Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Hollie]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?

You are under no obligation to think at all. So far, you're doing a great job at that. Ignorance must really be bliss--- I have no "versions" of "gods." There is only one true original cause.

How convenient. I'm ignorant because I don't believe in your undemonstrated version of god. I suppose that makes you ignorant for not believing in all the other gods that have come along before your god.

How ignorant that makes you.

Your "... because I say so" claim to the "one true original cause", clashes with gods that have apparently existed before your god. To the back of the line you go.

Look you stupid bitch, you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about, you can't even fucking read and now put words in my mouth for things I never said then condemn me for it with 6th grade antics. Do yourself a favor and STFU. Pick some topic you can actually talk about with some authority. You've said nothing here but to ask OTHER people questions then ridicule their answers while providing none of your own. Just because you're a jacked off idiot does not obligate me to keep responding to your ignorance.

Really, snowflake. You might want to settle down.

 

[abu afak]

Your claim that inclusion of the god principle as an adjunct to the sciences must be part of supernaturalism, thus magical and discounted is fallacious. There does not have to be anything supernatural or magic about the existence of God. What is "magic" is the atheistic suggestion that it makes more sense that our complex phenomenal universe and its many laws came all out of NOTHING rather than some original cause.

The failing of atheism is that because they cannot explain the place of God in the order of things, they prefer to rest their own belief system in nothingness thus absolving themselves of the problem.

No No.
That's YOUR God of the Gaps classic/backwards stupidity
There is no 'God' in evidence.
PERIOD.
There is a universe, and because YOU cannot explain it, YOU POOFED 'god' into existence.
Classic GoG idiocy.

If and when 'god' shows up... :^)
say, ie, the Stars arrange themselves relative to earth's viewpoint spelling 'Allah' in Arabic, I for one will be thrilled and admit I was wrong.
Lot's of questions answered, incl Which/Witch GOD!

Evangelicals (like YOU, Ringbone, and JamesBlond) (other religions too), will commit Mass suicide... your belief system shattered: Sharia at hand.
LOFL.

`
`

 

[Ringtone]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

 

[Asclepias]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

 

[Ringtone]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications. But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded. That's ridiculous.

 

[alang1216]

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

I'm partial to the theological authority of the one who rose from the dead myself. But you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, apparently, due to alleged contradictions in the historical account.

So let's cut to the chase already. What supposed contradictions are you talking about? So as things do not get overly complicated or confused, please provide your allegations one at a time so that they may be examined one at time.

Let's keep is simple:

• How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?

Simple. Hermeneutics 101. All serious readers of the Bible have regarded this issue. Only the sloppiest hermeneutical treatment of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts.

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He specifies three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with them. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say that only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name. John mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone. Mary Magdalene ran back from the tomb and told Peter and John that "[t]hey have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him” (John 20:2).

Next.

Contradions are not an issue if you're willing to essentially rewrite the text. Below are additional contradictions but I'm sure you can rewrite those too so don't bother. You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.

Occam's Razor, my ass. Erhman's hermeneutics incessantly confound the simple.

I didn't rewrite anything. What are you talking about? You read things into the biblical text that aren't there, more at, the one who apparently does the thinking for you reads things into the biblical text that aren't there. My refutation of your first "contradiction" stands and stays despite your refusal to read and think about the actual texts side-by-side for yourself.

There are no contradictions as Erhman alleges in the whole text as it stands today in the first place! I've read Erhman. I have always followed his reasoning, such as it is, just fine. His guff is not the stuff of rocket science. Indeed, his hermeneutics are childish. From his fallacious premise, he goes on to hypothesize that these nonexistent contradictions derive from later additions to the text.

Where do any of the accounts, including John's, say there were only so many? John's makes it clear that there were more than one! He only mentions one of them by name. Even Luke's doesn't tell us the precise number.

Your contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

Erhman is clearly wrong in this instance. What else is he wrong about?

You think I can't refute his guff point by point? LOL! Demagogues like Erhman pray on the ignorance of folks like you.

Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?

• A man is brought back from the dead and walks among the living. A great miracle happens witnessed by hundreds, a miracle that has never happened in the history of the world, a miracle that is meant to change the world for everyone forever. Yet no one except his loyal followers are witness.
• A few devoted followers of a man believe he is God's chosen messenger sent to save the nation of Israel and deliver the final judgement. The man dies and fulfills none of his prophecies. Were those followers mislead what has happened? Then, one of his followers has a mystical experience, a dream, a vision, and sees the holy man. Word spreads and maybe others have similar visions and word continues to spread. Over the following decades the oral story get overlain with the theology of the tellers. When the story is finally written down decades later the writers have access to different traditions (e.g., "Q") so they don't match exactly but it is the theology that is important not the details.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

I always find it interesting that on the "Science and Technology" board, there's always some clown that can't resist stuffing in the most unscientific of all premises.....deities, a topic that should belongs squarely in the Religion and Philosophy section. The same people have been brainwashed since infancy by their parents/family that deities exist and why do they do this....it's the fill in the blanks concept. If we don't have an answer to something, we must drop in a deity.....simplicity, childish.

 

[Hollie]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

I always find it interesting that on the "Science and Technology" board, there's always some clown that can't resist stuffing in the most unscientific of all premises.....deities, a topic that should belongs squarely in the Religion and Philosophy section. The same people have been brainwashed since infancy by their parents/family that deities exist and why do they do this....it's the fill in the blanks concept. If we don't have an answer to something, we must drop in a deity.....simplicity, childish.

Did you somehow miss that some clown jammed a specific deity into the thread?

 

[toobfreak]

YOU POOFED

You poofed alright.

 

[Ringtone]

Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?

Sorry, alang, but I'm not going to let you blow past the imperatives of my previous observation.

Circularly presupposing that both the context and the language of the four accounts assert that only one, two, three or more women, respectively, went to the tomb in your question—i.e., unwittingly begging the answer in your question—you write:

Let's keep it simple:​

​

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?​

Yes, alang, let's keep things simple, one "contradiction" at a time. We're not done with this one. Apparently I didn't make things clear enough for you, as you're still trying to salvage a manifestly stupid contention. The reality of Erhman's careless rendering has yet to sink in for you. This is precisely why I asked you to list and discuss the alleged contradictions one at a time.

Again:

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He mentions three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with the others. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women went to the tomb. Mark does not say that only three women went to the tomb. They simply focus on the women they mention by name. John identifies only one of the women, Mary Magdalene, by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone as he writes that she ran back from the tomb to tell him and Peter: "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him" (John 20:2).

Indeed, the context of Matthew and Mark’s accounts indicates that they too were aware of the fact that other women, in addition to those they mention by name, went to the tomb that morning. Hence, it's readily self-evident that only the sloppiest of hermeneutical treatments of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts. Erhman’s contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who actually went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

You further confound the matter as you attempt to refute the incontrovertible—namely, the simple, straightforward reading of the accounts—and unwitting conflate the premises of two, distinct lines of Erhmanian argumentation.

You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.

Sigh

As you fail to grasp the essence of my falsification of Erhman’s hermeneutics thus far, you leave me no alternative but to expound on the matter further. What more astute students at my feet would grasp at a glance eludes you. But not to worry. I'm a good teacher, so you're in luck.

Aside from the fact that in the first place, as I have shown, there is no contradiction between the narratives regarding the number of women who went to the tomb: Erhman manifestly predicates this “contradiction” on his comparative misreading of all the accounts (or stories as you put it) regarding the empty tomb, not the resurrection, by the way. In other words, he does not predicate this particular allegation as you imply on any theoretical grounds of textual criticism in terms of theology or in terms of any gratuitous, contradictory narratives. Rather, he predicates it on the very same narratives with which I deconstrued his fallacious narrative . . . you know, his nonexistent narrative in which only one, two, three or more woman, respectively, went to the tomb that morning!

Recall, I’ve read Erhman too.

His theoretical contention regarding Mary Magdalene’s “vision” of the resurrected Christ goes to an entirely different line of argumentation, which does not entail contradictions per additional narratives at all. His contention here is that narratives were added later as a means of persuasion and, thus, were not part of the original texts. And in spite of what you claim, alang, the premise of Ehrman’s line of argumentation in this case is in fact that of naturalism, specifically, in his own words, the improbability of miracles: "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred."

Nonsense! All miracles of this nature are not merely improbable, but normally impossible! They do not normally occur at all, and no rational person believes they routinely occur. That’s the whole point. The only way the resurrection could have possibly occurred . . . God does exist and Jesus is who he claimed to be. Historians most certainly can and have said that Christ must have risen from the dead given the improbability that the voluminous evidence for his resurrection is false. Occam's' Razor.

But, of course, you don’t believe it occurred because, ultimately, you don't believe Jesus is the Christ either.

Once again, the original texts tell us that Mary Magdalene was only the first of many to witness the resurrected Christ. Sixteen of these additional witnesses, including Paul, are named, and at least 492 additional witnesses are unnamed. Ehrman’s rejection of the accounts regarding the other eyewitness is strictly predicated on his disbelief, the essence of which is purely theoretical, namely, the textual criticism of historical naturalism.

In any event, my immediate refutation pertains to Ehrman’s childishly fallacious hermeneutics regarding the number of women who went to the empty tomb that morning, not to the number of persons who saw the resurrected Christ. My refutation stands and stays. Ehrman’s allegation of a contradiction between the narratives in this wise is falsified.

Next.

 

[Hollie]

Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?

Sorry, alang, but I'm not going to let you blow past the imperatives of my previous observation.

Circularly presupposing that both the context and the language of the four accounts assert that only one, two, three or more women, respectively, went to the tomb in your question—i.e., unwittingly begging the answer in your question—you write:

Let's keep it simple:​

​

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?​

Yes, alang, let's keep things simple, one "contradiction" at a time. We're not done with this one. Apparently I didn't make things clear enough for you, as you're still trying to salvage a manifestly stupid contention. The reality of Erhman's careless rendering has yet to sink in for you. This is precisely why I asked you to list and discuss the alleged contradictions one at a time.

Again:

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He mentions three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with the others. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women went to the tomb. Mark does not say that only three women went to the tomb. They simply focus on the women they mention by name. John identifies only one of the women, Mary Magdalene, by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone as he writes that she ran back from the tomb to tell him and Peter: "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him" (John 20:2).

Indeed, the context of Matthew and Mark’s accounts indicates that they too were aware of the fact that other women, in addition to those they mention by name, went to the tomb that morning. Hence, it's readily self-evident that only the sloppiest of hermeneutical treatments of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts. Erhman’s contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who actually went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

You further confound the matter as you attempt to refute the incontrovertible—namely, the simple, straightforward reading of the accounts—and unwitting conflate the premises of two, distinct lines of Erhmanian argumentation.

You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.

Sigh

As you fail to grasp the essence of my falsification of Erhman’s hermeneutics thus far, you leave me no alternative but to expound on the matter further. What more astute students at my feet would grasp at a glance eludes you. But not to worry. I'm a good teacher, so you're in luck.

Aside from the fact that in the first place, as I have shown, there is no contradiction between the narratives regarding the number of women who went to the tomb: Erhman manifestly predicates this “contradiction” on his comparative misreading of all the accounts (or stories as you put it) regarding the empty tomb, not the resurrection, by the way. In other words, he does not predicate this particular allegation as you imply on any theoretical grounds of textual criticism in terms of theology or in terms of any gratuitous, contradictory narratives. Rather, he predicates it on the very same narratives with which I deconstrued his fallacious narrative . . . you know, his nonexistent narrative in which only one, two, three or more woman, respectively, went to the tomb that morning!

Recall, I’ve read Erhman too.

His theoretical contention regarding Mary Magdalene’s “vision” of the resurrected Christ goes to an entirely different line of argumentation, which does not entail contradictions per additional narratives at all. His contention here is that narratives were added later as a means of persuasion and, thus, were not part of the original texts. And in spite of what you claim, alang, the premise of Ehrman’s line of argumentation in this case is in fact that of naturalism, specifically, in his own words, the improbability of miracles: "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred."

Nonsense! All miracles of this nature are not merely improbable, but normally impossible! They do not normally occur at all, and no rational person believes they routinely occur. That’s the whole point. The only way the resurrection could have possibly occurred . . . God does exist and Jesus is who he claimed to be. Historians most certainly can and have said that Christ must have risen from the dead given the improbability that the voluminous evidence for his resurrection is false. Occam's' Razor.

But, of course, you don’t believe it occurred because, ultimately, you don't believe Jesus is the Christ either.

Once again, the original texts tell us that Mary Magdalene was only the first of many to witness the resurrected Christ. Sixteen of these additional witnesses, including Paul, are named, and at least 492 additional witnesses are unnamed. Ehrman’s rejection of the accounts regarding the other eyewitness is strictly predicated on his disbelief, the essence of which is purely theoretical, namely, the textual criticism of historical naturalism.

In any event, my immediate refutation pertains to Ehrman’s childishly fallacious hermeneutics regarding the number of women who went to the empty tomb that morning, not to the number of persons who saw the resurrected Christ. My refutation stands and stays. Ehrman’s allegation of a contradiction between the narratives in this wise is falsified.

Next.

Rather comical. Appeals to hearsay accounts of super-magical events.

 

[alang1216]

Which do you think would survive Occam's Razor?

Sorry, alang, but I'm not going to let you blow past the imperatives of my previous observation.

Circularly presupposing that both the context and the language of the four accounts assert that only one, two, three or more women, respectively, went to the tomb in your question—i.e., unwittingly begging the answer in your question—you write:

Let's keep it simple:​

​

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?​

Yes, alang, let's keep things simple, one "contradiction" at a time. We're not done with this one. Apparently I didn't make things clear enough for you, as you're still trying to salvage a manifestly stupid contention. The reality of Erhman's careless rendering has yet to sink in for you. This is precisely why I asked you to list and discuss the alleged contradictions one at a time.

Again:

There were at least five women who went to the tomb that morning. We know that from Luke's account. He mentions three by name and tells us that "other women" (at least two more) went with the others. None of the other accounts say that only one woman went to the tomb, including John's. Matthew does not say that only two women went to the tomb. Mark does not say that only three women went to the tomb. They simply focus on the women they mention by name. John identifies only one of the women, Mary Magdalene, by name, but he was clearly aware that she was not alone as he writes that she ran back from the tomb to tell him and Peter: "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him" (John 20:2).

Indeed, the context of Matthew and Mark’s accounts indicates that they too were aware of the fact that other women, in addition to those they mention by name, went to the tomb that morning. Hence, it's readily self-evident that only the sloppiest of hermeneutical treatments of the texts side-by-side would read a contradiction into the accounts. Erhman’s contention that the number of women mentioned by name in the various accounts corresponds to the total number of women who actually went to the tomb that morning is manifestly false.

You further confound the matter as you attempt to refute the incontrovertible—namely, the simple, straightforward reading of the accounts—and unwitting conflate the premises of two, distinct lines of Erhmanian argumentation.

You expand the text to include all the stories while Erhman addresses the contradictions as being additions to the text from later periods. To him there is a basic truth that runs through all the versions and he determined that it was Mary Magdalene who first reported that Jesus was resurrected. She probably experienced a vision like Paul's and that became the kernel of the story of the resurrection. The additions to the story are essentially theology. I don't expect you to agree but that that seems the most likely scenario to me. Occam's' Razor.

Sigh

As you fail to grasp the essence of my falsification of Erhman’s hermeneutics thus far, you leave me no alternative but to expound on the matter further. What more astute students at my feet would grasp at a glance eludes you. But not to worry. I'm a good teacher, so you're in luck.

Aside from the fact that in the first place, as I have shown, there is no contradiction between the narratives regarding the number of women who went to the tomb: Erhman manifestly predicates this “contradiction” on his comparative misreading of all the accounts (or stories as you put it) regarding the empty tomb, not the resurrection, by the way. In other words, he does not predicate this particular allegation as you imply on any theoretical grounds of textual criticism in terms of theology or in terms of any gratuitous, contradictory narratives. Rather, he predicates it on the very same narratives with which I deconstrued his fallacious narrative . . . you know, his nonexistent narrative in which only one, two, three or more woman, respectively, went to the tomb that morning!

Recall, I’ve read Erhman too.

His theoretical contention regarding Mary Magdalene’s “vision” of the resurrected Christ goes to an entirely different line of argumentation, which does not entail contradictions per additional narratives at all. His contention here is that narratives were added later as a means of persuasion and, thus, were not part of the original texts. And in spite of what you claim, alang, the premise of Ehrman’s line of argumentation in this case is in fact that of naturalism, specifically, in his own words, the improbability of miracles: "Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred."

Nonsense! All miracles of this nature are not merely improbable, but normally impossible! They do not normally occur at all, and no rational person believes they routinely occur. That’s the whole point. The only way the resurrection could have possibly occurred . . . God does exist and Jesus is who he claimed to be. Historians most certainly can and have said that Christ must have risen from the dead given the improbability that the voluminous evidence for his resurrection is false. Occam's' Razor.

But, of course, you don’t believe it occurred because, ultimately, you don't believe Jesus is the Christ either.

Once again, the original texts tell us that Mary Magdalene was only the first of many to witness the resurrected Christ. Sixteen of these additional witnesses, including Paul, are named, and at least 492 additional witnesses are unnamed. Ehrman’s rejection of the accounts regarding the other eyewitness is strictly predicated on his disbelief, the essence of which is purely theoretical, namely, the textual criticism of historical naturalism.

In any event, my immediate refutation pertains to Ehrman’s childishly fallacious hermeneutics regarding the number of women who went to the empty tomb that morning, not to the number of persons who saw the resurrected Christ. My refutation stands and stays. Ehrman’s allegation of a contradiction between the narratives in this wise is falsified.

Next.

First off, thanks for the reply. I'm not used to reading reason and actual knowledge on USMB. Lot's of emotion though.

Secondly, I'm not a theist so a miracle is the last thing I would expect. I've lived my whole life and have never encountered anything supernatural so I look to natural explanations.

This may be a case of the 1/2 full glass of water. I look at the various accounts and see contradictions, you look at the same accounts and see different what the author could have said. For example, Matthew does not say that only two women went to the tomb. He also didn't say that ET took the body from the tomb. You're correct but you have added to the text because your theology requires it. It seems hardly surprising that over the centuries those that recited the oral accounts and those that wrote them down did the same.

I look at the text and see what it says, you look at the text and see what it doesn't say. If Matthew knew that more than two women were involved why didn't he add that? If he knew but didn't put it into the text, he was changing the account of the central pillar of Christianity.

 

[Ringtone]

First off, thanks for the reply. I'm not used to reading reason and actual knowledge on USMB. Lot's of emotion though.

Secondly, I'm not a theist so a miracle is the last thing I would expect. I've lived my whole life and have never encountered anything supernatural so I look to natural explanations.

Actually, you have, just not in the sense that you mean. It is manifest from the ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics, ontology and cosmological physics that the Universe (or physical world) began to exist in the finite past. The only rational explanation for its existence per the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation is God. Though it's not the most important miracle relative to man's redemption, the existence of the Universe itself is the greatest miracle, i.e., the greatest display of God's existence.

This may be a case of the 1/2 full glass of water. I look at the various accounts and see contradictions, you look at the same accounts and see different, what the author could have said. For example, Matthew does not say that only two women went to the tomb. He also didn't say that ET took the body from the tomb. You're correct, but you have added to the text because your theology requires it.

False. I cannot and do not add anything to the accounts. I simply see what is in the accounts. I'm not the one reading things into them that aren't there, i.e., that only one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb. That is not what the accounts tell us, not even close. John's and Luke's accounts absolutely correspond in terms of those mentioned by name and the plurality of the women who went to the tomb. Matthew and Mark's accounts merely concentrate on the women mentioned by name as these are the women who, alternately, related the matter to them personally. That's all. They too were aware that there were others. Still concentrating on the number of women who went to the tomb according to the four accounts, there simply is no contradiction, and the matter is strictly narrative, not theological.

It seems hardly surprising that over the centuries those that recited the oral accounts and those that wrote them down did the same.

What is this about centuries? All of the Gospels were written in the first century.

I look at the text and see what it says, you look at the text and see what it doesn't say. If Matthew knew that more than two women were involved why didn't he add that? If he knew but didn't put it into the text, he was changing the account of the central pillar of Christianity.

Once again, I read what is written. Period. Matthew absolutely did know that there were more than two women. The fact that he concentrates on the women he names doesn't impinge on the matter one way or the other. What you seem to be implying doesn't follow.

By the way, you list the same alleged contradiction regarding the number of women who first went to the empty tomb three times if I recall correctly. Which do you wish to examine next?

 

[Ringtone]

I always find it interesting that on the "Science and Technology" board, there's always some clown that can't resist stuffing in the most unscientific of all premises.....deities, a topic that should belongs squarely in the Religion and Philosophy section. The same people have been brainwashed since infancy by their parents/family that deities exist and why do they do this....it's the fill in the blanks concept. If we don't have an answer to something, we must drop in a deity.....simplicity, childish.

The thrust of the OP goes to the logical and scientific imperatives which tell us that the Universe began to exist in the finite past and to the pseudoscientific gibberish of brainwashed secularists, the mindless slogan speak of those who unwittingly claim to be the God who supposedly doesn't exist. These are the folks who routinely fail to distinguish the difference between philosophy and science.

 

[Hollie]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

The ramifications of the first principles of logic, reason and rationality tell us that vacuous claims under the burqa of “... because I say so”, appeal only to the ramifications of the first principles of nonsense claims without support.

The most basic precept of the ramifications of the first principle of a positive claim is that that the asserter of a positive claim is required to support such assertion.

The first principle of the ramification of accepting unsupported claims is that any claim, no matter how outlandish, can be given credibility when no credibility is warranted.

 

[Asclepias]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications. But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded. That's ridiculous.

I say its long winded because the explanation complicates something that isnt complicated. Einstein always said....

 

[alang1216]

It is manifest from the ramifications of the imperatives of logic, mathematics, ontology and cosmological physics that the Universe (or physical world) began to exist in the finite past. The only rational explanation for its existence per the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation is God. Though it's not the most important miracle relative to man's redemption, the existence of the Universe itself is the greatest miracle, i.e., the greatest display of God's existence.

So the universe can't be eternal so must have a cause but God can be eternal so doesn't have a cause. You are defining your reality without evidence. Where was God before the universe? All of what you believe about God comes from the OT & NT so, theologically speaking, directly from God himself. Even if God is the Creator why is he a trustworthy source? Because he says so? Maybe he is mistaken and a Creator made him?

I cannot and do not add anything to the accounts. I simply see what is in the accounts. I'm not the one reading things into them that aren't there, i.e., that only one, two, three or at least five women went to the tomb. That is not what the accounts tell us, not even close. John's and Luke's accounts absolutely correspond in terms of those mentioned by name and the plurality of the women who went to the tomb. Matthew and Mark's accounts merely concentrate on the women mentioned by name as these are the women who, alternately, related the matter to them personally. That's all. They too were aware that there were others. Still concentrating on the number of women who went to the tomb according to the four accounts, there simply is no contradiction, and the matter is strictly narrative, not theological.

So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.

It seems hardly surprising that over the centuries those that recited the oral accounts and those that wrote them down did the same.

What is this about centuries? All of the Gospels were written in the first century.

We can only assume they were written then since our oldest Biblical text fragments date to the 2nd century. These fragments we have don't match exactly with other fragments leading scholars, not just Ehrman, to believe the texts have been changed over time. It is likely that Mark 16:9-20, coincidently covering the resurrection, is such an addition.

 

[Ringtone]

No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation. The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings. The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans. LOL!

They are not competitors. They're not even in the same ballpark.

The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.

Actually, there are indeed, no first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics which support magic and supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism. My apprehension in addressing your appeals to magic and supernaturalism is that you have a rather stunted ability to separate reason and rationality from your worldview of fear, paranoia and superstition. Although your "faith" in magic and supernaturalism is certainly not a child's tale, since it is held by many adults, has been fabricated by adults, and is utilized by adults to justify adult behavior of the most serious consequence.

I also only label it as "magical" when you actually do appeal to magic as the answer to otherwise reasonable questions.

So... rather than considering your faith a magical child's tale, I consider it a very adult rank. The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

False! Christianity asserts no such stupid thing. Accordingly, God is both apprehendable and knowable. He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds. How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?

Well now, that is interesting. You are claiming that the gods not being comprehendible by finite minds would imply that infinite minds can comprehend the gods. As we are told that the only the gods possess the infinite attribute, we are left to presume then that only the infinite minds of the gods can comprehend the infinite minds of the gods. As is the case with most religionists, you have taken that typical slippery slope and assigned a list of attributes to your gods and then stumble over your own attempts to make such a ridiculous argument.

What’s mysterious is the propensity of religionists to assign human attributes to an entity they claim is ultimately incomprehensible. Theists are the ones assigning human attributes to these god(s). It's a limit on his nature. Think about it. He exists as a god of love and mercy because you shove him into a human timeline and a human paradigm. You’re making him angry and emotive. Who's basing their conception of god on his/her own philosophical presuppositions? The non-theist? Are you sure?

Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God. The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes. We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.

Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant. God is not an actual infinite. Actual infinities cannot and do not exist. In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence. We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity. God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself. He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways. He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.

It's curious that you claim humans do not assign attributes to your Gods. Who has? Where do the attributes come from? If the gods have assigned attributes to themselves, can you identify how that happened? As it is quite clear from any objective reading of the Bibles, , they are at many times conflicting, self-refuting, internally inconsistent and contradictory. Those are hardly attributes associated with omni-everything gods.. If one takes the time to understand their Bible'ology, one will quickly realize that the gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want.

Yes, the all-knowing, all-seeing gods span time, space, and dimensions.... because you say so, Super.

So, let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist.

Super.

I'm sorry, Hollie, but you continue to prattle nonsense from a perspective, such as it is, regarding observations you don't understand at all. You're a fool, Hollie. I've tried, Hollie. You can't say I didn't, but I cannot speak to you anymore.

 

[Hollie]

No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation. The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings. The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans. LOL!

They are not competitors. They're not even in the same ballpark.

The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.

Actually, there are indeed, no first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics which support magic and supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism. My apprehension in addressing your appeals to magic and supernaturalism is that you have a rather stunted ability to separate reason and rationality from your worldview of fear, paranoia and superstition. Although your "faith" in magic and supernaturalism is certainly not a child's tale, since it is held by many adults, has been fabricated by adults, and is utilized by adults to justify adult behavior of the most serious consequence.

I also only label it as "magical" when you actually do appeal to magic as the answer to otherwise reasonable questions.

So... rather than considering your faith a magical child's tale, I consider it a very adult rank. The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

False! Christianity asserts no such stupid thing. Accordingly, God is both apprehendable and knowable. He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds. How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?

Well now, that is interesting. You are claiming that the gods not being comprehendible by finite minds would imply that infinite minds can comprehend the gods. As we are told that the only the gods possess the infinite attribute, we are left to presume then that only the infinite minds of the gods can comprehend the infinite minds of the gods. As is the case with most religionists, you have taken that typical slippery slope and assigned a list of attributes to your gods and then stumble over your own attempts to make such a ridiculous argument.

What’s mysterious is the propensity of religionists to assign human attributes to an entity they claim is ultimately incomprehensible. Theists are the ones assigning human attributes to these god(s). It's a limit on his nature. Think about it. He exists as a god of love and mercy because you shove him into a human timeline and a human paradigm. You’re making him angry and emotive. Who's basing their conception of god on his/her own philosophical presuppositions? The non-theist? Are you sure?

Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God. The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes. We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.

Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant. God is not an actual infinite. Actual infinities cannot and do not exist. In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence. We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity. God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself. He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways. He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.

It's curious that you claim humans do not assign attributes to your Gods. Who has? Where do the attributes come from? If the gods have assigned attributes to themselves, can you identify how that happened? As it is quite clear from any objective reading of the Bibles, , they are at many times conflicting, self-refuting, internally inconsistent and contradictory. Those are hardly attributes associated with omni-everything gods.. If one takes the time to understand their Bible'ology, one will quickly realize that the gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want.

Yes, the all-knowing, all-seeing gods span time, space, and dimensions.... because you say so, Super.

So, let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist.

Super.

I'm sorry, Hollie, but you continue to prattle nonsense from a perspective, such as it is, regarding observations you don't understand at all. You're a fool, Hollie. I've tried, Hollie. You can't say I didn't, but I cannot speak to you anymore.

The ramifications of the first principle of claims to supernaturalism is that there is no reason to accept such unsupported claims.

The first principle of the ramifications of unsupported claims is that the asserter of such unsupported claims will shuffle off after failing to make a defendable case for supernaturalism.

I can say with confidence you didn’t try to support your claims to gods and supernaturalism because you offered no material, testable or rational evidence.

So no. You didn’t.

 

[Ringtone]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications. But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded. That's ridiculous.

I say its long winded because the explanation complicates something that isnt complicated. Einstein always said....

Nonsense! The OP in a nutshell is this:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

​

Explaining to the average adult, let alone to the average child, what fractals are in the first place and then explaining how they evince God's existence is an immensely more complex endeavor. As for the average child, it's inevitably futile, and to sensible adults it's, indubitably, a long-winded way around—over the mountains and into the woods—to the obvious as compared to the above, which, as I have shown, can be summarized in three sentences.

I know what fractals are and grasp their theological implications. Now explain these things to the others. Be sure to grammatically render the paragraphs of your delineation carefully so as not to overcomplicate what is in fact a relatively complex matter for many.

LOL!