God?

[Chase]

Eviora, the only thing I can do is posit the opposite - that the Judeo-Christian "God" has applied enough sufficient historical evidence, can be logically applicable through the reasons I've given and I would have to accept that all of it won't make a difference if you are not actively searching. You take from that what you will - but there is truly one event that would solidify or completely destroy the Christian faith - the Resurrection itself - and that event can be logically explained through the minimal facts method - meaning I can list off some facts that every credible scholar - Skeptic to Evangelical - universally agrees with. These facts throw out both the inerrancy -and- divine inspiration in the Scripture, instead looking at it as merely historical documents dated back to the first century.

1. Jesus is the son of Mary

2. Jesus had disciples

3. Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man - or God

4. Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

5. Jesus' Tomb was found empty.

6. There were over 500 recorded "post-resurrection" appearances of Jesus.

The minimal facts then have to provided with the best possible explanation.

There are many theories - such as the Stolen Body theory mentioned by Maelstrom earlier, the Hallucination Theory, the Jesus Myth Theory...and looking at these facts, none of these theories explains them all better than Jesus doing as He said He would - rising from the dead.

Here's some historical digging on the subject of Jesus that is completely extra-biblical, as well as some interesting information on the Disciples that should exonerate them from being the alleged graverobbers in the Stolen Body theory.

About 70 years after the Crucifixion, Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus published the 'Antiquities of the Jews' - a strictly -historical- account of Jewish dealings in the Roman Empire. From Josephus we can gather that:

- Jesus, called the Christ, was a historical figure.

- Jesus was indeed crucified by Pontius Pilate, supporting the claim made in the Bible that Jesus was crucified.

- Jesus had a brother named James, be it fraternal or an actual sibling, which is supported in the New Testament accounts.

While there has been evidence of Christian influence or alteration on the work, most -MODERN- scholars (Which range from LIBERAL to Evangelical) do NOT consider the work interpolated because not everything matches up to New Testament level account. This would mean that Josephus recorded that Jesus was crucified and had a brother named James himself. a Roman JEW.

There's also a recorded imprisonment of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas, which matches New Testament accounts, that is also widely agreed to not be an interpolation.

---

In about 116 AD Roman historian and senator Publius (Gaius) Tacitus authored 'Annals', a historical account of the Roman Empire. In it there is an account of the Great Fire of Rome. Tacitus reports that Nero framed the Christians in Rome for the crime, marking the first outright conflict between Christians and the Empire. Tacitus makes a notable aside about Christ himself, as if to show of his own relative intelligence on the matter. From the passage we can gather that:

- Once again, Christ was crucified by Pilate

- This occurred during the reign of Tiberius. (14 to 37 AD, the Crucifixion dated at around 30 to 35 AD)

Again, modern critical scholarship widely affirms the Tacitus account on Christ to be an authentic extra-biblical, non-Christian account. (In fact, the only notable opponent of authenticity is Richard Carrier, an atheist "activist" and blogger heading the "Christ Myth Theory" (as in Christ as an actual person did not exist.)

---

half a millennium later the Jewish Talmud was written, which was a complete Jewish history. There are several references to a 'Yeshu' who is detested by the author and shares many qualities of Christ (which makes sense as the Jews reject Him as the Messiah.) Most notable evidence that this Yeshu in question may be Jesus includes:

- being the son of Mary

- living in Nazareth

- healed in the name of Jesus (Yeshu)

- was killed by hanging

- 'practiced magic'

- had disciples

- was a teacher of the Torah (old testament)

These texts come under intense scrutiny and there is enough evidence to suggest that this isn't Christ, but there are a lot of notable conglomerate data points that when put together reflect rather well with Christ's background.

---

Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Lucian, other non-Christian sources, affirm that Christ was indeed a living person at the very least.

- Pliny the Younger speaks of interrogating Christians about their faith, to which Christians were unyielding, even after threatened with the pain of death.

- Suetonius wrote the 'Life of Claudius', a historical account on Rome under said emperor - making the claim that because the Roman Jews were in an outrage due to Christ's presence in Rome, Claudius expelled the Jews from the city.

- Lucian scoffs during an account that Christians believe themselves to be immortal, and that they are 'all brothers upon their conversion' - rejecting Roman gods and instead worshipping 'their crucified sage', which indicates that Jesus was once again existent AND crucified.

---

There's also non-biblical accounts of the Bethany healings by non-Christian sources. The key to making out historical accuracy is to do as the opponent does -first- (often that means using sources OUTSIDE the Bible to make claims as non scholars would immediately reject biblical evidence as historical evidence.) From there, you have to look at the Bible as a historical document and fact check from there.

---

Finally there is one more piece of evidence that I would like to point out. The complete historicity of most of Jesus' disciples ultimately dying as martyrs for what they believed in.

If Christ wasn't real, do you think his disciples would have lived and subsequently DIED for a lie? Let's go over the deaths.

Judas Iscariot, the Betrayer - hung himself after purchasing a field

Andrew - Crucified in Patrae.

Bartholomew - Crucified upside down after preaching in present day India

James (brother of Jesus) - Stoned after being thrown in a ditch

James (brother of John) - Beheaded by Herod the tetrach

John - exiled to Patmos, and is one of three disciples to have not been killed by either himself or others.

Peter - crucified upside down at the Vatican hill under Nero (Ironically, Nero would also behead the Apostle Paul, killing off both the leader of the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians)

Philip - crucified upside down in Hieropolis, present day Turkey under Domitian.

Thomas - speared to death in India

According to Pliny the Younger in his letters back to Emperor Trajan, all these men had to do was denounce their faith to survive...

All of this information - including doing the scholarly thing and accepting the Gospels as historical biographies - and applying the logical buzzsaw on the possibility of a God in the first place, have led me to believe that Jesus' Resurrection is not only hard to deny, but actually rather well substantiated and would need an actual rebuttal piece-by-piece to support any opposing Resurrection theory.

Of course I have faith - but I believe the appeal about taking a hard scholarly look at the validity of Christianity is quite possibly the simplest religion to debunk - or at least in the way the Apostle Paul phrases it - It should be. This is all the historical evidence that I have to give you. The logical arguments you need to apply something greater to a human being - or you're missing the target by a long-shot with regards to "maximally great" or "best possible" beings.

Finally, I've been asking you to engage in active discourse because I feel like if you gave me something to actually debate on - I can throw you some harder evidences in return. By simply dismissing any Biblical or non-agreeable piece of info your way - you're not encouraging discussion. I'm not trying to win any medals here, but I can't make any hard claims if you give me no bait on specific topics you would like to see answered outside of the maximally great being you've had me discuss. Even though you even claim to have argued the "maximally great being" card - you chose to agree that there must be a threshold when it's perfectly logical that in order to continue to retain being maximally great in an expanding universe, God must continue to expand in order to remain the highest eminence-bearing being.

