"@TGM - What other questions?"

Firstly, do we choose to be immoral?

Nor did you answer to:

"No, they are considered miracles because they can't be explained scientifically, because they go against recognised scientific phenomena. There are things that cannot be empirically tested, althropology, for instance, that are not miracles. Your definition is wrong.
As for leaving them aside, we can't. I accept that Jesus, the man, existed, and had a significant following. That is history that is very hard to deny. The miracles are equally hard to deny, historically, but straightforward to deny scientifically, and as you agree is valid, I place scientific evidence before historical evidence, because it is stronger.

You develop, I don't doubt unwittingly, a straw man argument here. I am not rejecting the value of history, I am just saying that we cannot give it the weight necessary for it to overhaul science, because science is a stronger form of evidence. I can and do accept ancient history, I am convinced of the existence of Nero, Socrates and Homer, but if you said that they could fly by flapping their arms, I would reject it, because my science says that that cannot be true. I follow the same path with rejecting the miracles of Jesus, which are vital to your faith."

or

"Quite my point. You can't demonstrate the existence of a 'purpose of life' at all. It is an impossibility to do so; and when we have no evidence for the existence of something, we must reject the fact of its existence, just as we reject Russell's teapot, so too we must reject the 'purpose of life' as something external to our own minds and imaginations. The 'purpose of life' is nothing more than what we choose it to be ourselves.

I will believe in things that aren't empirically proven, but I won't believe in some totally new abstract concept without empirical proof. If I am told that there is an oil company in Asia of which I haven't heard, I will believe it, because I understand the idea of an oil company, I know that they exist, and I can see it being perfectly reasonable that there is an oil company in Asia. With 'God' and 'the purpose of life', I don't know of anything even remotely similar, and that's why I demand more evidence, just as if you told me that there was a company in Asia specialising in the fuel, "Toulsang", of which I have never heard, I would want more evidence to make me believe it."

The very first of those three things is the one most in need of a response, because it is a totally separate line of inquiry that you abandoned.

@TGM -

Quickly. 1. We are born immoral. 2. We also choose to be immoral. We lost both ways. We are without excuse.

I understand your system completely. You totally rule out anything miraculous whatsoever, lest it be tested and proven true scientifically.

In the Revolutionary War, I tried to think of an example that was just totally improbable. Perhaps it missed the point.

Here you totally misunderstand science and empirical testing:
"As for the revolutionary war example, that goes to show just how you don't understand my point. Let me show you why the analogy is totally inappropriate:

Revolutionary War: Claim: 'America won'
Science- No conclusion possible.
History- Conclude "true".

Jesus: Claim: 'Jesus rose from the dead'
Science- Conclude, false.
History- Conclude, true."

Science concludes absolutely nothing regarding the resurrection. The scientific method cannot be applied here. You assume it concludes that the resurrection was impossible. really? Empirically prove to me that the resurrection was, without a shadow of a doubt, impossible. Science does not test the miraculous, that's what makes it a miracle in the first place. Science tests what we know and what remains constant. Make sense?

Rather it looks like this:
Revolutionary War: Claim: 'America won'
Science- No conclusion possible.
History- Conclude "true".

Jesus: Claim: 'Jesus rose from the dead'
Science- No conlcusion possible.
History- Conclude, true.

We choose to be immoral, ok, so the answer is "yes".

Now is it possible for us to choose not to be immoral?

As for miracles, I don't rule them out, but if they happen, I conclude that its because our science is wrong. (I'd like to note that a miracle is a deviation from the consistency of the laws, and you claim that the consistency of the laws is proof of the existence of god- why are you allowed to have it both ways?)

Why does science conclude that the resurrection of Christ is impossible? Because resurrection is impossible, quite simply.

Empiricism doesn't work without a shadow of a doubt, but the principle that when a man dies, he stays dead is pretty well established within the scientific community.

As for genuine miracles- where the science is turned on its head by the action of god- I see no reason to suppose this happens, and the burden of proof therefore rests on you to prove it, and people not being able to explain something 2000 years ago doesn't constitute proof, before you even try to suggest it.

"Now is it possible for us to choose not to be immoral?"

Theoretically sure.

"As for genuine miracles- where the science is turned on its head by the action of god- I see no reason to suppose this happens, and the burden of proof therefore rests on you to prove it, and people not being able to explain something 2000 years ago doesn't constitute proof, before you even try to suggest it."

So if a miracle did happen, how would you like me to prove it? By setting up tests in a lab? No! By historical evidence, the validity of eyewitness accounts, the political history, etc; in short, you would want proof historically.

Because a miracle is a deviation from the constants, it cannot be empirically scientifically tested, so look to the historical accuracy.

"people not being able to explain something" - Is funny. Look at the evidence for the reliability of the resurrection.

Can you show me any evidence for miracles in why you yourself believe outside of the bible itself?

Regarding the miracle of the resurrection: the historical reliability of the resurrection is hardly solely biblical. Though I think historians would caution just chucking the bible as irrelevant in the matter.

The silence of the Romans on the matter of the body of Jesus is not biblical. Josephus' mention of Jesus is not biblical. The explosion of the early church, who had a killed messiah, is not biblical.

I haven't just read something in the Bible and just deemed it true because it's in the Bible. That's a foolish way to approach any historical text.

we are 'too limited' to Know...
but to answer with a 'word':... Yes.

I am a dyslexic agnostic.

I doubt the existence of dog.

I prefer the school kid's forgotten science project theory my self. Let's hope mom does not throw us in garbage. The need for God is just an artifact of the for wiring parental caring in mammals. If we where avion we would worship Big BIrd.

@bartdogg - thanks for pointing me inthe direction of the historical jesus in my search for answers. Unfortunately it appears to have thrown up more questions! My original theory was that if mankind can perpetuate the myth of Santa then mankind could also perpetuate other myths. Most of the good myths, Santa and Robin Hood are based on historical figures, but that doesn't mean that they are true rather than just myths. But lets look at some of the evidence of the historical Jesus, I am not disputing that a man called Jesus existed. But what do sources written within 100 years or so of his death say about him....

Source 1 - Jesus existed but he was not born from a virgin but achieved divinity via his baptism.
Source 2 - Jesus was born from a Virgin Mary and was descended from David's son SOLOMAN via 27 generations.
Source 3 - Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary and was descended from David's son NATHAN via 41 generations.

I'm guessing that you have chosen to believe one of the above sources, but have you dismissed the other sources and if so why? And what about other sources including ones attributed to a religion headed up by Jesus' brother (or cousin) James which proclaims that Jesus was not born of a Virgin.

Historical facts are great, but I don't think we can be selective and only mention those that support our own views.

If you believe every word the gospels say that is fine, but what about where they contradict one another. If you favour one account over another, you are questioning the other account. Once you do this can you then accept anything that the questionable account says? If your newspaper where to report the football results incorrectly, you would question there lead story.

Which source material (1,2 or 3) do you wish to believe in and why do you discount the others?

When I say outside of the bible, I meant the miracle, rather than the evidence.

Maniac, I assume sources 2 and 3 are MT and LK's accounts. One answer is to say that Luke's geneology is Mary's, while Matthew's is the legal, inherited line, that being through Jesus' father Joseph. I'm pretty sure the first source is Josephus. Of course Josephus would say Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, he was invested in the matter, being Jewish. What did the Matthew and Luke have to gain from such reportage? Death or worse, to be precise.

The gospel accounts do not differ, and the supposed contradictions are easily rebutted. Find one you think difficult to rebut and bring it here. Go ahead and google it first though, I bet you find a rebuttal pretty quick.

TGM, now I'm confused about what you're asking.

I dont want to start any blasphemous rumours
But I think that gods got a sick sense of humor
And when I die I expect to find him laughing

bartdogg, nvmind, I think we're just about to hit an impass. on the grounds that I won't believe in miracles because they aren't common enough, but that's not a problem for you.

god exists in more religions than just christianity. just wondering why you all are focusing solely on one religion in this discussion. i am an atheist however and a moral relativist so i really can't get into this one like you agnostics (o shucks...)

@Zman from a post way back on page two.

There is no such thing as a good man. We're all sinners. In the sight of God our sin is like filthy rags. Our good works are nothing. Being a "good man" as you say it has no merit when comparing to matters of the soul. A passage in the Bible states: 'It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle. But with God, all things are possible.' Personally, I prefer the phrase: It is harder for Austria to claim 18 supply centers than for a fleet to travel from the Black to the Aegean sea in one season. But with God, all things are possible.

Anyways, God can't accept sin into heaven. Otherwise, it wouldn't be heaven. It wouldn't be perfect. Jesus had to die for our sins because he is perfect. To believe that good works can get you into heaven is folly. If you deny your creator and ignore the truths God has plainly set in front of you...so be it.

It isn't believe or else. The rewards of heaven is much greater than the turmoil in hell.

I don't know about you guys, but hundreds of prophets spanning thousands of years saying the same exact things with zero contradictions all recorded by thousands of eyewitnesses, also without any contradiction, is proof enough for me.

"God is not an object to be seen, He is the subject.
He cannot be seen, He is the Seer. Find this Seer. "
- Ramana Maharshi

BTW: 'heaven' is Here & Now - in this corporeal life - not some fantasy of bible thumpers.

@Crazyter:
"Why can't we come to terms with it? That is the biggest clue. When I was an atheist, I became suicidal. There was no point to living. Why do we need life to have a point? Just that we ask that question so urgently means there must be an answer, some meaning to this life, besides evolution (which I also believe in, they are not mutually exclusive)."

That you became suicidal as an atheist is not evidence for god. That you personally failed to find reason for living without believing in god is evidence of your own personal failure. And is exactly what some people have used as the evidence to explain why many people DO believe in god. It is not because they have evidence, it is because they find the alternative uncomfortable to live with.

"There must be more to it than this physical world. Otherwise, why would humans have the capacity and necessity to ask what it's all about? We simply evolved that capacity? Highly unlikely, even less likely than all the random gases, chemical,s and DNA mutuations that created us. No, there is something special, even supernatural about being able to even ponder the question."

No, we ask ourselves questions about meaning, about what we should do with our lives, on a daily basis or a in the long term. How to live your life and treat other people is what religion offers. Certainty(if you have faith) that these questions have an answer; Religion therefore offers an end to asking questions, and lets us go about our life happy in the knowledge that we are doing the right thing. This is much better in my opinion than spending our time worrying about existential matters, and searching for a reason to get out of bed, becoming suicidal and increasing the local entrophy of our bodies by breaking them.

Your agruement is that if we can question somthing it must exist. I can easily ask whether unicorns exist, does that mean they do? I mean i've seen writing about them in books, just like god... I'm not even making something up (which wasn't first made up by someone else)

It is possible to believe in God/Nature/Universe, without believing in religion, or organised religion. It is possible to believe that other humans are corrupted by power and that individuals should learn how to live their life on their own without resorting to the easy answers offered by man's religions. It is possible to go through life questioning yourself at every turn, but confident in yourself.

We only look for meaning because without it we feel lost, that doesn't mean God exists, it means religion offers something which stops us from feeling lost.

It doesn't mean it is not possible to find meaning in your own life without religion, and it doesn't mean religion is right or the ultimate Truth (which is what creates all the minor disputes and wars we have between religious believers, at least secualrists believe in fighting wars for the sake of economics, power, and control something tangible...)

That religions offer answers which make us feel more comfortable mean religions are useful.

oh, and religion being useful has no bearing on the existance of God; which i realise is what this thread is supposed to be about.

"I don't know about you guys, but hundreds of prophets spanning thousands of years saying the same exact things with zero contradictions all recorded by thousands of eyewitnesses, also without any contradiction, is proof enough for me."

When one person says, "God wants you to raze everything in your path and kill all the innocent citizens of several cities" and another person says, "God says, 'you shall not kill' and, 'love your neighbor as yourself'" I think that there's a slight contradiction.

@bartdogg - I've done a v quick google search as suggested and have found this problem.

Even if we take it that Luke was setting out Mary's lineage, a point contested as the original proponent of such a view's grasp on liquistics was questionable. However, for the sake of arguement let us assume that Luke sets out Mary's genology. Luke states that this lineage satrts at David's son Nathan, whereas the propehesies state that the messiah shall be decended from Soloman (David's other son). Matthew sets out the link between Soloman and Joseph, but we 'know' that Jesus wasn't decended from Joseph. Therefore how is Jesus decended from Soloman?

Maniac it's easily answerable understanding either adoption or levitical marriage. Levitical kin "inherited" kids and wives of dead spouses.

I guess I'm wondering why this is even a question? Some people believe that yes there is a God (I'm one of them)....others believe that no there isn't a God. As far as the issue goes neither can provide evidence supporting their position.

Even from a rhetorical stance that states "You're making a positive claim (ie.There is a God) therefore you have to provide evidence to support that claim" there is a problem. The paradigm isn't a vacuum. In most, if not all, societies, the default is some form of religious belief. So it isn't the religious individual making a positive claim. "There is no God" becomes the claim that demands change not the other way around.

I'd say a much more argueable question would be "does religion benefit mankind, societies, and individuals".

@ zuzak. That's different. Sinners will get death no matter who does it.

Um, doesn't Christianity say that everyone's a sinner? I'm pretty sure that the commandment is, "Thou shall not kill," not, "Thou shall not kill non-existent perfect people."

For the purpose of this post we will assume that atheists believe in science/evolution. I know some don't (I don't know why.)

Evidence has never really won over a strong atheist/creationist. A strong creationist has never been converted to atheism, otherwise they weren't strong in their faith. Likewise, evidence of God has never won over a strong atheist. Although, undisputable signs from a spiritual source has won over strong atheists. In the Christian world it is sometimes referred to as the, "Holy 2x4."

These experiences are usually occur with dreams, visions, odd coincidences, and maybe even lunacy (I suppose). All of these can be scientifically proven some way and can disprove the fact that God actually spoke to them in these ways. Although, as Christians we know this is wrong. God uses science to have 'divine interventions' so the Holy 2x4's are inconclusive that God actually proved himself.