What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (5 Viewers)

DO YOU PLACE YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, BELIEVING THAT HE DIED N ROSE AGAIN AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN?

  • YES

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • No

    Votes: 18 66.7%
  • I ALREADY PLACED MY FAITH IN JESUS & HIS SACRIFICE FOR MY SINS

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • OTHER

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Total voters
    27
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.
These are all theories, none of which are backed by peer reviewed study required to label something as "proof"
Good illustration of what I was saying though, so thanks for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zow
Or maybe more direct to the point. Let's say all the theories you present are accepted as 100% fact. NONE of them prove to us the Christian God exists. None of them prove ANY particular God exists. They just prove we have an incomplete understanding of the universe. Your BELIEF is the answer to those unexplained points is God.
 
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
But the thing you’re questioning says it’s true. Duh. How is that not enough for you?

ETA: With the moderator's appropriate comment posted just after mine, I want to provide a more serious comment hereto because, again, I think this is a poignant example of just how strong the "faith" factor plays in to talking about these sorts of issue. I say this because 15 year old me absolutely would have taken no issue with Paddington's post and would have agreed with it whereas 41 year old me sees the blatant circular logic with Paddington's post to the point where comedy and snark are the natural reactions.

In other words, while this thread has been overwhelming productive all things considered and I'm hopeful that it will continued to be so, I agree with a prior poster (I think it was @IvanKaramazov ) who basically posited upthread that meaningful discussions about "proof" of God's existence and, if so, whether the Bible is H/his word will inevitably fall short. I unfortunately agree because, when factoring in faith, believers v. non-believers are just going to start the discussion coming from two completely "ballparks" and common ground will not be found because of the inherent disagreement over the very basic fundamental principle that starts the discussion will almost certainly never be resolved.
You're not understanding that the post I put regarding Christ being God, was BIBLICAL Evidence meant for those who believe the Scriptures, not necessarily for those who do not. I can prove Christ is God with both Secular AND Biblical evidence. The Resurrection of Christ proves that He is God and many other things. Have you looked at the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ? They aren't Scripture and they aren't written by Believers in Christ, yet they support the Biblical account.
Are you referring to the 2006 article by Dr. Nelson Price?

That is the only title and/or proper noun I could find when I googled the bold. I assume since you capitalized the phrase you are referring to a book title or something?

I'd also note that I'm not so certain that the issue here is whether people believe that there was a guy named Jesus that people followed who claimed to be God and challenged the Pharisees and was crucified around 25 C.E./AD 25. Instead, I think the issue being discussed is whether God actually exists and sent his son - who is also God - to Earth to walk around as human-like and die in order to open the gates of heaven. Respectfully, those are grossly distinct issues.

Personally, I think it is possible if not probable that there was a guy named Jesus and that he was crucified and people wrote about him in the decades following. I think because of his claims and the fact he drew followers he was likely notable and was then naturally written about. To compare him to modern day, he could easily have been a prominent figure like L. Ron Hubbard, Ghandi, Adolf Hitler, or David Koresh (any of whom, for all we know, could be deified in the next few centuries as they were notable figures who annoyed rulers, sparked a following, and have been written extensively about). A historical comparison is Muhammad (who also very probably existed).

So, if the proffer is that the Jesus figure is mentioned in secular writings in the first or second centuries - like by a Pliny the Younger or something - I don't find that surprising and wouldn't argue that it is some evidence that Jesus existed because, again, I find it quite possible that a guy named Jesus existed. I nonetheless don't find it compelling evidence that Jesus is God mainly because it is not compelling evidence that God exists (i.e. that some guy named Jesus claimed to be a son of H/him in 25 C.E.).
1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.
3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.
4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.
7) Yes Dr Nelson Price does list many of the Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ, but not all. The writings of Josephus also talk about Jesus Christ. There are also Early Church Writings that give some history. I am sure there are other writings as well other than those listed by Dr Nelson Price.

Jesus Christ is God.