[trippineverywhere]

I must admit I was surprised to see this topic. Not many people seem to want to talk about religion, especially on a forum for a game.

^Same. Honestly it can cause unnecessary conflict and drama, and to an extent, even judgement from immature people that cannot respect opinions.

Regardless however, I believe in a God, but not enough to call myself Christian for it. I don't believe in a heaven or hell, I believe that once we pass from this life, we reincarnate into another world/time period/etc. After we have lived enough lives to gain enough knowledge, we become more powerful beings.

I've grown up in a Catholic household, so I've had my fair share of experience, but I never really connected with it.

Regardless, if I keep blabbing, I'll never shut up hahah. Religion is a huge topic, and honestly, you just never know for sure. You trust your beliefs and you follow them. And you don't criticize/bash on people with different beliefs from yours. The only thing that proves is that you're an asshole.

[Chase]

Just to be re-assuring. Mike, I still have to have time to catch a breather before tackling your earlier input - but I will get there.

KosherKitten - I respectfully believe that it is at the very least possible that God was involved in the flood in question and in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - and based on current cosmological discoveries and currently established scientific principles God is the best possible answer for the creation of the universe.

• When dealing with the flood and the destruction accounts - the narrative provided by the writer of Genesis seems to be that the best understanding for what happened in all three of those accounts -must- be attributed to God. However, outside of the fact that these events actually took place, there isn't any indication outside of Genesis that would indicate divine phenomena. All we've really confirmed - in all three instances - is the effect of these three events and not the cause.
• When dealing with the universe there is a logical argument to be determined from it's very blueprint or apparent model - is the universe necessary, coincidental, or intelligently designed?

1. The universe is fine-tuned to support life.
2. The universe's fine-tuning is probably explained by Necessity, Chance, or Design
3. The universe's fine-tuning is -not- explained by necessity or chance
4. Therefore, the universe is fine-tuned by design.

Now, to defend the deductive reasoning we must clearly first prove that the universe is not necessary or coincidental - as that's what the 3rd Premise entails. The first premise is to be understand as true as life-prohibiting planets are limited to 1 definitively and we don't know definitively of any other universe that supports life. Essentially, because this universe supports life, it can be safely argued that the universe is fine-tuned to do so given the amount of numerical constants and quantities of the universe (such as the Gravitational or Cosmological Constant) that if tampered with - even infinitesimally - results in the inability for the universe to be life-prohibiting.

1. The universe is fine-tuned to support life.

Premise 2 states the three possible methods of fine-tuning. These three options completely cover the board of possibility, so this premise is also most likely true - that the fine-tuning is attributed to one of these three possible methods. In order to argue that this premise is false, you most provide a possible method of fine-turning that is not necessity, chance, or design.

2. The universe is fine-tuned by necessity, chance, or design.

Premise 3 is where the weeding out begins, explicitly stating that necessity or chance is insufficient to explain the universe's fine tuning.

NECESSITY

The idea of a necessary universe is indicative as follows: The fundamental constants and quantities of the universe cannot be changed. Generally, that's how constants work as any tampering would have universe altering effects, so on the outset it would seem this would be plausible......except it isn't.

The ultimatum this method forces us to ascribe to at the end of the day, is that a universe without life is impossible.

One must then ask the question if the universe would be possible without life - and the mathematical probability is not only insufficiently supportive of the hypothesis that it isn't, but actually far more the opposite. A universe without life is MUCH MORE possible than one a life-permitting one. Therefore, it's safe to say the necessity argument is debunked, because the mathematics behind the idea don't support it at all.

CHANCE

Chance is the most ascribed non-theistic position on fine-tuning. Essentially, we life forms got really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY lucky - and that life as we know it is completely coincidental. The issue is, the probabilities involved are so astoundingly remote that the proponents of this method abandon empirical science in favor for metaphysical speculation.

The hottest cosmological trend when discussing coincidental fine-tuning today is the 'Multiverse Theory' - which, to you non-cosmologists and physicists out there - I'm talking about specifically an 'infinitely-expanding multiverse' or the idea that multiple universes are constantly and endlessly being created by a sort of universe generating model. The infinite multiverse suggests that life-sustaining universes will eventually pop up as the universes are created.

This multiverse theory however, has no scientific evidence to suggest it should be given credence, as it cannot be detected, observed, measured, or proved. Furthermore, whatever the universe generating model is, it must also require a lot of fine tuning itself - and small patches of order are far more probable than big patches of order - so the the most probable observable universe that is inhabited by a singular observer and is very small - whereas our universe is a vast high order universe with billions of other observers.

Even if the Multi-verse did exist, it alone doesn't explain universal fine-tuning - which effectively means chance is also debunked - leaving us with only one option.

3. Universal fine-tuning is not explained by necessity or chance

4. Therefore, the universe's fine-tuning must be explained by design.

What is the design method? The method that suggest the universe supports life because it was designed as such.

Where have we heard of a designed universe before?

"The heavens proclaim the glory of God; The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; Night after night they reveal knowledge." - King David - Psalm 19:1-2

[Eviora]

Oh my, that's quite a lot of history. I must admit, I'm not all that familiar with that subject... I do recognize some of it from one of my theology classes in high school, but I took that ages ago. So rather than go and study up on all those claims and do a bad job of it in my haste to respond this year, I'll just assume you're right about all the non-supernatural claims you've made about the life of Jesus and the events following his death. I can't accept miracle claims as factual based only on documentation, though. Even thousands of reports don't have the explanatory weight to support the supernatural - the supposed miracles may actually have scientific explanations that the witnesses were unaware of, or they may simply be stories. Quite a lot of religions make miracle claims, after all. That said, let's give special attention to the one you probably care about most - the Resurrection.

I could point out that the lack of an apparent explanation for a missing body doesn't itself justify arriving at a supernatural conclusion, but that's kind of boring, don't you think? So let's just say the Resurrection happened to the following extent: The body got up and started walking around, holding conversations, and showing people its wounds, clearly helmed by an intelligent being with a strong understanding of Jesus' life.

Can we really be sure that being is Jesus?

This is the part where a lot of people dismiss me as a troll or whatever, but I'm actually dead serious. If a powerful supernatural entity exists it could lead us along the path of its choosing with disgusting ease. And it could be just about anything - we'd have no way of knowing. It could be exactly what it claims it is, a demon trying to manipulate us as a race into some long term folly, or just an entity that was a bit bored and wanted to see what would happen if it made Jesus' promise appear to be true. As far as I can tell, this is just a dead end. We no longer have any experience to draw upon. This thing could have the ability to delude us in ways we can't even understand.

This, I openly acknowledge, gives Mr. Benevolent God a really tough challenge to overcome if he wants to convince me he actually exists, so I can understand how it might be just a teensy bit extremely frustrating to you as an earnest believer who isn't quite as omnipotent as said supposed god. The truth is, this high degree of skepticism really isn't especially interactive (though I don't ask if demons are tricking people who say my Scrabble word isn't in the dictionary, promise!) - and that goes both ways. It makes it quite challenging for me to relate to positions that stand on much of any faith, even more mundane ones. I'm a really hard person to convince of things, and I don't entirely understand how that process works myself - sorry for the lack of warning! xD

Anyhow, to briefly address that last remark, I thought you were using "maximally great" as just a descriptor for beings who are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenvolent, so I don't really know what expanding has to do with the term and I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there.

[-Unknown-]

@ Laggless - I would post that since we're discussing the topic of God - that it's allowable until Amentura (-Unknown-) says otherwise. Alternatively, you can send me a private message with your response.

Again as long as it doesn't loop the conversation I don't mind nor do I really care this a Place to converse about a "Topic" as long as it goes some where I don't mind.

[Chase]

Remember when I asked Gaunt if he believed the universe existed? If you do hold that position you have one of two options. The first one would be to attempt to scientifically prove the creation of the universe follows the laws of nature and science - including the Law of Conservation. The second option is being forced to admit that you at least ascribe to ONE miraculous event as factual because the Law of Conservation causes naturalistic universal existence in the current time unavoidable issues.

Like Gaunt, you don't have option to be dismissive here simply because I can point to a thousands-year old manuscript and align it to modern universal existence (even though that's EXACTLY what he did anyway.)

Remember, a "miracle" is a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered (carefully thought, not necessarily proclaimed - Mike) to be the work of a divine agency.

I'm not going to make the argument that theistic creationism is ironclad - but I will indicate that it would be a miracle and that it seems to be the most reasonable assumption in an arena where where it would be at the very least sitting opposite another assumption - meaning Occam's Razor can't simply force burden of proof on either/or and we'd currently be in an existential stalemate.

---

That's an interesting theory about the resurrected Christ. (Speaking of Gaunt, he previously had a similarly interesting theory - Jesus having a twin - about Jesus that I hadn't heard before...see, this is what makes these discourses worth it for me - learning.)

The issue there is that the Resurrection is more substantiated because it's supported by the historical documents that are also pieces of Scripture. This means the Occam's Razor would have shift the burden of proof on Gaunt as to proving there was indeed a twin brother - and in your case, your opting for dismissal by infinite possibility - which means your burden of proof would have to be that Jesus did not appear to over 500 people and ascend. When dealing with historicity, you have to interact with the oldest texts on the matter. In your case of dismissal - you don't (and if you do, I'd be very impressed. Seriously - and I'd apologize for my assumption.) have any documents of your own that propose in detail infinite possibility of what the Resurrected Christ was during the time period. - I have Paul's letters, Hebrews, Acts, and the Gospels in manuscript form - only dated decades after the Resurrection as opposed to two millennia it would take for you to draft that that response.

---

Let's get into the semantics. I know earlier in the discussion I started throwing around the Omni's - but I'll make the concession (and I tried to by introducing the term greatest possible being) that maximally great may not be indicative of the Omni's so much as it is by rough definition.

The definition of "Great" is of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average. Maximal means of or constituting a maximum; the highest or greatest possible.

Thus, a maximally great being - without associating it to be God - is a being with the highest or greatest possible amount of ability, quality, and eminence.

[Eviora]

My position on the creation of the universe is a simple "I don't know how it happened." Sorry! I can think of a bunch of crackpot ideas for how the universe might have formed (For instance: there could be some eternal multiverse in which there exists a cycle of expanding and contracting of a particular universe, namely ours) but, of course, I don't believe and can't prove any of them are necessarily true. That said, the example I gave is a candidate for an explanation of the origins of the universe that needs not follow the scientific laws of the universe yet doesn't involve anything I would call a miracle.

---

On Occam's Razor - I stole this like from Wikipedia, italics mine: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

Occam's Razor is not a rule of logic, it is a tool used for problem solving. To see this, imagine one of those crazy detective movies, but without a genius detective - the crime may have actually been committed in a stupidly complicated manner, but a less skilled detective who sees a simpler and equally (or more) likely solution could pin the blame on the wrong person. Further, my extreme skepticism doesn't make any assumptions at all. It does not dismiss the possibility that the Resurrection could have occurred exactly as you say, but it also doesn't favor that explanation over other weird ones. I'm essentially declaring that I find Jesus "not guilty" of ascending as opposed to innocent of it - he might have done it, I'm just not convinced. Since I'm not going with any definitive explanation of the event, I'm essentially not making any claims and therefore have no burden of proof.

That whole business about dealing with texts is entirely distinct from the logic of the issue. I don't need texts to make claims, much less to offer possibilities, and I can acknowledge the existence of texts suggesting that the Resurrection occurred without conceding that their authors were correct. Sheer volumes of texts aren't enough to establish a claim - a simple internet search would lead me to thousands of accounts of ghostly apparitions and alien abductions (which you may or may not believe in).

---

So this new framework of with which to view "maximally great" allows for an amusing example that I'd like to throw your way. It shows how silly these "maximal" arguments can be if you aren't really careful.

Premise 1: If there is a maximally great being, that being must be so stinky that you can smell it everywhere at all times.

Premise 2: There must be a maximally great being.

Conclusion: Therefore, said being must be so stinky that you can smell it everywhere at all times.

...But I don't smell anything! =p

The point is, I can substitute pretty much any quality in for benevolence in this argument and prove that said being is maximally whatever I want by the same reasoning that's used in the original argument. For instance, I could claim the being is maximally cruel. (Cruelness is a quality that's just as quantifiable as benevolence.) If you don't want to open the floodgate to a bunch of strange and random qualities, you need to be really precise about which qualities do fall under the umbrella of maximal greatness. Note that if said qualities appeal to some sense of what is "good", then your definition of "good" cannot be reliant on any following conclusions, because otherwise your argument would just be circular.

Of course, all of this is contingent on that fact that said maximums even exist. As someone who had studied lots of proof-heavy math, I have a very particular idea of what that would mean which may not particularly mesh well with yours.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Eviora

[Chase]

Ya know. I really -DO- appreciate when someone points out a genuine flaw in my argumentation. That was an amusing scenario and it goes to show that I've clearly got some tightening up when it comes to providing evidences for my premises (if you could, go back to the last thing I aimed at KosherKitten and dissect that argument - as I think I tried to be careful with that one.) and that without those evidences and as you say "that preciseness" when dealing with vagues or abstracts my argumentation is severely weakened.Thank you, Eviora.

I think I've come to understand your position throughout this discourse. You're not attacking me - which is genuinely different from a most discourses I have on the matter here in Reborn - and you're more-so trying to encourage a better employment of logic in my defense instead. You're not being unwilling so much as you're trying to be as to the letter as possible.

I tend to do my worst arguing against agnostics as opposed to proclaimed atheists because the agnostic can only be given the burden of proof on one of two issues - on the one hand the agnostics that proclaim that one can't know will put me on the spot on issues and I'll forego and mistake that position as that of an atheist's - where the atheist ascribes to a specific doctrine as I do. This ends up causing a circular discussion that the agnostic didn't really want to be in, nor did I want to be in, because nothing is being determined either in argument or in feedback to it (I.e. I don't believe that to be the case.)

On the other hand the agnostics that simply "don't" have faith in the existence or non-existence of God I - also run circles around - except this time I'm trying to goad with multiple questions and supposed ideas as opposed to good logical arguments and historical data that would be valuable.

Neither of these is an ideal debate at all. In fact - in this thread I was guilty of wronging the Agnostic position on both accords - as Jericho ascribes as "one can't know" agnostic and you seem to be more of the "lack of faith either way" agnostic.

---

I wanted to employ Occam's Razor only because I'm well aware of it not being used as a logical device. It's one of the many things I've seen people bring up when it comes to issues of "God of the Gaps" on all sides of the spectrum. Thank you - your intelligence is to be commended here -....although you did look it up on WIkipedia so only slightly. <3

---

Finally, allow me to present a logical argument for the existence of God using what is referred to as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. - while trying to support the argument with legitimate evidence this time, so as to not be completely vague again. I'm sure you would appreciate that.

1. Whatever begins to exists, has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The first premise of the argument makes the claim that anything with a beginning has a cause. This premise is genuinely easy to mark as true, because objects without causes is essentially more of a stretch than "magic" - and the question that arises is this. If something can come into being from nothing - why isn't it a normal occurrence? Scientific evidence and everyday phenomena validates our first premise here.

• Whatever has a beginning, has a cause.

The second premise is indicative of an existential beginning to the universe. This one is not nearly as easy to hammer out as many cosmologists have debated in the past that there is the possibility of an eternal past for the universe - as in to say the universe has existed "forever."

However, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that things in a closed system will eventually reach equilibrium. What does that entail for the universe?

That it's slowly running out of usable energy. This is problematic for the view that universe didn't have a beginning > because we would have run out of usable energy in the universe by now if the universe has always existed up to this point. The 2nd Law then points us toward a universe that instead, has a beginning. This is further scientifically confirmed for the likes of Albert Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity, and Edwin Hubble's studies in the red shift - which provided us with empirical evidence for what would become an expanding universe that was brought into being at a single point in the finite past.

There have been opposing models to try and explain these discoveries in favor of an infinite past universe - but they have failed to stand the test of time. Furthermore - it's been recently proven that any expanding universe can't be eternal in the past at all, but must have a finite beginning. If there is a Multi-verse, these studies still apply. Therefore, we can justifiably say that the second premise is true as well.

• The universe has a beginning.

What about the conclusion then? We get to the point where we have to admit that the universe has a cause. In my worldview that cause is God - but how does a creator God fit into this universal existence? and if everything that has a beginning has a cause, what's God's cause?

The Space-Time universe consists of three major things that came into being when the universe began. Space, time, and matter. The universe can't cause itself - so the cause of the universe must be beyond the space-time universe.

This cause must be of the following qualities:

• Spaceless
• Timeless
• Immaterial
• Uncaused
• and IMMENSELY Powerful.

Does the Judaeo-Christian God fit these qualities?

Well, Let's look at it this way. God had to exist before time existed in order to cause the universe, which would make Him timeless. God, being timeless, would then make Him a viable candidate for being "the uncaused cause. - as something that has no beginning doesn't have to have a cause. The amount of power it would take to start something like the universe indicates that the cause of the universe must be powerful, which isn't far-fetched for a God figure at all. Finally, space and matter existed after the universe had begun, meaning God must by elimination be spaceless and immaterial.

• The universe has a cause.

[Neo]

The universe can't cause itself - so the cause of the universe must be beyond the space-time universe.

This cause must be of the following qualities:

• Spaceless
• Timeless
• Immaterial
• Uncaused
• and IMMENSELY Powerful.

I wrote that really pretty paragraph a page ago about this, fam. C'mon now.

[Chase]

nonono, Neo. Please don't take my non-comment as ignorance here - because I'm very interested in that study. As you said, the only hang-up is that we're all waiting to figure out if the laws of physics were created with the universe, or have always been in place. As such - I don't know how to attack it properly and would rather refrain. I will say that I acknowledge that as an emerging development.

[Eviora]

Oh, I just got thanked for spouting random nonsense. That feels weird. Usually I just get called crazy (which is fair, because I am crazy). Well, you're welcome! xD

Anyhow, yes, direct attacks are usually not my style. I'm just a stickler for arguments that have no holes, and tend to irritate people by poking at said holes until they fix them.

I'll look through and answer your argument directed at KosherKitten, but after I address the Kalam one - that order just makes more sense to me, because I may use some of the same random examples and they're easier to introduce in the context of Kalam.

---

So, Kalam... I'll just grant the first assumption even though I'm not 100% convinced of it. The second one is where I really have objections. If there is a multiverse, its laws may be wildly different from the ones our universe operates under. Since we don't actually have any hard proof that other universes or multiverses exist, we don't know anything about their laws of physics. One possibility I don't feel I have reason to dismiss is the possibility that the Big Bang was the beginning of the current iteration of our universe yet also the end of a different iteration, for which it would be the Big Crunch. If that were the case, I wouldn't say the Big Bang was really the start of the universe - it was just a new chapter in the story. The energy fueling all of this could be coming from another universe or some external multiverse.

And, of course, if you should surprise me by showing that idea to be nonsense, I can always come up with something else. Crazy theories are like hydra heads - in the time it takes to refute one I've come up with two more!

Even if I were to accept the Kalam argument, I don't see how the list of five qualities you suggest the cause must necessarily possess is justified, especially the "uncaused" one. Another weird idea I've come up with is that maybe our universe is the science experiment of an incredibly technologically advanced alien species based in the universe next door. How did that universe come to exist? Maybe it was created by another alien race from another universe - and the chain continues infinitely! Obviously, I don't actually believe all this, but it's an idea I don't think we can disprove. And even if we were to discover that divine being(s) did create our universe, that wouldn't tell us anything about what those beings are like.

---

After looking over the argument addressed to KosherKitten, my objections are largely the same as those to the Kalam argument above - the multiverse doesn't necessarily have the same laws we do, and therefore you can't safely extrapolate to it the same law you do to our universe. The multiverse also may be eternal, so it does not necessarily need to have a creator. Even if it did, I could just propose a meta-multiverse next (that is, a structure containing lots of multiverses in the same way the multiverse would contain many universes.) And then I could go for a meta-meta-multiverse... and so forth. It's really easy to go infinite when it comes to all this metaphysical stuff!

[Maelstrom]

@hilda- you could only find the body if we say... had a sample of his dna beforehand so we could rustle through all the bones and positively ID him. Otherwise, there is not enough reliable information to go on. There would be nothing to differentiate his corpse from the corpses of other men, like say, the other two men crucified next who him who would have the same skeletal trauma from it.

@ Thomas Elliot- god is infinitely great and is a PERSONAL god in christianity so yeah, he's at your beck and call. If you keep the covenant, supposedly. I was always told he build personal relations with each person. Sure, he's got a whole universe to run. And mythology gives him the capability to do that and have relationships with each and every single individual. So your argument about god not being at the service of every individual is bluntly refuted by your own religion.

The atheist is me says its cuz everybody wants to be their own unique snowflake and they all want to be able to have control over what happens to them in this world. Which is what superstition is- don't do [action] (ex, walk under a ladder) or something bad and usually vague will happen to you (bad luck)- a psychological construct to help make sense and gain a sense of control over the world. Eat kosher (why most of the Hebrew/Abrahamic stuff was cut out of the bible I don't know, but Jesus was Jewish, right?), don't mix fabrics, pray and god will help those who help themselves, do not upset the money changers for they are the job creators... oh wait.

Anyways, how could do things for everybody? "How great is god's master plan if any schmuch with a 2 dollar prayer book can come around and mess up his plans?" to paraphrase George Carlin. You have now realized the paradox that actually helps to argue against god's existence, or at least in the way christianity describes him.

"We think the universe is built around us." Speak for yourself there guy. We recognize that we exist as a part within the larger system that is the universe. We naturally explore things with an eye to benefit ourselves. Also, god used to alter physics to turn women into salt, burn bushes without burning them, selectively kill/make sick the egyptian firstborns, part the red sea. So if he wanted to, he could stop the earthquakes.

So yeah, god made the rules- the physics of the universe. And now he has no part in it.

Darvan Korematsu- "isn't it better to believe in everlasting life than not to? No.

And I'll explain later why and try to catch up on these other pages I haven't read yet when I'm not rushing off to class

[Deleted User]

@Erick, I'm actually very glad I got to see this side of you.

Just a side note. In my opinion, the universe is the way it is because it always has been. The universe evolved the way it did because things were the way they are. If the universal constant of the force of Gravity were greater or lesser, we wouldn't be here. Some other race who is very different from us in some far away place would likely be having a similar debate about why things the way they are and if some divine being crafted Gravity to be twice what we know to specifically fit to them. The evolution of life and the entirety of the universe. Cosmological entities that don't fit the requirements of physics (within our understanding or not) would likely fail and die out while those that do would continue to thrive and swallow up others. The same goes for the existence and the ability to continue existing of life.

[-Unknown-]

Hilda have I ever told you how much I like you the intricate details of the designs and organization of the materials that you bring to the discussion of this topic are some of the most polished skills of reading writing and composition that I have seen from another person. As far as topic goes to and from the "topic" I'll do my best to explain in it a term that I'm sure most of you would find logical.

Hilda Please list all links to all of "un-original Ideas" (Historical events, Religious ideologies and/or documents/factions, Philosophy and/or Socialogy and/or Physical and/or Metaphysical "concepts, laws, and/or Proofs etc." that came from people places things/ideas etc. (I'm sure you get the point)) along with everyone else optionally accordingly and/or repectively and I will do the same as such, so that EVERYONE that visits this and wishes to do so can do the research that is required and

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal notes:

Link bible's alterations and in non-consistencies.

Link fallacies and non fallacies of God

Optional Notes:

Link the intersection to which "Logic and Reason" can be in the same world as "Religion" and still be under same rules for sake of understand and Comprehension

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legend:

{C}=Catholic

{CD}=Catholic Descent and/or Descendant (this Includes Christianity wether you or I like it or not)

{AGs}= Any of God and/or Gods however you want to put it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God can and cannot be a being of what you can and cannot say is apart or among "human understanding" in other words what you call can be somethiing like a rule, law, energy, potential, inmate, potential, bloodline, culture, heritage, Right-of-Birth, Right-of-Passage, truth, ideal, and even sentience and non-sentience to and among the people places things and Ideas among and amongst those and/or those things that are in some way shape or form acting to among the Idea of what we in the current conscious and unconscious understanding are calling God.

However in my personal opinion (for those that might; Don't take it the wrong way. Instead I ask that you try to use and or manipulate however works best for you to try to understand the following by trying to find/see and all of the definitions/meanings of everything said/shown.) "God/god" may have been viewed by "us" s an intent in human image and not one multiple images meaning that god is seen as one way and not even multiple ways, for as I have said before, and will possibly ascribe to in the following post god can be any and/or all of those things in the first paragraph.

So the question to ask in my opinion would be how do you see god to you because apparent god is dependent upon the individual to even have, receive, gain, maintain, have some of self, will of action or

Have: Usually if the person has no Ideal or concept of "God/god" then the person usually cant be acted upon by such being nor be accounted to/by/and/or under those laws if that is what the person chooses to be the foundation and/or cornerstone of the possible fundamental of that individuals interpretation/understanding/relativityr/and any other definition and/or symbol with some some alignment to a definition giving at least some form of position to where that individual at least in and of it self is in relation it own [interpretation/relation/thoughts/Ideas (and/or) Ideals/"beliefs"/"Philosophy"/Ideology(meant to be a more definitive definition than Ideas and Ideals)of god that he or she has formed or has even decide to form however there is also possible interference or distortion and/or anythin

Recieve: To my knowledge of metaphysics "God{AGs} exist for MAN (meaning all of what you call and refer to as the "human race") meaning that it is the complete opposite of scale of light and Dark and before I appear to contradict myself (you see what I mean later on) The thing that they are one separated into as two and the whole purpose is to anywise and gain existence of the other to become whole and one again) so in other words MAN is God and God is Man Meaning that it is a two way relationship

Perfection: perfection is usually seen upon the indivual but due to main herd mentality that many including those at least somewhat affiliated site have of "Humans or imperfect" and ("Humans are Weak beings"( I will get to this another time)). You forget to understand that everything else that is seen by and Imperfect being is also imperfect in and of itself because imperfection cannot be perfection as Light cannot be Dark. (There is a possibility that you can even say that imperfect cannot even see perfect as Light cannot even see Dark. The Logic and or Reasoning behind this (that I'm sure most of you would find someway reasonable) is what most of you would/could//may have a possibility of a tendency to say "...Darkness is the absence of light." In other words meaning that it is not there, in other worlds can be transmuted/translated to meaning that perfect and imperfect are not in/on the same dimension and/or (I'm sure some of you would might align with "and" though") In the same level of existence/expression and/or on the same level of existence/expression.) Also to say you cannot see what you are not because you not beingg it or ever having it or ever experience/experiencing it cannot even perceive to be what it is and as such you will not perceive to be what you have no essence of but instead will perceive to be any of the following corresponding knowledge, experiences, or essences of your being that you associate and or for terrible lack of better words at the moment "align" with that thing respectivy to make see and/or conceptualize a form for that of which you are perceiving to be in an among that existence to and for a level for you then begin to work your way to sing and perceiving what it is as a whole. That would then have to go into what could be called for a lack of better "materials" dimensions. Side Note: I don't remember any perfection that isfor a lack better words self-sufficient needing creation and.or to create, that in itself is a waste and there fore would make that so called perfection an imperfection begin with. Meaning that any "God(s)/god(s)"{CD} that areas called perfect like that and those among the Catholic line and decent and those/similar are imperfect. Only the imperfect need to create and or creation wether it is an inside creation out. So by "God/god"{AGs}

Dimension: A planes of existence for things of such essences may it be (what Im sure most of you are more associated with) material, etherial, or more other existences and un-existences to act, be, and even "transmutate or Transmute" according to the specific laws and/or limitations of the dimension(s) that the are expressing themselves on. A Dimension are more so the way you use, bend, manipulate, and or choose to act/ exist upon a certain level plane of exitence(s) and "Dimensions" can be more seen as to how you all together interact with the "Rules" of the dimension of requirement to even be there on that specific level plane of existence(s). The only really stepping you from going to the other dimensions is your thoughts and what is said above as well as some other factors that may or may not even be relevant depending on how you look at this and interpret this again as another unique individual. So If you want this tie into the subject "God?" I would have to say the for god to even be able to be conceptualized in the first place he might actually have to use a dimension and be in context within the laws of dimension or thought dimension that which in and of itself if were to be again by an "imperfect" being would make "God" itself in and of itself Imperfect for even being able to be expressed in a dimension wether it is below with or above the planes physical dimensional existence because as I said above earlier the "(There is a possibility that you can even say that imperfect cannot even see perfect as Light cannot even see Dark. The Logic and or Reasoning behind this (that I'm sure most of you would find someway reasonable) is what most of you would/could//may have a possibility of a tendency to say "...Darkness is the absence of light." In other words meaning that it is not there, in other worlds can be transmuted/translated to meaning that perfect and imperfect are not in/on the same dimension and/or (I'm sure some of you would might align with "and" though") In the same level of existence/expression and/or on the same level of existence/expression.)" Not the mention that if the dimension are all one, being that they are all still "fundamentally" a way of existing and/or expressing one self in/and of itself to and amongst itself this, then "God/god" existing on any one one of those dimension in and of itself would be by it own definition be imperfect by its ((")own(")) defining "law(s)" Meaning that there

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the logic of this faith Hilda that you speak of is to actually believe in a being of at least some type to basically be what you hope for it them to be. Examples from the churches I have been to not for the religion or "god" if you will are "God WE HOPE that you guide us and watch over us..., ...and Lord WE PRAY that you would STILL CONTINUE to watch over us and guide and..., (other Examples) Shango PLEASE WATCH over our battle..., OSHUN please don't blow our house down, Jahova HAS NEVER done any wrong to us..., PRAY that [Name of a "god" preferably of a religion] [whatever]. When I prefer to use a religion it is not that it's because I have problem with it (at least not enough to prevent me from being "unbiased") but its that its pretty that all of the (for lack of bette words no insults are attempted/intended to be made) all of the so-called bullshit usually, consistently, quite very often comes from religion and there is aparentl only the major ones still including ones "smaller" than them accordingly and respectively that you hear/recieve/deal with the most bullshit (i'm sorry but I really don't a better way to put this).

For now I'll post this so that I' look like a Etiolate-Chasey versus a Gengar in chat. and I'll continue to type more to complete the however the things you see in this post will remain the same but will be separated by a double dashed line like the one I'm sure you have seen above (somewhere).

Note: the only edit was changing the text to white so you could see it I apologize for the mistake of making it unreadable to you.

Edited September 3, 2015 by -Unknown-

[-Unknown-]

@Erick, I'm actually very glad I got to see this side of you.

Just a side note. In my opinion, the universe is the way it is because it always has been. The universe evolved the way it did because things were the way they are. If the universal constant of the force of Gravity were greater or lesser, we wouldn't be here. Some other race who is very different from us in some far away place would likely be having a similar debate about why things the way they are and if some divine being crafted Gravity to be twice what we know to specifically fit to them. The evolution of life and the entirety of the universe. Cosmological entities that don't fit the requirements of physics (within our understanding or not) would likely fail and die out while those that do would continue to thrive and swallow up others. The same goes for the existence and the ability to continue existing of life.

I like that and am quite fond of that ideal that you have and am quite associated with that as well in was you wouldn't imagine. Possibly.

[laggless01]

I've currently read page 3-5 (still 2 to go, I'm crunching through the data...), and read about some suggesting lock-down of the thread. Please keep it open, things are getting interesting...(And I need more time to read through it all...)

[-Unknown-]

nonono, Neo. Please don't take my non-comment as ignorance here - because I'm very interested in that study. As you said, the only hang-up is that we're all waiting to figure out if the laws of physics were created with the universe, or have always been in place. As such - I don't know how to attack it properly and would rather refrain. I will say that I acknowledge that as an emerging development.

I'll share my opinion on the "laws" later after some college related things and personal things.

[Chase]

@ Mael - Darn. That's really the ONLY thing someone would have to do for all Christian faith to be a wash too. ID the body. That's a real shame...

This is where it would be convenient for the Christian-hating atheist to propose the Christ Myth theory - but the overwhelming amount of evidence outside of the Bible alone makes that supposition laughable. Thankfully, you're not a fool and you're proposing a more reasonable - although not sufficient in comparison to minimal facts - theory in a Jesus that was stolen away.

• Who is your alleged grave robber?
• Can definitively prove the guards were asleep or even more inconceivably in on the crime?
• How do you explain away over 500 "post Resurrection appearances"?

---

Eviora - I'm most definitely not a proponent of the multi-verse - and I argue about it's problematic nature in the Fine-Tuning argument above. I don't have anything to say about the possibility of multiple sets of physics laws for the various universes - as I don't think the multi-verse is supported by empirical science sufficiently enough to consider it at this point in time.

As for arguing against the problematic nature of the Oscillating Universe (Bang/Crunch Universe)? I'm going to attempt to do you one better. Mike, Neo - please don't take this as a misguided belief that studies today are completely off-target and time-wasting. I'm just exercising for the sake of the argument I made earlier.

I'm going to start by picking at the parent universal theory to the Oscillating Universe - the infamous 'Big Bang' itself.

1. We know that the universe is either one of two things. That matter was created from nothing - or that matter has expanded from a single infinitesimal point.
2. We know that from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that the universe is losing active energy.
3. We know that the universe is expanding.

Now, the Big Bang theory requires an eternal-past universe - as the "cosmic egg" where all of the space, time, and matter needed to reside before the "bang" would predate the official "creation" of the universe (or supposed bang itself.)

In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin showed that cosmic inflation - expansion - was the general state of the universe - and also proved that an expanding universe would need a definite beginning - and a period that proceeds the universe's existence.

This means that there has to be a period before the supposed "Cosmic Egg" of the Big Bang Theory - which is problematic for those who hold the Big Bang as the most plausible, which is what many people on the popular level still do.

Scientists in fact, have moved on to the Oscillating Universe Theory from the Big Bang in part to continue to propose an eternal past universe, as well as several other universal models. The issue with the Oscillating Universe is that there is no way to pin down what the Big Crunch is in the future at this point in time, and when it happens, no human would even be able to do so - at least not in this universe.

Which brings me to my final point. Is there enough matter to justifiably cause a slowing of expansion (which is yet not the case as empirical scientific studies make the current claim of exponentially increasing expansion as opposed to decrease.)? - Mike mentioned "dark matter". If dark matter is present - then it it's plausible that eventually there will be enough mass to slow down expansion and open the possibility for the Big Crunch in the future.

The refuted hypothesis on dark matter - is that it's non-existent mass. If there isn't any dark matter - there's just empty space, and if there is just empty space, then the universe will continue to expand and there will be no crunch - which means the Oscillating Universe Theory is debunked, the most plausible universal construct is that the universe has a definite beginning in which something was created from nothing, and finally, it wouldn't be possible for the universe today to be a part of an infinite regression of Big Crunches and Bangs - leaving the Kalam cosmological argument in-tact.

This is not to be an overstatement of the Kalam argument - but a further defense of it based on the supposed "theories are like hydra heads" statement. The argument is merely - to me - a philosophical argument that has considerable evidential validity from scientific studies in cosmology to this point. As such, it should be seen as a philosophical argument and not a cosmological one - and there must be proven cosmological studies - not theoretical construct - used in a philosophical argument that proposes an eternal-past universe.

Currently, the evidence that already exists today, points in favor of a universe that has a finite beginning, and that is something that may change - or not.

[Gaunt]

Aaand i'm back (sorry for the late reply but i was busy with work) with my answers:

1) About the "disregarding" thing: we already had an argument in our previous discussion so let's not repeat it again here ok?

2) About how i perceive the bible: you are aware that i'm atheist right? So what answer did you expect from me? Knowing my point of view it's obvious i would respond in that way. Sure some passages of the book contain (relatively) accurate historical data (we know that because other sources confirm it) but so can a novel (set in "ancient times") does it mean whatever written in that novel is true? No it isn't. We can both make some small/non critical concessions to better understand the opposite point of view sure but in the end it's pointless as they are directly opposite from each other and i'm pretty sure neither of us will "give up" what he/she thinks is true. I can promise you one thing though: if after death i'll end up in hell i'll send you a letter with my apologies ok?

Now i's like to address (part of) your last post (if you're still willing to talk to me that is) and say that if you look at the probabilities practically everything Mael said is more likely to occur than a "supernatural" phenomenon simply because (as Jericho previously mentioned) we have several (confirmed and documented) cases of those and none of a "resurrection". Let's pass to the three points now:

1Q) Who is the grave robber?

1A) Really? No seriously really? Do you think we know everything that happened 2000 years ago? Nope, so why do you think there should be traces or documents left to confirm a "grave robbery" happened so many years ago? The good thing is that even if not confirmed it is still more likely to have happened than something "supernatural".

2Q) Guards asleep

2A) Same as 1A

3Q) 500 people "saw" him after death

3A) Let's say that the prophet of a new fresh religion suddenly died, his disciples still want to spread "his word" but need something to give it a boost...what can they come up with...hmm...oh i know! They can ask other people to lie for them (or disguise as him or...the list goes on) and "create" a myth about his resurrection...tada! New acolytes and converts join said religion (DISCLAIMER: all characters and events in this story even those based on real people are entirely fictional, thanks South Park)). If a serious answer is required see 1A

[Eviora]

I'm not familiar enough with all these studies and findings to comment on them any time soon, so I'll refrain from doing so. I'd say the biggest problem with the argument you just presented is right at the beginning, where you say there isn't enough empirical science backing the multiverse theory to consider it. I could say exactly the same thing about the god theory - I don't see any scientific evidence whatsoever in proof of that, just a bunch of purely logic-based arguments that seem flawed to me. The point of the hydra heads comment was that I am decidedly not committed to the multiverse theory, because I also feel it's not supported by sufficient evidence - just as I feel about any other crackpot theory I could come up with. The way to prove your theory of choice would be to provide mountains of evidence that are actively in favor of it or to offer an absolutely impregnable logical argument, which is nearly impossible because the nuances of how we each view individual words tend to be different enough that, when you combine too many in context that require precision, the thing you're saying and the thing I'm hearing end up being quite different. One strategy that I don't think can work is a process of elimination strategy - hence the hydra heads. There are just too many possibilities, literally more than any of us could even think about in our lifetime.

Without special evidence to make one theory drastically stand out from the rest, they all appear to be unsupported hypotheses that should neither be believed nor entirely dismissed.

[Abyssreaper99]

I've read all of the pages thus far and find the arguments as well as the rebuttals quite interesting. The intensity of the debates and how people are using various sources as well as their logic to create a stable response is that good that it reminds me of the ace attorney series.

Now with that aside, I personally believe that there could be some artificial creator out there but whether it is 'God' or not remains unforeseen at the moment. I find that there's an equal chance for the Big Bang to have occurred and the artificial creator to have made the universe but both could have happened. When I'm looking at this thread, some people are genuinely taking everything into account (eg Hilda) but others are blinded by their beliefs or lack of who don't take things into account despite being given logical evidence.

I don't have enough information myself to make an argument or a rebuttal to most claims but I find this thread to have many key points which should be examined and discussed with a lot more detail. That's all I have to say.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Abyssreaper99

[Chase]

Gaunt - There are scholars who propose that they hold an atheistic perspective and yet still fulfill the scholarly duty to historical evidence. Just because you claim to be an atheist, doesn't mean you get a free pass of making an argument without actually interacting with the text. It's interesting - because it's almost like atheists on the popular level are afraid the book might "change" them if they read it.

If it were simply a matter of time constraints - you could simply say "I'll get around to it someday - but for now I don't know if the Bible can be considered as a reliable historical document." To outright hold the claim that you are an atheist however - should prepare you for a bit of pushing from the opposing side as you are making an equally ground-breaking claim in that God does NOT exist as opposed to not "knowing" if God exists or lacking faith either way.

Now for your responses:

1 - I believe there should be traces of grave robbery because people find looted tombs and pyramids all the time and know for a fact that the tomb was raided and pillaged. In fact, the Egyptians were some of the earliest examples of discovered grave robbery sites - with their civilization predating the Crucifixion by nearly 4 millennia. If someone can discover a crime scene from 3500 B.C., it shouldn't be too far a stretch to find a tomb in Jerusalem that is dated somewhere less than 2 thousand years ago in the past. Furthermore, there are traces and documents coming increasingly closer to the Crucifixion providing a narrative of Resurrection. On the Resurrection argument, there is new emerging pieces of historical documents supporting it's hypothesis. The only difference between King Tut and Jesus is that Jesus wasn't buried with possessions - meaning there's only one thing to steal.

2. So, you're going to try and defend your position by dismissing two of my questions - and not even inquire about this question? You're not getting anywhere fast with this passive hole-punching.

3. Jesus' disciples actually fled from Roman authority and several of them denounced Jesus publicly to avoid suspicion being drawn to them - such as St. Peter - the "Rock" on which Christ built his Church......three times. This kind of excerpt from the Gospels is called "embarrassing testimony" and provides no positive spin on the Christ narrative whatsoever. In the Gospel, not only does Peter deny Christ three times, he also tries to assure Jesus that He wouldn't be let by the disciples to die in a misunderstanding of how Christ was to save the world - resulting in the Messiah saying "Get behind me, Satan!" ... Also, it's not the disciples who allegedly found the tomb - but the faithful women. Women being the finders of the empty tomb instead during a time period of imbalance between the genders does nothing for Christianity - unless it's the truth. Embarrassing testimony is found all over the Old Testament as well, such as Moses killing a man in Egypt, King David stealing Uriah's wife, and Gideon the Judge being doubtful and fearful for his ability to lead Israel. The frequency of such testimony does nothing to help the Biblical narrative except confirm it by throwing in all details, including the ugly ones.

This is where I take issue with the "Disciples wanted to spread His word." supposition.They just watched their supposed Messiah beaten and executed in the most shameful way possible. There was no hope, victory, or pride in the upper room for the entire weekend He was gone. They even had to go see the tomb for themselves when Mary Magdalene returned with the news out of disbelief. In the event of a serious answer, you again dismissed the question, making you oh-for-three and hardly credible.

Long story short - You have to be able to bear the burden of proof to defend your own claims, not just blow darts at other people's. There is no historical proof of Jesus being stolen away - just logical deduction by saying "Grave robberies have happened before, therefore, someone stole Jesus away." without any evidence to support the claim.

---

The difference between God and the Multiverse theory is that one provides sufficient answers for all phenomena while the other is merely a possible explanation that has yet to be confirmed by empirical science.

You shouldn't be looking for religion if you're looking for a 100% transparent God. No God that does exist operates that way to my knowledge, and if they did, that being would be under heavy scrutiny as Christianity is and debunked when any evidence is found to refute the hypothesis. The process of elimination is a strategy that does exactly as it reads - ELIMINATES possibilities. It's taking a look at the evidence we DO have and saying. "Okay, based off of what we know - these don't work."

The result is a stalemate that no side has an edge on. On one side however, you have people who are able to integrate what they know about God into new discoveries and they are able to hold logical discourse about a "supernatural" being. On the other, you have a desperate struggle to find as many scientific mannerisms as possible to shut down the opposing view.

The difference truly is picking one that makes the most sense. Not complete sense.

[Gaunt]

Ok let's make an example: you enter a cemetery and see an open mausoleum with the body/bodies inside missing...the place doesn't seem looted...what is your first thought on what's happened? Resurrection? Probably not...but this is the "situation" you are describing....ah yes forgot to add: after some time 500 people (that you don't know and never met) told to the press that they saw the person buried in that mausoleum walking around...what is your first thought this time?

I didn't know that other disciples (beside Judas) betrayed him...hmm that rises a question though: how did this "new" religion spread so fast and what did the other disciples do?

For the record i did read only a "short" version of the bible plus all the parts in which the book contradicts itself (like a good atheist should) so yea i don't know the book in it's entirety but i know it well enough (for my needs), honestly i tried to read the entire thing MANY times but it was (really, no offense) not interesting enough to keep me going (i always fell asleep after 10-15 pages).

as we can both see our points of view on this matter are incompatible so i have another question. When (some time ago) i asked about your opinion on extraterrestrial life you said that it is possible right? so my question is: doesn't this conflict with the "belief" that we are (supposedly) the "chosen" creation of god?

[Deleted User]

For the record i did read only a "short" version of the bible plus all the parts in which the book contradicts itself (like a good atheist should) so yea i don't know the book in it's entirety but i know it well enough (for my needs), honestly i tried to read the entire thing MANY times but it was (really, no offense) not interesting enough to keep me going (i always fell asleep after 10-15 pages).

A 'good' atheist, would read the book in it's entirety. If you consider yourself a skeptic, you must not act out of ignorance. It's your responsibility to hear what the other side is saying, even if your preconceived opinions don't agree with it. The manner in which you went about it is completely detrimental to getting a clear picture. You're selectively reading from a source that will verify all of your biases, picking up quotations to use as pot shots in your arguments. So long as you continue to hold on to said biases, or remain ignorant to any one side of the argument, you shouldn't be claiming to be..... informed or, 'enlightened' I suppose. Hilda says she's been on the other side of the fence in the past and claimed that she's come to the conclusion that God is the correct answer. While I don't necessarily agree with her on that, that's much more respectable and more informed than someone who would knowingly avoid certain portions of a sides debate or argument that go against their opinion.

I myself fully intend to read it, eventually, someday. I'll likely start with the new testament though, since it's been claimed that the old testament it primarily 'poetic' and should hardly be taken literally.

[Eviora]

I certainly don't agree that god provides sufficient answers for all phenomena. I can think of tons of questions to be asked that I've never heard a good answer for, but I don't have to be very creative for this one - the "Problem of Evil" argument is more than enough. Every answer I've ever heard to it tries to dance around the question without using the "omni" traits to their fullest potential - in fact, the answers tend to erode god's supposed power. Further, no theory about gods I've ever heard provides me a satisfying answer to the question: "How did god come to be?" The response "god is eternal" (or similar) is no more helpful than "the multiverse is eternal".

It's nonsense to suggest an omnipotent and omniscient god wouldn't be able to answer every single question skeptics asked if he decided to be transparent, but you're certainly right that people would try to disprove him - and that just shows him being so transparent would not rob us of our free will. =p

Anyhow, if I had to pick a conception of god that makes the most sense to me, it wouldn't be that of a god worshiped by any religion I know of. I think I'd either go with a deistic god or a god who is a huge troll and just messing with us for the lulz.