Evidence for God (3 Viewers)

[gmaw]

Not to be a dick, but do you understand the "science" you're citing? Can you explain - exactly - how those paragraphs you quoted support your point? What does it mean?

What I gather from all of it is that the Universe is too intricate by far to happen by chance.

 

[gmaw]

You continue to use the same discredited arguments. The site you provide give absolutely no scientific evidence of god. It merely provides information (most of which is outright false) in a somewhat scientific manner, and then concludes that it must be god. I can see how this could be convincing to the uneducated, as they use lots of big numbers that one can't begin to understand unless he/she did a little research (and by research i mean just googling the stuff). Upon investigating any of the claims further, you will begin to see all of the "evidence" fall apart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa-1Iyphqzc&feature=related

Here is a great video that does a critical analysis of the movie The Case for a Creator. In the movie, Lee Strobel uses much of the same arguments your link uses, and they are summarily dismantled. If you want evidence, then watch it. If you want to remain ignorant of the actual scientific data, then continue to argue from incredulity.

Ofcourse there will be scientist that argue differently from their colleages. Thats how the scientific community works. These guys just seem more genuine and have more common sense. The guys in my link.

 

[RazorOye]

Say what you want about me,but at least I back my belief of a higher power with science.

is that how you define "faith"?

 

[St. Widge]

Ok I apologize that another source (not me) said that was his surname. What I'm saying is that Jesus is called Christ. We are both agreeing on that matter, but you act like we are not. Back to my original point, a very well respected Roman historian who had hatred towards Christians, acknowledged Jesus as a real person.

No, the Roman historian acknowledges that someone named "Chrestus" existed. First, he didn't say Christ and even if he did, that was not Jesus' name. In fact, it's possible that the name Christ was not even used to describe the alleged Jesus until after this historian wrote. Moreover, even if he had written Christ and it was used to describe the alleged person Jesus at the time, it would only prove that he acknowledged a that A person called Christ existed, not necessarily the Christ referred to in the Christian Bible.

 

[gmaw]

is that how you define "faith"?

Not really, but for some people, Science is God so I talk to them on their level.

 

[St. Widge]

What I gather from all of it is that the Universe is too intricate by far to happen by chance.

You really need to read up on Chaos Theory. There is no reason to believe that complexity means that something must have been designed. In fact, in many ways, the opposite is true.

 

[kcirdor]

If a person didn't even look at the evidence I tried to present and they are still popping off as to how ignorant I am, I mean the evidence was SUPPOSED to be in the forefront of discussion.

I got no viral warnings and SaintsReport has obviously deemed it safe.

dude, we don't need to look at your evidence. We've been having this same discussion on this web site for as long as I've been a member. And long before that. The evidence have been produced, reproduced, regurgetated at least once per off season.

I am not interested in your god virus.

 

[FleurDeLeap]

No, the Roman historian acknowledges that someone named "Chrestus" existed. First, he didn't say Christ and even if he did, that was not Jesus' name. In fact, it's possible that the name Christ was not even used to describe the alleged Jesus until after this historian wrote. Moreover, even if he had written Christ and it was used to describe the alleged person Jesus at the time, it would only prove that he acknowledged a that A person called Christ existed, not necessarily the Christ referred to in the Christian Bible.

It would refer to Jesus Christ from the Bible. He says the founder of Christianity was killed by Pilate. Here's some more info for you to read:

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!

http://bit.ly/dBeyzB

 

[Leastbay]

It would refer to Jesus Christ from the Bible. He says the founder of Christianity was killed by Pilate. Here's some more info for you to read:
http://bit.ly/dBeyzB

I would think if Jesus had a website it would have flash animation or something.

 

[jpcdolphan]

Well the book is titled Revelation, so there's a start for your strong wisdom. Please continue, I'd appreciate it if you deepened my understanding.

I added an "S", you thought that "Christ" was either Jesus' last name or "the same thing as Jesus".

Both of those mistakes are really equivalent.

Like I said, ask your priest. You're obviously just going to disregard everything that I post so ask someone that you will listen to.

Ready for the next big reveal? Tacitus wrote his piece sometime after 100 AD. There were already Christians around by that point. In other words, Tacitus isn't providing proof of anything...he's just noting (and belittling) gospel that was already being spread at that point.

Since you won't believe me, here's a link, albeit from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

 

[krazy9000]

Ofcourse there will be scientist that argue differently from their colleages. Thats how the scientific community works. These guys just seem more genuine and have more common sense. The guys in my link.

No your website is NOT how the scientific community works. Science has nothing to do with the supernatural, therefore anyone attempting to use science to comment on the supernatural (god) is not doing science. Also, the scientific community forms a consensus. The scientific consensus is that Creationism/ID/whateverelse you want to call it, is complete and utter nonsense. Of course they make more sense to you, they use big scientific words that you don't understand, and make false claims (even outright lie) to make their points. There is absolutely nothing genuine about what they are doing. Again, do some REAL research on the subject without the god blinders on. Be willing to open your mind to actual science just a little bit. I know you won't, but it was worth a try.

 

[St. Widge]

It would refer to Jesus Christ from the Bible. He says the founder of Christianity was killed by Pilate. Here's some more info for you to read:
http://bit.ly/dBeyzB

I'm aware of Josephus and you will find that Joseph never uses the name Jesus, Christ or the founder of Christianity. But, you are going to have to go to the original source to see that. The passage is often misquoted and misinterpreted on many Christian websites.

I suspect you will find similar omissions, mistranslations and overstatements of what is there to be present with all of the people that site uses as evidence. I know for a fact that the first one you posted is highly misleading and the Josephus one is also misleading.

 

[FleurDeLeap]

I added an "S", you thought that "Christ" was either Jesus' last name of "the same thing as Jesus".

Both of those mistakes are really equivalent.

Like I said, ask your priest. You're obviously just going to pout and disregard everything that I post so ask someone that will listen to unquestioningly.

No I'm actually listening to everything you say. It seems everything I say is being disregarded as fake. i never thought Christ was the last name of Jesus. That was not a quote from me. Let's go to Dictionary.com for a definition of the word 'name'.

a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known.

Jesus is also called Christ therefore it may be said that Christ is his name. You understand exactly what I am trying to say, but you just want to sound more intelligible. This debate about the definition of the word 'name' is pointless and completely off topic.

 

[feoinfunroe]

Say what you want about me,but at least I back my belief of a higher power with science. You can dismiss the science if you want to, but hey isn't that what you accuse us of doing?

This thread is in dire need of a musical interlude:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3fI8834iCgo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3fI8834iCgo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[SuperQuincy]

Say what you want about me,but at least I back my belief of a higher power with science. You can dismiss the science if you want to, but hey isn't that what you accuse us of doing?

Your not using science at all to prove it tho. Your using one mans opinion.

He is listing scientific studies and coming to his own conclusion that because things are so complex, and had to all fall in line, its his opinion they are the way they are because someone created it. You are mistaking a mans opinion he based on science, as scientific fact. But its not a fact its still just an opinion, and he offers very little substance as to why its his opinion other than its a complex universe, and he has faith. Wow, thanks!

Anyways I have seen nothing "proving" anything in any posts.


The beautiful thing about agnostics who lean towards science over a creator. Is most have etched nothing in stone. They are just theories, and they are more than game to have them disproven. Heck they go about disproving their own theories all the time.

Where Theists are already sure they know the answers and aren't looking to have their minds changed. They believe what the believe and aren't open to new ideas. Which makes threads like this even more pointless. Not one person will leave here after reading these posts with a changed view no matter how much evidence they are shown that at the very least should make them stop and think.. "well maybe there wasn't a creator. I still believe there is, but maybe I am wrong."

If everyone thought like that we would never know anything.. God did it, would be the answer to everything and we would walk around the earth a lot stupider.