Jesus, or Joshua, was a very popular name back then. There were also a lot of people claiming to be messiahs (Christs), or chosen by God to rule a kingdom here on earth. So there were a decent number of Jesus Christs roaming around. Was there a person named Jesus who the stories of the Bible are loosely based on? Probably. Were those stories embellished or even made up to enhance Jesus' status as the savior of the Jewish people? Very likely.

Here's a challenge for you. Find a historical record of anyone who was given a proper burial after being crucified by the Romans.
 
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.
These are all theories, none of which are backed by peer reviewed study required to label something as "proof"
Good illustration of what I was saying though, so thanks for that.

Yeah. He keeps using that word (proof), I don't think it means what he thinks it means. The scientific (research) method is quantitative which provides proof. Even then proofs get debunked with time, tech, more research and discovery. The historical (research) method is qualitative. Still subject to rigor and peer review, but being qualitative, proof just isn't realistic.

Still, I find many of the points he makes a little stronger than just compelling. 30 years ago I explained my (born again) belief the same way. So did those 30 years before that and so on. I'm shooting from the hip here, but here's my thoughts on his proofs.

1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.

Agreed. The gang easily found on YouTube and elsewhere claiming Jesus never existed are wrong. The secular writings supporting this are brief but they plainly report this Jesus was a thing, he was executed, and his followers believed he was resurrected and was God. We're talking about less than three or four dozen sentences in the historical texts, but they've passed the sniff test of qualitative rigor and peer review. Jesus lived. Deniers are pseudo-historians.

3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.

Paddington's made this point before. I agreed and believe the prophecy fulfilling life of Christ seems supernatural. Cranks suggested an easier explanation. The documents were... er... amended over the decades, even centuries. There's evidence they were. It's kind of slim in the face of 300 or more fulfillments though. The documents have undergone fierce scrutiny, What's shown to be juking the stats is pretty minimal, but surely begs the question. I'll leave it at that.

4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.

Fiction to some, non-fiction to others. The fiction guys argue these things are scientifically impossible and lack any verifiable evidence. Seems reasonable. The non-fiction guys hold the evidence is the powerful belief of the earliest church builders, many of whom witnessed the living Jesus and relentlessly created this schism in Judaism. As Paddington points out, under extreme persecution they remained undaunted spreading the gospel. It was no small thing to abandon Judaism and embrace a new, mocked and "criminal" religion. Somn big happened. Evidence? Maybe far from convincing, but sure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zow
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.
These are all theories, none of which are backed by peer reviewed study required to label something as "proof"
Good illustration of what I was saying though, so thanks for that.
Is Scientific Law "Peer Reviewed?" Scientific Law says that Matter and Energy cannot exist, yet here we are in violation of it. Science says that Life cannot come from Non Life, yet here we are. Science shows that in order for Darwinian Evolution to be true, there must be an increase in genetic information, yet all mutations are the result of a LOSS of genetic information and an increase in genetic information has never been shown to happen, ever. These are Scientific facts. It takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist. These aren't theories. They are Scientific facts. And there are many more.
 
Or maybe more direct to the point. Let's say all the theories you present are accepted as 100% fact. NONE of them prove to us the Christian God exists. None of them prove ANY particular God exists. They just prove we have an incomplete understanding of the universe. Your BELIEF is the answer to those unexplained points is God.
Those Scientific realities ALONG WITH the Biblical and Historical evidence completes the understanding, but the Atheist refuses to even consider that they might be wrong. That is the issue.
 
Here's a challenge for you. Find a historical record of anyone who was given a proper burial after being crucified by the Romans.

here you go

Additionally, all four gospels mention Arimathea, a rich member of the Sanhedrin, who was a secret follower of Christ, and who'd been waiting for the messiah. He reportedly requested Jesus body from Pilate.

Archeological evidence supports the practice of tomb burials sealed with large stones as common for wealthy Jews. Several such tombs have been uncovered including one of a crucified guy. Discovered in the 60s with a nail in his foot.
 
Last edited:
yet all mutations are the result of a LOSS of genetic information and an increase in genetic information has never been shown to happen, ever.
This is simply not true…. The quickest of google searches will lead you to many sources.

