NaFirinne wrote: » No that's not what I'm talking about at all. How did the writers of the bible maintain the mathematical consistency throughout the old testament and new testament in terms of the number 7? If your unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, this is a good start into studying it....but only a starthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hOKA9fR2p4 The bible is a book that deserves proper study if your going to be talking about it. Now if you want to discuss contradictions in the four gospels...well these are suppose to be eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus....so being eye witness accounts you would expect to see some inconsistencies....however none of these would take away the truth of the gospel. More over they actually prove that these are actual eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus.
antiskeptic wrote: » What proves? The fact that there are inconsistencies? Certainly identical testimony would whiff of collusion. But variance a proof of truth?? How are you reckoning it. When they vary it's natural human subjectivity at work. When they harmonize, evidence of objective truth. Surely there are other ways to skin this cat??
NaFirinne wrote: » I'd suggest having a read ofCold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
NaFirinne wrote: » How did the writers of the bible maintain the mathematical consistency throughout the old testament and new testament in terms of the number 7?
Now if you want to discuss contradictions in the four gospels...well these are suppose to be eye witness accounts of the Life of Jesus....
Kaybaykwah wrote: » I think that my favorite part of the bible is the Old Testament story of Noah.
PHG wrote: » They don't prove anything!!! They ere written 200 and 300 years after he died. Eyewitness my backside, Chinese whispers at best. My fb profile from Uni proves more with pictures and comments and I can tell you that some of those pics do not describe the whole scenario of some of those nights. The Diet of Worms selected these 4 as they would suit best for the general consumption by the public. It is now known there is a gospel for each of the 12 apostles. And here is a shock, Judas was Jesus' best mate not a traitor and asked by Jesus to do that (according to the bible of Judas). Thats an old Discovery Channel documentary fact. Also, if the repenter will be saved, why not be an athiest and spend your time doing other stuff than mass, just before you die then repent like crazy and you will be accepted into heaven. That will free up weeks and months of your time to do stuff you want to!!!
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Who cares.It was written decades later and was written / edited to fulfil an agenda. Eyewitness accounts written by people born after his death :rolleyes:
NaFirinne wrote: » Do you guys just take these things at face value without researching deeper into these things?
NaFirinne wrote: » No one can convince you that God exists....If your convinced in yourself that he doesn't and everything surrounding that is nonsense then stay the way you are.
NaFirinne wrote: » It doesn't matter how much evidences presented either way
NaFirinne wrote: » you can't discover GOD through solely intellectual methods.
NaFirinne wrote: » God is spiritual and only when you soften your hearts and allow yourselves too really seek God out will you find the truth.
NaFirinne wrote: » everyone's path to God is different.
NaFirinne wrote: » Do you guys just take these things at face value without researching deeper into these things? What is your motivation for posting...is it just to discount everything in the most vaguest of researched arguments or are you genuinely after the truth of things? No one can convince you that God exists....If your convinced in yourself that he doesn't and everything surrounding that is nonsense then stay the way you are. It doesn't matter how much evidences presented either way - you can't discover GOD through solely intellectual methods. God is spiritual and only when you soften your hearts and allow yourselves too really seek God out will you find the truth. This is not easy to do at all and many don't understand what this actually means and it's very difficult to explain it as everyone's path to God is different. Only you know in your own heart and mind what you need to be able to Know God. Weather that is a direct encounter with him or a journey you have to take to Grow as a person.
NaFirinne wrote: » It may have apparent contradictions, however usually when these are studied in more detail you gain great insights into their meanings any many of these apparent contradictions are gems of knowledge.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Except for the ludicrously vast amount of the universe that is empty space, you mean. It's like people who talk about the wondrous order of nature aren't aware how much of the universe is completely empty and viciously lethal to anything alive. We have done this before, haven't we? Discussed the supposed "reason" that can justify the existence of god. I am still waiting for this "reason", if you want to continue from our last post. Ah, so if no-one else recognises the "reason" in your argument, it's because god hasn't cheated for them and made them believe, it's not because your "reason" is leakier than a sieve. Convenient that, isn't it? It's also something that a lot of people who believe in completely contradictory gods will say, that their god has given them faith. How do I, as an outsider, tell which of you actually has any "reason" without any gift of faith?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » That is circular. The evidence that a god created things the way they are, is the things the way they are? You are using the question itself as evidence for itself. Adumbrate that reasoning for me/us then. I genuinely hope it is more coherent and less fallacious than the circular reasoning above.
