Bart - I have refrained from calling names or belittling people. But my wife, who is a believer, has read this thread and has openly laughed at your posts. What the FUCK has the revolutionary war got to do with anything? Science says the colonists didnt win? Where do you get that from? Science has nothing to say about historical events which do not defy science. Science does not turn around and say, the result of X war or Y battle was so improbable that the historical result must be inaccurate. Shit happens. One day the Clippers may win the NBA finals (or Wigan may win the Champions League). Science wont turn around and say thats not possible. What science WILL say is that god DID NOT will the colonists to win or will the Clippers to win.

Tell me something, how many times have you prayed for something to occur. Not silly stuff like you pass your exams but stuff like "my aunt has cancer, please cure her". How many times has that prayer, in contravention of medical opinion, been answered?

Ok i havent reas this thread in a while so apologies for the multiple back-to-back posts. I didnt read this one, until my (believer) wife read it and stared giggling : Bart says that Jesus' tomb was found empty and that is historical proof of the resurrection, and my wife says "Hahahaha, who is this Bart guy, is he serious? Is there any evidence that his tomb was in fact found empty other than the fact that it is written in the Bible? And even if it was found empty, is that proof of resurrection? Maybe his followers simply moved the body to protect it against desecration".

The exact words of a BELIEVER. While i write this, she is still stting here laughing (which is starting to annoy me heheh). She says, you believe bc you want to believe. End of story. there is no shred of evidence which should support such belief. I respect that.

Haha, Zman and Ghost, you have taken the words out of my mouth.

Whoo, been a while since I looked here. I'll just answer of the few of the more pressing thoughts I'm having; I tend to devote to much time to this stuff as is.

Zman you say:
"Finally, I just dont understand how Christians can put all their faith, and structure their entire lives, around the teachings of the Bible. The "Bible" is not, and does not even purport to be, the word of God. It a collection of recounts by various people who were tangentially involved with the life of Jesus. For peats sake, there a how many versions of the Bible (Gideons, St James ect)? And the Bible's final form was not determined until the Council of Nicea - 300 years after Jesus' death! Would a historian put any faith in the stipulations of such a second, even third hand source? Why then, do Christians base there entire belief structure based on what this book (whatever version you may be reading) says?"

First, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims to be exactly the word of God. Jesus asserts that the OT was the word of God numerous times. Peter asserts Paul's writings as akin to OT scripture. The Bible obviously claims to be the word of God. Please do a little research before just spewing.anyt
The Bible, as we have it, was officially canonized at the council of Nicea, sure, but the canon was almost absolutely established in the middle of the second century (that's 150ish).
Why the translations? Sheesh, have you ever tried to translate Greek? Or anything for that matter? When translating one language to another obvious difficulties will arise. Say "bloody hell" in England and then America and see if they don't mean different things. Say "cracker" in the ghetto. Translators work with ancient greek documents and try and make the text readable for us today. We don't use "thou" and "thine" as much any more so you don't see the King James as prevalent.

"I had a muslim friend once tell me that God made sure that what was recounted by people and thus ultimately placed in the Quran was true and accurate. I suppose Christians will say that God made sure that what was placed in the Bible was also true and correct. But then, why allow multiple versions of the Bible to exist? And why not just send the written, true and accurate form of the Bible or Quran down from heavan directly?"

Don't lump Islam and Christianity together please, at least not historically. Just because muslims say one thing about the way their "holy book" was passed on you immediately assert it to Christianity? Seriously? Many, many, many differences exist between the two formations. Why not compare Alexander the Great to Churchill for goodness sake.

Your rant about the revolutionary war is misplaced. I don't believe I ever said science said the colonists didn't win; I said the empirical scientific way of testing couldn't make a conclusion on the event. You totally misunderstood everything there.

"Ok i havent reas this thread in a while so apologies for the multiple back-to-back posts. I didnt read this one, until my (believer) wife read it and stared giggling : Bart says that Jesus' tomb was found empty and that is historical proof of the resurrection, and my wife says "Hahahaha, who is this Bart guy, is he serious? Is there any evidence that his tomb was in fact found empty other than the fact that it is written in the Bible? And even if it was found empty, is that proof of resurrection? Maybe his followers simply moved the body to protect it against desecration". "

First, your wife is a biblical scholar? For the sake of argument let's please just recognize that she is nowhere near an authority on pretty much anything regarding the historicity of Christianity. I do not claim to be, but goodness, just because she is your wife and a professing "believer" that makes her some type of authority? Because I profess to believe E=MC2 I can become on authority on the subject?

You've obviously not looked at the evidence on the resurrection. From my post earlier:
The tomb must have been empty and here's why. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul (15-20 years after Jesus) Paul speaks of 500 witnesses that saw the resurrected Christ. If these witness did not exist, this new religion would've been utterly destroyed. "Paul is a liar! No witnesses can be found!" That never happened.Additionally the way the Bible portrays the resurrection would've been the last imaginable way anyone would've made it up at the time! For example, the first eyewitnesses (according to the Gospels) were women. Women's low social status of the time even made their evidence inadmissable in court! Why would the writers of the Gospel have women be the first eyewitnesses for any reason other than it actually happened?

NT Wright argues, "the empty tomb and the accounts of personal meetings with Jesus are even more historically certain when you realize they must be taken together. If there had been only an empty tomb and no sightings, no one would have concluded it was a resurrection. They would have assumed that the body had been stolen. Yet if there had been only eyewitness sightings of Jesus and no empty tomb, no one would have concluded it was a resurrection, because people's accounts of seeing departed loved ones happen all the time. Only if the two factors were both true together would anyone have concluded that Jesus was raised from the dead."

The tomb MUST have been empty. Skeptics could have easily produced Jesus' rotten corpse were it not. The main argument then is, then maybe the disciples stole his body and the "eyewitnesses" just went along with it. To that, Keller says, "The assumption behind this very common hypothesis is a form of what CS Lewis has called "intellectual snobbery." We imagine that we modern people take claims of a bodily resurrection with skepticism, while the ancients, full of credulity about the supernatural, would have immediately accepted it. That is not the case. To all the dominant worldviews of the time, an individual bodily resurrection was almost inconceivable."

So what happened? An explosion of a new worldview. How do you explain it but that this Jesus person was bodily resurrected, and witnessed by 500 people in actual history.

No shred of evidence? Long post, but there you go.

Of course, you don't need 500 witnesses in order to claim there were 500 witnesses. All you need to do is wait a couple of hundred years and then write some lies in a book.

Couple hundred years? Try 15 years for first Corinthians.

Bartdogg, I have read through this thread and I don't understand your attachment to the "4 Clues." In addition to this, it is slightly surprising to me that in a debate regarding the existence of God not once has the great apologist Thomas Aquinas been mentioned. To right this wrong and hopefully bring something new to the table...

The First Way: Argument from Motion

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Thanks Bearnstien. I definitely have no attachment to the "4 clues." They are not exhaustive in the least, just the ones that seemed best for me to talk about.

I've heard these arguments, and like them. Some more or less than others, but they can be convincing "clues" nonetheless.

Bart (and all other theists)

Responding to an argument by quoting the Bible is retarded, especially when the argument you are trying to refute is attacking the veracity of the Bible! Do you not understand this? The Bible itself is circumspect, just like the Quran is, just like this book me and my cousin just wrote last weekend while we were smoking really good weed!

But I still havent seen a cogent response to Zman's question - if there is a God, why doesnt he show up and tell us he exists? Zman says that if he doesnt, then hes an asshole. I agree, and would go further to to say that not only is he an asshole, but he very well may be satan.

True believers - I ask u to refute.

Bart. why do you need clues? why does god keep you (and everyone else) guessing? Why on earth do we need clues? why doesnt he just show up? You havent answered that very simple question?

I truely dont know if there is a God but what i know is that religion is ridculous. Muslim extermist kill christain for not beliveing allah but if u read the koran and the bible you will notice they are almost exactly the same the only thing that is different is certain names it is absoulty ridculous. Religon is a source of power not a way to find eternal life

Zman/muni3 - God did show up, he did tell us he exists - he performed signs and miracles that couldn't help but convince even the densest onlooker; your problem is that it happened 2000 years ago and not in your living room this afternoon. I can see that you might not be convinced by someone else's story of something they saw, heard and experienced but it seems rather unreasonable to demand that God not only do your bidding but then to complain because he did it at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Bonbon, well said.