Bottom line….. Mutations can include deletions (loss of DNA), insertions (addition of DNA), substitutions (swapping one nucleotide for another), and duplications (copying a section of DNA).

Paddington. I’m happy you have a strong belief, good for you. But you continue to play fast and loose with words like “proof” and “facts”. It’s not helping your cause and you don’t need to do it.
 
yet all mutations are the result of a LOSS of genetic information and an increase in genetic information has never been shown to happen, ever.
This is simply not true…. The quickest of google searches will lead you to many sources.

Bottom line….. Mutations can include deletions (loss of DNA), insertions (addition of DNA), substitutions (swapping one nucleotide for another), and duplications (copying a section of DNA).

Paddington. I’m happy you have a strong belief, good for you. But you continue to play fast and loose with words like “proof” and “facts”. It’s not helping your cause and you don’t need to do it.
Richard Dawkins Stumped When Asked For An Example Of An Increase In DNA

You Were Saying???


Conclusion: Evolution is Faith Based and the Religion of the Atheist, not backed by the actual evidence. The only Evolution that actually exists is Micro Evolution, Within the Species AKA Lateral Adaptation. Dogs always stay dogs, Cats always stay cats, Horses always stay horses. Variations and breeds within the animal kind, but the missing links are real.
 
Additionally, all four gospels mention Arimathea, a rich member of the Sanhedrin, who was a secret follower of Christ, and who'd been waiting for the messiah. He reportedly requested Jesus body from Pilate.
This is something I didn't know and is a plausible theory.
 
Or maybe more direct to the point. Let's say all the theories you present are accepted as 100% fact. NONE of them prove to us the Christian God exists. None of them prove ANY particular God exists. They just prove we have an incomplete understanding of the universe. Your BELIEF is the answer to those unexplained points is God.
Those Scientific realities ALONG WITH the Biblical and Historical evidence completes the understanding, but the Atheist refuses to even consider that they might be wrong. That is the issue.
Is there anything in the universe that wouldmake you consider admitting god does not exist?
 
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.
These are all theories, none of which are backed by peer reviewed study required to label something as "proof"
Good illustration of what I was saying though, so thanks for that.

Yeah. He keeps using that word (proof), I don't think it means what he thinks it means. The scientific (research) method is quantitative which provides proof. Even then proofs get debunked with time, tech, more research and discovery. The historical (research) method is qualitative. Still subject to rigor and peer review, but being qualitative, proof just isn't realistic.

Still, I find many of the points he makes a little stronger than just compelling. 30 years ago I explained my (born again) belief the same way. So did those 30 years before that and so on. I'm shooting from the hip here, but here's my thoughts on his proofs.

1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.

Agreed. The gang easily found on YouTube and elsewhere claiming Jesus never existed are wrong. The secular writings supporting this are brief but they plainly report this Jesus was a thing, he was executed, and his followers believed he was resurrected and was God. We're talking about less than three or four dozen sentences in the historical texts, but they've passed the sniff test of qualitative rigor and peer review. Jesus lived. Deniers are pseudo-historians.

3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.

Paddington's made this point before. I agreed and believe the prophecy fulfilling life of Christ seems supernatural. Cranks suggested an easier explanation. The documents were... er... amended over the decades, even centuries. There's evidence they were. It's kind of slim in the face of 300 or more fulfillments though. The documents have undergone fierce scrutiny, What's shown to be juking the stats is pretty minimal, but surely begs the question. I'll leave it at that.

4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.

Fiction to some, non-fiction to others. The fiction guys argue these things are scientifically impossible and lack any verifiable evidence. Seems reasonable. The non-fiction guys hold the evidence is the powerful belief of the earliest church builders, many of whom witnessed the living Jesus and relentlessly created this schism in Judaism. As Paddington points out, under extreme persecution they remained undaunted spreading the gospel. It was no small thing to abandon Judaism and embrace a new, mocked and "criminal" religion. Somn big happened. Evidence? Maybe far from convincing, but sure.
I appreciate all the work you put into this. I haven't followed his assertions throughout this thread so I take you at your word with some of these. I was merely commenting on the "this proves God exists" stuff. In today's world with what we know about the universe, that is an unproveable assertion.
 