NaFirinne wrote: » Just pondering this idea.... If God created the Universe and the world - then really the Universe is kind of like a virtual world that we human might be able to create in games. So Looking at the Creation account - Creation Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5) God created the heavens and the earth. “The heavens” refers to everything beyond the earth, outer space. The earth is made but not formed in any specific way, although water is present. God then speaks light into existence. He then separates the light from the dark and names the light “day” and the dark “night.” This creative work occurs from evening until morning – one day. So God Coded and developed the Universe and the building blocks of planets - ie Earth. So he initializes the game engine. 2. He writes the code for light and integrates it into his new game engine. 3. Then rather then having light every where he codes it into Light sources so we can have both dark and light. So he managed to code all that in one day. Not bad really. Now I could go on with the rest of the account of creation, it really strike me that rather then looking at our surroundings from our point of view. If you look at the rest of the account of creation from a Game creator / Programmers point of view it's very close to how an actually game universe or virtual world would actually be developed. Day 2 - God - Codes up the how the atmosphere works and adds in moisture and water. Day 3 - God codes up the land, continents and seas - I wonder at this point is he using the unreal engine or the unity engine. Day 4 - God codes up all the stars and heavenly bodies. And initializes the thread to allow them to run. He also creates the Moon and the sun in relations to the earth. - This can only make sense if this is actually game development here - I mean it is the sequence you would do it in. Day 5 - God uses something better then Adobe to create all the life in water and insects Day 6 - God then uses the same software to create all the land creatures. And finally creates Humans as the NPC's to his world. Day 7 God Rests. That account does not make sense in terms of science that we know. It can only really make sense to me in terms of developing a virtual world and the only example I have of that is a Computer Game world. Does the creation account make sense if it was simply the sequence of coding up and developing a game world? Then if we are the npc's inside that virtual world then looking from within that world we can only really know about how the world runs We would not be able to see past that world. The world was initially created as a safe paradise in which we could live freely. And God roamed around from time to time to speak with us. Then we went against god - the problem that God has here is that he has to leave our presence as when you go against God you go against creation and I guess there is some universal law that means if you go against creation and are in the presence of God in his true form you die. Then he decided to Join the world in First Person Perspective but again we went against him and just had him killed. I wonder how the game plays out in the end.
robindch wrote: » Not in the slightest. The bible started off true, but as people learned more and became less credulous, bits of it turned out to be false or ridiculous. Each bit which turns out to be false or ridiculous then becomes a metaphor.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » The Bible is perfectly credible and coherent. Much of it has to be approached with the relevant cultural, historical and linguistic context. This is where the discipline of exegesis comes in. If someone starts reading the Bible by diving headlong into the Old Testament and discovers it does not make sense, then he is not alone. Beginners should not attempt the OT without a good commentary.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Do you mean the four gospels which contradict each other?
Kaybaykwah wrote: » I think that my favorite part of the bible is the Old Testament story of Noah. That is a truly inspired tale, especially when you consider it was pilfered word for word from the story of Gilgamesh, written a long time before the bible was brewed in what is now present day Iraq. Like the Bible, it is filled with passionate violence and sex, and it is a direct ascendant of that lovely form of entertainment you mentioned earlier in the name of video games. Is that the inkling you had, too?
auspicious wrote: » Not to be facetious, but.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj6XAvuRn4Q
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Pretty sure I have given an account of the arguments for the existence of God from causation and from ontology (principle of non-contradiction) earlier in this thread. You cannot keep asking me to reproduce them.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Dredging up a six year old article to have a pop at Dawkins is a sign of desperation.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But it is understandable too. Many theists, especially Christians and Muslims, essentially view the world through the lens of a personality cult. So they parse opposition in that way too.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Similar to the whole "atheism is really a religion" thing, or "deathbed conversions" "no atheists in foxholes" rubbish. Can't accept there are people who don't just not believe in a god, but feel absolutely no need or desire to do so either.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Heh reminds me of the anti abortion poster who tried to rebut my positions by dredging up posts I made here TEN years ago. And his "rebuttal" was to point out I said the same thing 10 years ago but with slightly different wording so I must be contradicting myself somehow. Very laughable the effects desperation have on people like that. Especially so with Dawkins who.... much like people point out about Micheal Nugent.... does not speak for all atheists at all. But it is understandable too. Many theists, especially Christians and Muslims, essentially view the world through the lens of a personality cult. So they parse opposition in that way too. So they imagine we have some kind of divine leaders that if they tear them down, they somehow tear us down. And they vicariously treat Dawkins as an atheist messiah in a way no actual atheist I have met actually does.
antiskeptic wrote: » Atheists, whilst not believing in God believe something else in relation to the questions answered for others by God Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?
antiskeptic wrote: » That would make you a Science-tist. Scienceism is a religion as is an atheism arising from it.
antiskeptic wrote: » Atheists don't believe in God, but they believe something else.
antiskeptic wrote: » He just sounds so much like so many of you, the parallel is inevitable.
antiskeptic wrote: » Atheists, whilst not believing in God believe something else in relation to the questions answered for others by God Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Supposing, for example, that you arose from natural processes and that there is no meaning outside whatever you decide for yourself stems from a belief system. A belief about the means you've used to arrive at that conclusion - science being a frequent player. That would make you a Science-tist. Scienceism is a religion as is an atheism arising from it. Atheists don't believe in God, but they believe something else.
karlitob wrote: » Every atheist on this thread has asked you to stop misrepresenting their position. It’s an unfair and a particularly nasty thing to do. So - once more - no, since I don’t believe in the existence of your god, I don’t believe in anything else.
Panrich wrote: » Those who can't or won't understand atheism often have a need to foist beliefs on us where none exist according to their definition of the word. Belief in religious terms carries weight because without belief there is nothing. Questions like these above are the kind of questions that are easily resolved in a satisfying manner by having a belief in a supernatural power who can provide comforting answers to where we came from, why we are here and where we are going. Religions through history all provide a narrative that answer these 'big' questions. However, when you don't believe with a big B, these questions no longer are of any great interest as the mundane reality is that there is no real mystery in where we came from, there is no more purpose to our existence than there is for a worm, and we will end up in the same place as the worm at the end. Personally (and I can't generalise for other atheists here), I find these types of questions to be very egocentric and veering too far towards navel gazing.