Para, you cant be serious. If he did show 2000 years ago, why did it take 200 years for the Romans to accept him? If God showed up in the sky and told everyone "i am God, believe what i say or fry in hell" why didnt everyone fall to their knees and start worshipping? Why do the Indians still beieve in 25,000 different gods?

Muni - haha.

No one has yet answered my little nephews question. "He showed up 2000 years ago"? Balls. Even the Bible doesnt say God showed up in the sky 2000 years ago. He may have showed up in the form of Jesus, but did that convince everyone? Apparently not. Why, instead of sending his nessage thru his "son" did he not just show up in the sky and say "hey - silly humans, I'm God, and this is what you need to believe".

No one has answered this question yet and no one will. Because there is no answer.

Zman - youre correct. No one has answered your nephew's question bc there is no answer.The religious/believers can offer all sorts if weird and idiotic excuses, but nothing that makes sense. You nephew appears to be smarter than many on this site.

I know what I just said seems harsh. But until someone answers this 12 year old's question, I stand by it.

Muni, he is 13 now but i agree with you.

His mother (my sister) stuttered through some idiotic response, and when I pulled her aside and tested her on her "explanation" she said she agreed with me, but didnt want her son to realize the the "truth" at so young an age. Like she didnt want him to know that Santa Clause doesnt exist hehe.

Anyway, i grow bored of this. Bart said some time ago that we should not treat believers like idiots. Well, one of the smartest people i know (my dad) is a believer. So please do not accuse me of being an ivory tower stone thrower.

But I will say this: I believe in what can be proved and so should every intelligent person. And 94% of the members of the US Academy of Science, DO NOT believe in God.

End of discussion as far as I am concerned.

Now someone will say, back up the 94% stat you just posited. I will. Give me 5 minutes.

As promised:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

You ask why God doesn't show during prime time news coverage and prove to the world they are all wrong, and reap millions of converts as a result, punish the bad guys, and cure cancer?

He will do that, according to the bible, but not yet. (Yes easy to say). He showed 2k yrs ago and indirectly beforehand to garner a church, who chooses him with the proof he has given and how he has showed himself meanwhile. It is like the difference between an arranged marriage and having a wife choose to want to be with you.

If God showed himself as you say, then he wouldn't allow man to choose him really. He would more or less have an army of human robots that he created. He created mankind unique so we can choose to be with him or with ourselves/other.

To me, creating life to be a robot would be unsatisfying, no?

I'm an atheist, but I find the arguments of Zman/Muni to be insolent and nonsensical. The point of 'God' is faith, so using 'science' and empiricism to judge 'God' doesn't make any sense. Making 'God' appear out of the sky would not be much of a test. Faith is the test. Just like it's not much of a gamble to go all-in if you can see all the cards, loyalty and good morality cannot be determined by allowing the people being tested clear evidence of all the answers.

They don't call it a 'mystery of faith' for no reason.

And before any of the so-called empiricists claim they think faith is silly, they should look at their own relationships with people to see how 'silly' it is. For example, I suppose it's easy to love and trust your spouse when you know ahead of time what your spouse will do and if your spouse will make any mistakes. But trust with no risk and no uncertainty is not really trust at all. All relationships are based on 'faith', not empiricism and rationality.

'For those that have eyes to see, ears to... '

In addition, to call 'God' an asshole is also silly. 'Faith' was not intended to be easy, nor was loyalty to a Diety. Nor does it make sense to make Dieties subject to the moral standards of their subjects. A Diety is by definition above the law and needs to be above the law in order to both make and enforce it. Similar to how policemen need to be absolved from laws regarding handguns, speeding, and wearing a seatbelt.

Refutation to Aquinas's arguments:

Argument from motion:
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
These contradict each other.

Argument from causation:
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
These also contradict each other.

Argument from Contingency
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
The proof ignores that "could have been."

Argument from Gradation of Being:
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
What? If I'm reading this right, this is saying that the hottest thing in the universe is the cause of all heat.

Argument from Design:
We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
No they don't. What goal does dirt work towards?

Besides, even if any of them worked, they still don't prove omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.

"If God showed himself as you say, then he wouldn't allow man to choose him really. He would more or less have an army of human robots that he created. He created mankind unique so we can choose to be with him or with ourselves/other."

So let me get this straight. Appearing to humans would limit our free will more than punishing us eternally for not doing something? Besides, in that case, why has he provided us with any evidence at all, assuming that the Bible is accurate? Besides, the Bible claims that some people will choose to reject God when he appears in the second coming, so apparently, we would still be free to choose.


"But I will say this: I believe in what can be proved and so should every intelligent person. And 94% of the members of the US Academy of Science, DO NOT believe in God."

Please, there is much stronger evidence than the word of a bunch of people. If you lived a couple hundred years ago, would you believe in Christianity because it was more accepted?

"And before any of the so-called empiricists claim they think faith is silly, they should look at their own relationships with people to see how 'silly' it is. For example, I suppose it's easy to love and trust your spouse when you know ahead of time what your spouse will do and if your spouse will make any mistakes. But trust with no risk and no uncertainty is not really trust at all. All relationships are based on 'faith', not empiricism and rationality."

Sure, trusting people isn't bad. But if you had proof that your spouse was cheating on you, would you deny it and hold onto that trust? Having faith in one unproven statement over another unproven statement isn't that bad, but having faith in a statement that has been proven to be false is bad.

"In addition, to call 'God' an asshole is also silly. 'Faith' was not intended to be easy, nor was loyalty to a Diety. Nor does it make sense to make Dieties subject to the moral standards of their subjects. A Diety is by definition above the law and needs to be above the law in order to both make and enforce it. Similar to how policemen need to be absolved from laws regarding handguns, speeding, and wearing a seatbelt."

Except that in Christianity, God is benevolent, as in, would be considered perfectly good by Christian standards.

Putin has a good point, even the most rational of us are irrational about so many thing all the time. Human irrationality is in-built. For example, consider all the cognitive bias's we have, such as confirmation bias, group-think, base-rate fallacy etc. Thus it should come as no surprise that people are religious.
If there is a God it might well be the he chooses to reveal himself only to the faithful, and in ways that cannot be explained by our limited ability to reason. I also agree with Putin that such a God would not necessarily be bound to the moral standard of his subjects.
That said though though I find the Theists' attemptst to somehow justify God's existence as somehow being more consistent with the known facts than the atheist/agnotsitc view to be futile (That is facts that we all have access to and not just personal divine revelation). In every such debate the Theists' position inevitably retreats to "I just know": end of discussion.

One point that Putin raised that I disagree with: "In addition, to call 'God' an asshole is also silly." God may not necessarily bound to my concept of morality, but it is "*my* concept of morality", and I may call him what I choose. Of course whether or not I do call him an asshole is beside the point, God, being omniscient already knows I think he's an asshole. (I don't really because I don't believe in God).

"Putin has a good point, even the most rational of us are irrational about so many thing all the time. Human irrationality is in-built. For example, consider all the cognitive bias's we have, such as confirmation bias, group-think, base-rate fallacy etc."

Saying, "people are sometimes irrational, therefore we shouldn't try to be rational" is like saying, "I'm sometimes tempted to steal things, so I shouldn't try to resist that urge to steal."

The point that I was making is that we shoudn't be surprised that people are irrational about God. I agree with you zuzak that we should try to be rational.

How can you 'prove' faith to be false? You cannot subject faith to the scientific method unless you could empirically reveal everything about what happens to people after they die. Even if you could, much of what we now 'accept as fact' will be proven to be untrue in the future. People accepted Newtonian Mechanics as "scientific fact" only to be disproven later. They did so out of "faith". People also have "faith" that what they can experience with their senses is reliable information. Quantum Mechanics should have shaken this kind of absolute faith in empiricism, yet it has lived on.

An individual's sense of morality is rather meaningless unless it is based on some kind of broader (collective) principles. Otherwise it should better be described as matters of personal taste.