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.
These are all theories, none of which are backed by peer reviewed study required to label something as "proof"
Good illustration of what I was saying though, so thanks for that.
Is Scientific Law "Peer Reviewed?" Scientific Law says that Matter and Energy cannot exist, yet here we are in violation of it. Science says that Life cannot come from Non Life, yet here we are. Science shows that in order for Darwinian Evolution to be true, there must be an increase in genetic information, yet all mutations are the result of a LOSS of genetic information and an increase in genetic information has never been shown to happen, ever. These are Scientific facts. It takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist. These aren't theories. They are Scientific facts. And there are many more.
Lets say all this is factually true. (It isnt). None of it PROVES the answer to the questions is God. Keep dancing around it, but God is a belief. And you should be completely fine and at peace with that. IMO.
 
And before this gets deflected to some other assertion instead of staying on point, I fully acknowledge the only logical position in this debate is that of the agnostic. It takes belief to be either an Atheist or a theist. Those groups are in the same boat in that regard.
 
Apparently Paddington’s definition of “proof” is, well, different than mine.
This is wise to understand. By scientific standards the word "proof" shouldnt ever be used in these conversations and believers should be completely fine with that. This is a belief system. None of it has to be "proven" as all the beliefs go beyond what evidence requires/allows.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that God exists and that it's the God of the Bible. Scientific Law states that Matter and Energy cannot exist because it's impossible for matter and energy to be created or destroyed, yet here we are in violation of Scientific Law. Scientifically, Abiogenesis, life cannot come from non Life, no Science experiment has ever created Life under even the most ideal and favorable conditions. Irreducible complexity proves that many aspects of the human body could not have evolved because they require to many variables to be in place at once in order for them to work or it would all collapse. Many more things, so, that goes to show that what Christians believe really is supported by the evidence.
These are all theories, none of which are backed by peer reviewed study required to label something as "proof"
Good illustration of what I was saying though, so thanks for that.

Yeah. He keeps using that word (proof), I don't think it means what he thinks it means. The scientific (research) method is quantitative which provides proof. Even then proofs get debunked with time, tech, more research and discovery. The historical (research) method is qualitative. Still subject to rigor and peer review, but being qualitative, proof just isn't realistic.

Still, I find many of the points he makes a little stronger than just compelling. 30 years ago I explained my (born again) belief the same way. So did those 30 years before that and so on. I'm shooting from the hip here, but here's my thoughts on his proofs.

1) The secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ is a Literal person in History.
2) The Secular Writings prove that Jesus Christ existed, died on the Cross and that His followers believed that He is God.

Agreed. The gang easily found on YouTube and elsewhere claiming Jesus never existed are wrong. The secular writings supporting this are brief but they plainly report this Jesus was a thing, he was executed, and his followers believed he was resurrected and was God. We're talking about less than three or four dozen sentences in the historical texts, but they've passed the sniff test of qualitative rigor and peer review. Jesus lived. Deniers are pseudo-historians.

3) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings prove that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 100 prophecies written hundreds of years before His birth, including when He would be born, where He would be born, that He would be rejected by HIs own people. betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would die and that He would rise again.

Paddington's made this point before. I agreed and believe the prophecy fulfilling life of Christ seems supernatural. Cranks suggested an easier explanation. The documents were... er... amended over the decades, even centuries. There's evidence they were. It's kind of slim in the face of 300 or more fulfillments though. The documents have undergone fierce scrutiny, What's shown to be juking the stats is pretty minimal, but surely begs the question. I'll leave it at that.

4) The Eyewitness Biblical Writings affirm that He performed countless miracles, healed the sick, made the lame to walk, walked on water, turned water into wine, made the blind to see, predicted His own death and resurrection and then died and rose again.
5) Had Jesus Christ not really died and rose from the dead, then He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then and there, BUT what we actually see is that there was an explosion of Christianity right AFTER the resurrection.
6) Those who believed in Him were willing to die rather than deny His resurrection. Some might die for a lie, but no one will willingly die for what they know to be a lie, and if Jesus Christ didn't really rise again, then His followers would know that they were dying for what they knew to be a lie. That's why God allowed them to be Martyred I believe to prove it.

Fiction to some, non-fiction to others. The fiction guys argue these things are scientifically impossible and lack any verifiable evidence. Seems reasonable. The non-fiction guys hold the evidence is the powerful belief of the earliest church builders, many of whom witnessed the living Jesus and relentlessly created this schism in Judaism. As Paddington points out, under extreme persecution they remained undaunted spreading the gospel. It was no small thing to abandon Judaism and embrace a new, mocked and "criminal" religion. Somn big happened. Evidence? Maybe far from convincing, but sure.
I appreciate all the work you put into this. I haven't followed his assertions throughout this thread so I take you at your word with some of these. I was merely commenting on the "this proves God exists" stuff. In today's world with what we know about the universe, that is an unproveable assertion.

Thanks but I'm not putting much work into this. I am ever fascinated by the topic. It was in the 90s when I would have gish gallupped my heart out. I'm apostate these days comparatively, I suppose. 14th century Catholics would burn me at the stake or murder me in a crusade.

Strongly agree god or gods can't be proven. I mentioned somewhere here that I find atheism untenable. That's based on, as you say, what we now know about the universe. It's a case for weak deism, nothing more; and I'm in really good company with many of the great brains in modern theoretical physics.
 
Last edited:
And before this gets deflected to some other assertion instead of staying on point, I fully acknowledge the only logical position in this debate is that of the agnostic. It takes belief to be either an Atheist or a theist. Those groups are in the same boat in that regard.
I think you're using a false equivalency here. Having a belief in something means you actively assert something which is not the same as rejecting that assertion. The burden of proof is on the theist. For example, believing that unicorns live in the center of the sun requires an active assertion of a claim, while not believing in those unicorns is simply withholding belief. The former requires justification, whereas the latter does not.
 
And before this gets deflected to some other assertion instead of staying on point, I fully acknowledge the only logical position in this debate is that of the agnostic. It takes belief to be either an Atheist or a theist. Those groups are in the same boat in that regard.
I think you're using a false equivalency here. Having a belief in something means you actively assert something which is not the same as rejecting that assertion. The burden of proof is on the theist. For example, believing that unicorns live in the center of the sun requires an active assertion of a claim, while not believing in those unicorns is simply withholding belief. The former requires justification, whereas the latter does not.
Both theism and atheism wander into the realm of belief. The evidence and facts we have before us only require us to say "there isn't enough info to know one way or the other" When one decides to go beyond that they are in the same boat even if they have opposing beliefs, they are still beliefs.
 
The reality is, "I don't know" should be one of the most frequently used phrases in the world. We probably know about less than 1% of what the universe is and what it holds, but let's be generous and say we know 10%

That leaves 90% unknown. For all we know, unicorns do exist and they have made the sun their home. That scenario could easily be in the 90% we haven't learned about.
 
The reality is, "I don't know" should be one of the most frequently used phrases in the world. We probably know about less than 1% of what the universe is and what it holds, but let's be generous and say we know 10%

That leaves 90% unknown. For all we know, unicorns do exist and they have made the sun their home. That scenario could easily be in the 90% we haven't learned about.
“I’m an atheist” is not mutually exclusive to “I don’t know”.
 
That leaves 90% unknown. For all we know, unicorns do exist and they have made the sun their home. That scenario could easily be in the 90% we haven't learned about.
Sure, but which belief do you take more seriously: One that believes there are unicorns or one that doesn't? It feels like you're trying to equate the two.
 
The reality is, "I don't know" should be one of the most frequently used phrases in the world. We probably know about less than 1% of what the universe is and what it holds, but let's be generous and say we know 10%

That leaves 90% unknown. For all we know, unicorns do exist and they have made the sun their home. That scenario could easily be in the 90% we haven't learned about.
“I’m an atheist” is not mutually exclusive to “I don’t know”.
For the most part it is. I don't know is agnostic. I see people wanted to define Atheist this way all the time but I'm not sure why when the concept of agnostic exists.
 
That leaves 90% unknown. For all we know, unicorns do exist and they have made the sun their home. That scenario could easily be in the 90% we haven't learned about.
Sure, but which belief do you take more seriously: One that believes there are unicorns or one that doesn't? It feels like you're trying to equate the two.
I'm not equating anything other than to say both are positions beyond what the evidence requires. You can assign degree of likelihood/craziness whatever criteria you want to distinguish them within that bucket, but they are in the same bucket. Hopefully that is clearer.

We as people really seem uncomfortable with not being real about how much the collective actually knows about the universe and what could possibly exist in that unknown.
 
Alex O'Connor's fact check

Ultimately AO's issue with WH's interview lies in the confidence in which he speaks.
When I first heard Huff say Isaiah matched word for word, I thought, “Uh oh, why did you say it that way. Someone is going to jump all over that.” It will be interesting to see if Huff responds.
I'd love if he accepted AO's invite. Both are really well read and spoken.
 
For the most part it is. I don't know is agnostic. I see people wanted to define Atheist this way all the time but I'm not sure why when the concept of agnostic exists.
As was discussed in the religious affiliation thread, people either aren't aware that agnosticism and atheism answer different questions or they're not ready to accept the negative perception that goes with being atheist.
 
Alex O'Connor's fact check

Ultimately AO's issue with WH's interview lies in the confidence in which he speaks.
When I first heard Huff say Isaiah matched word for word, I thought, “Uh oh, why did you say it that way. Someone is going to jump all over that.” It will be interesting to see if Huff responds.
I'd love if he accepted AO's invite. Both are really well read and spoken.
Yeah, that could be interesting. But I think it could be kind of weird since they are both in different fields. Alex will want to have a philosophical discussion and Wes will be better at just talking about language and manuscript evidence. But Alex probably would be a good person to push back on a phrase like “word for word” and get Wes to explain what he means.
 
For the most part it is. I don't know is agnostic. I see people wanted to define Atheist this way all the time but I'm not sure why when the concept of agnostic exists.
As was discussed in the religious affiliation thread, people either aren't aware that agnosticism and atheism answer different questions or they're not ready to accept the negative perception that goes with being atheist.
Perhaps. I've really not put any thought into the motivation. This could be spot on. It could also be that they don't want to be seen merely as the other side of the coin they argue so fervently over. Perhaps that's also what you're saying here.
 
Richard Dawkins Stumped When Asked For An Example Of An Increase In DNA

You Were Saying???
So 1 random clip from 1 person from 14 yrs ago (who knows how long before that it was actually taped) struggling to answer a question off the top of his head is your proof? You’re only making my point with this.

Look, I’m in no way attempting to change your mind on the subject. As I’ve said many times in this thread, I have no interest in doing that. I’m simply trying to point out how you can be more effective in your attempts to try and convert nonbelievers. It’s not with making statements of “proof” and “facts” (no matter how much you believe they are) that are neither. @Sparky Polastri has done a fantastic job of breaking down proof vs belief. You should really listen to him if you want to have any real success at achieving your goal. I say this with all the best intentions Paddington. Think about being effective, not about proving you’re right in what you believe.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe more direct to the point. Let's say all the theories you present are accepted as 100% fact. NONE of them prove to us the Christian God exists. None of them prove ANY particular God exists. They just prove we have an incomplete understanding of the universe. Your BELIEF is the answer to those unexplained points is God.
Those Scientific realities ALONG WITH the Biblical and Historical evidence completes the understanding, but the Atheist refuses to even consider that they might be wrong. That is the issue.
Is there anything in the universe that wouldmake you consider admitting god does not exist?
No, because I KNOW God. I have a real relationship with God. I have seen true miracles in my family. God has spoken to me and directed me in very serious situations. I know about over 100 prophecies of Jesus written before His birth that came true in His actual life, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, ect. I know the Scientific evidence that proves that there is no way that matter and energy can exist on their own and that life can come from nothing. Darwinian Evolution is impossible. I know too much to consider that God does not exist. God is real whether you believe it or not.
 
Ah shucks. I can't take the credit. My old man has taught me from an early age that your beliefs are yours and they are based on experiences unique to you. Others often can't and won't understand and we need to be comfortable with that. All we can do is live the example in hopes that people notice and engage in a genuine way. I've never seen the approach this guy is using work in any consistent way to bring people closer to Christ if that's the goal. But if I am being completely honest, I'm not really sure that's his goal.
Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we are all accountable to God for what we believe. It's not my job to force anyone to believe, but it is my job to tell people the truth and let them decide. Also, to discuss and answer questions. I have seen many come to Christ, but usually those who respond to these posts tend to be non believers. Yes it is my goal, to bring people closer to Christ more importantly, to Salvation.
 
Ah shucks. I can't take the credit. My old man has taught me from an early age that your beliefs are yours and they are based on experiences unique to you. Others often can't and won't understand and we need to be comfortable with that. All we can do is live the example in hopes that people notice and engage in a genuine way. I've never seen the approach this guy is using work in any consistent way to bring people closer to Christ if that's the goal. But if I am being completely honest, I'm not really sure that's his goal.
Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we are all accountable to God for what we believe. It's not my job to force anyone to believe, but it is my job to tell people the truth and let them decide. Also, to discuss and answer questions. I have seen many come to Christ, but usually those who respond to these posts tend to be non believers. Yes it is my goal, to bring people closer to Christ more importantly, to Salvation.
You can't force people to believe. It's impossible. And people don't move closer to Christ unless they themselves decide to. This is lost on a lot of people. Understanding one's gifts and using them in a way to get people to notice that something different will always be one of the most effective ways to engage those with genuine curiosity.

This is probably why Jesus suggested the approach over lecturing people. Didn't go so well in the OT.
 
Day of mixed emotions. About 100 of us stood on stage & received our commission today to leave our current church to go plant a new church in downtown Brooklyn.

Sad to be leaving our downtown Manhattan church where we have formed deep friendships. We've been planning this for over a year, but still difficult to say goodbyes.

For the next 8 weeks we'll be meeting on our own in a sanctuary we have leased from St Francis College. During this time we'll be decided how we wish to worship, working out details & logistics for the children's ministry, developing leaders, and collectively studying this book:

Gospel in Life: grace changes everything

First service will be March 16.



Been marinating in this Psalm lately...

Psalm 115​

1 Not to us, Lord, not to us
but to your name be the glory,
because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
“Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
made by human hands.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but cannot see.
6 They have ears, but cannot hear,
noses, but cannot smell.
7 They have hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but cannot walk,
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them.
9 All you Israelites, trust in the Lord—
he is their help and shield.
10 House of Aaron, trust in the Lord—
he is their help and shield.
11 You who fear him, trust in the Lord—
he is their help and shield.
12 The Lord remembers us and will bless us:
He will bless his people Israel,
he will bless the house of Aaron,
13 he will bless those who fear the Lord—
small and great alike.

14 May the Lord cause you to flourish,
both you and your children.
15 May you be blessed by the Lord,
the Maker of heaven and earth.

16 The highest heavens belong to the Lord,
but the earth he has given to mankind.
17 It is not the dead who praise the Lord,
those who go down to the place of silence;
18 it is we who extol the Lord,
both now and forevermore.


Praise the Lord.
 
Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we are all accountable to God for what we believe. It's not my job to force anyone to believe, but it is my job to tell people the truth and let them decide. Also, to discuss and answer questions. I have seen many come to Christ, but usually those who respond to these posts tend to be non believers. Yes it is my goal, to bring people closer to Christ more importantly, to Salvation.
Some tips
 
Ah shucks. I can't take the credit. My old man has taught me from an early age that your beliefs are yours and they are based on experiences unique to you. Others often can't and won't understand and we need to be comfortable with that. All we can do is live the example in hopes that people notice and engage in a genuine way. I've never seen the approach this guy is using work in any consistent way to bring people closer to Christ if that's the goal. But if I am being completely honest, I'm not really sure that's his goal.
Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we are all accountable to God for what we believe. It's not my job to force anyone to believe, but it is my job to tell people the truth and let them decide. