not have been recorded if it were false. Else we would see as we do today, a competing writing of the story saying this thing never happened. The holocaust for example is actually denied by a great deal of people, one can certainly doctor video footage and all the Jews could be lying about it, but we have many testimonies and even after tge camps wither away and archaelogical evidence fades away, their testimony still stands to what happened in that period. So is the same of Jesus time. We dont have any manuscripts saying paul was a false teacher and that his road to damascus was some kind of ploy. We have consistent copies among copies...among copies all saying this happened. Why? Because it simply did.

LOL. Copying something doesn't make it true.

I do believe we are in possesion of many prinary sources btw.

Which ones? You said thousands. Name 10.

We also can put this alongside secular history and we can look at the historys of the various churches that were written to and everything is consistent. Now of course your welcome to dismiss it all on the basis of you simply not wanting to believe them.
Applying this standard to nasa allows us to believe what they are saying. Using a different standard which Im not sure what yours is for verability, doesnt let us trust nasa. I mean you wont even post your own name and address and phone number so people all over can verify your claim. It must not be an important claim at all or else you might try a little harder to get the word out

NASA isn't asking me to worship them.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 8:25:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 7:24:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

But it's not that I do or don't believe them, Bigs.

When ignorant people produce far-fetched ideas based on sloppy and unexamined methods, they've already given you good reason to reject their claims: ignorance, sloppiness and unexamined methods offer a better explanation for anything seemingly wondrous, than that a far-fetched belief is true.

Im curious what gives you the idea that ancient cultures had sloppy unexamined methods despite the fact many of them were able to accomplish things so great that we know about them even today...We have these claims being made all throughout history and as I pointed out before even up until today.
Many of these accounts are to supernatural events or they interacted with the supernatural and were told something. You could even go as far into modern day occult practices and belief systems. The reason something like the bible is so held as being viably verified because nothing in history has suggest it lied about a particular event, the people that bore witness to these accounts would have written different things happening and there would have been something to suggest that its all made up. You could take the exodus for example of the Jews out of Egypt. The plagues either happened or they didnt, wonders were either worked or they were not. Who would be able to get away with writing any text at that time to suggest things happened that never actually happened? So in other words if it never happened, why did Israel follow moses and why did the Israelite's and their decedents take very seriously the things moses wrote if they are all made up?
We really can say the same for gods of any culture. You have to assume ALL the writers AND the followers which probably numbers in the tens of billions if not more than this all have this mythological belief in common that there are supernatural forces that do works on this earth and appear to certain people in various instances.
Now as to your claim that these people are being unscientific I just dont see how that's possible to see it that way.
Well, science is a formal, organised process, Bigs. You can make a cake by lucky accident, but you can't do valid science by accident.

Sure, so when you witness a god or supernatural beings works in front of your own eyes along with many other people possibly seeing the same event and then going off and writing down what happened. That is unscientific. observing a process or event and then recording the data of what occured is not scientific?

Actually, you don't know what was seen, by whom, who wrote it down, when, or who may have altered it later. And if you'd studied history you'd know why there are good reasons to doubt the authenticity of claims in any ancient document.

naturally theres no reason to not be skeptical. Are you taking the position that all ancient documents cannot be trusted? In that they all are full of false events, made up history, made up places ect ect.
Why are all these ancient and even modern documents talking about the supernatural?

How about: honesty, accountability, transparency, diligence, repeatability, independent scrutiny, advanced numeracy and measurement, meticulous documentation and record-keeping, a vast body of tested, proven knowledge to draw on, international standards for validation and verification, a culture of continuous improvement and a dedicated, highly-trained profession with an explicit set of ethics?

So given this, what part of how any document has come into being ever, describing a supernatural occurrence or interaction with the supernatural is shown to not have any of these characteristics mentioned above?
Lets see, NASA is a government sponsored agency, as are many other space programs. Now we know governments have no issues lying, not being accountable, hiding information, using their own "independent" scrutiny. The government also hands out grants to scientists. So by your own admission, that the standard for accepting anything to be true must be those attributes, we cant trust what nasa has to say about anything at all and many other scientists around the world
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 8:40:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 7:57:14 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

You first.

well maybe your not aware but people in first century palestine didnt have access to phones or a system mimicking todays address system. lol what a silly claim.


LOL. Copying something doesn't make it true.

Of course it doesnt.
I do believe we are in possesion of many prinary sources btw.

Which ones? You said thousands. Name 10.
Well you can read for yourself that I said many of the primary sources and here they are.
P52. P90, P104, P98, P46, P66, P67. These are 7 of the earliest ones we have which date anywhere from 125 A.D. to 200 A.D. as far as I have read about.



NASA isn't asking me to worship them.
Neither are the writers of the bible...they advocate worshiping God and acknowledging certain things about God.
NASA is asking us to believe various planets, black holes ect are out there, that we put a man on the moon (which some people dont believe for whatever reason) and to accept certain things as a reality. So again I ask why believe NASA when by the same standard you cant believe anyone who said anything about anything. Its fine to say you want to pick and choose. Just say it. Its pretty obvious.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2015 8:53:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Well sure! That would be a very good topic indeed. I certainly have nothing against ya for saying that and if its not satisfactory to you or others that is more than ok. Im just pointing out there is more than enough data throughout history and even till today to point to the existence of the supernatural and that there is no difference in trusting what these people all said over many many years and accross every group of people on the globe, than trusting what a group like nasa says, as you cannot verify their documentations yourself. To me it just seems like picking and choosing.

Well hang on. NASA (or any university etc) that is doing any scientific research will give you everything necessary to recreate an experiment. They will data on any research done etc. They know that anything they DO publish is subject to the rigors of testing. Yea, that is MUCH different that some supernatural event that some person someplace attests to.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 2:21:59 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 4:35:23 AM, bigotry wrote:
I think in this day and age there is a great deal that is discounted or simply not taken into account when trying to come to conclusion of God existing. I would like to simply point out several things and thats really about it.
I googled the word science and found this definition which Im sure no one would be opposed to as follows:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: "

That being said, to me its quite obvious that mankind has always been filled with scientist since the very beginning. regardless if you think that the first man was Adam or some kind of neanderthal either way you go about it people have always been studying the world around them and using that information to create things, make observational statements ect.

In our possession today are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of various accounts of the beginning of the earth and its historicity. Even the most modern of cultures for their time used the supernatural to explain things that they observed or bore witness to. If you look at any culture they all explain that there are supernatural forces that exist in the world and are at work.

RIght, cause when you don't know whats going on it's all magical and the works of Gods, spirits, witches and the like.


To take for example what many are obviously familiar with the Bible is simply what people of that day witnessed and observed, they wrote it down and passed it on for the next generation to know, just as we do today. When Moses for example is writing about the plagues of Egypt, he is writing it as a first hand witness in a time when others who were also there could easily discount him had he been lying. Just as is the same with any culture writing down things in their respective times and giving their own accounts.

Often these first hand accounts are not first hand accounts.

As far as I know the Egyptians have no such stories of the plagues and the parting of the water of their Israeli slaves, maybe just maybe some body make some stuff up eh ?

So to cut to the chase, what I dont understand is how all these eye witness accounts of supernatural beings and occurrences throughout human history are simply discounted or not even taken into account even though they ALL have in common a god of some kind involved in their respective history. Many people often say "we cant see God, or do an observational test for God" yet we have documents in recorded history that did exactly that and believe me they certainly tested him and found out the hard way that he does indeed exist...the apostles of the NT for example would have been witnesses and observers and testers to Christs proclamation that he was the son of God.

What tests ?

So if you are one of those people that does not believe God exist and indeed discounts the thousands of accounts of supernatural beings from every culture worldwide then how do you explain even the most civilized of cultures of their day believing with the utmost certainty that their God, or gods exist?

Irrationality............

From the same species that bought you we need to burn them witches to stop them casting evil spells.................


It reminds me for example of something akin to space exploration. Here we have a very small group of people relative to the population of the earth telling us that we have billions of galaxys and certain planets work this way, even the mars exploration and photos of pluto are in the hands of a relatively small group of people that someone like you or I cannot verify. Under the normal atheistic assumption and logic that you or I cannot test what the moon is like or if pluto exist because we have never been there ourselves shouldnt we not believe what we are being told until we can test it ourselves?

Now Im in the camp that says lets believe these people because we dont have a reason not to, they are eye witnesses to space exploration, they have documented it and provided according details and would be shown a lie in this day by a peer or someone with the same access to the technology that lets one explore say mars.
By the same token we dont have any logical reason to think that all these accounts of the supernatural and various gods are not real (unless you can prove without a doubt otherwise). I just see a blatant double standard here. Hopefully you all can make some sense of what Im trying to say.

There is alot more evidence to justify space exploration claims that various God claims. So it's not a double standard.

Also you can't test alot of these God claims, its merely asserted hey God told me, not testable, not subject to peer review.

False analogy fail.

What is your position on alien abduction ? believe it cause it has not being proven false ? l
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 3:29:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/23/2015 8:53:21 PM, TBR wrote:
Well sure! That would be a very good topic indeed. I certainly have nothing against ya for saying that and if its not satisfactory to you or others that is more than ok. Im just pointing out there is more than enough data throughout history and even till today to point to the existence of the supernatural and that there is no difference in trusting what these people all said over many many years and accross every group of people on the globe, than trusting what a group like nasa says, as you cannot verify their documentations yourself. To me it just seems like picking and choosing.

Well hang on. NASA (or any university etc) that is doing any scientific research will give you everything necessary to recreate an experiment. They will data on any research done etc. They know that anything they DO publish is subject to the rigors of testing. Yea, that is MUCH different that some supernatural event that some person someplace attests to.
Well of course they will and in the first century A.D for example the apostles and early Christians of that time certainly gave all the research they could into who Jesus was for example and why he should be followed. So compelling that it grew enormously despite the overwhelming odds against it.
So no its no different at all. You simply dont trust what they said to be real or again the rest of humanity throughout all of human history. Tell me please, why does this pattern of mans tie to the supernatural exist at all if you know all the authors over thousands of years across every civilization to ever exist says otherwise?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2015 3:35:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/24/2015 3:29:08 AM, bigotry wrote:
At 12/23/2015 8:53:21 PM, TBR wrote:
Well sure! That would be a very good topic indeed. I certainly have nothing against ya for saying that and if its not satisfactory to you or others that is more than ok. Im just pointing out there is more than enough data throughout history and even till today to point to the existence of the supernatural and that there is no difference in trusting what these people all said over many many years and accross every group of people on the globe, than trusting what a group like nasa says, as you cannot verify their documentations yourself. To me it just seems like picking and choosing.

Well hang on. NASA (or any university etc) that is doing any scientific research will give you everything necessary to recreate an experiment. They will data on any research done etc. They know that anything they DO publish is subject to the rigors of testing. Yea, that is MUCH different that some supernatural event that some person someplace attests to.
Well of course they will and in the first century A.D for example the apostles and early Christians of that time certainly gave all the research they could into who Jesus was for example and why he should be followed. So compelling that it grew enormously despite the overwhelming odds against it.
So no its no different at all. You simply dont trust what they said to be real or again the rest of humanity throughout all of human history. Tell me please, why does this pattern of mans tie to the supernatural exist at all if you know all the authors over thousands of years across every civilization to ever exist says otherwise?

We are talking different things. The scientist from NASA give the data and procedure to recreate. The people attesting to some supernatural event are only giving the account. It is the difference between just saying "we did this in a lab, trust us" and "we did this in a lab, this is how it is done, please test it and see if it does the same thing for you"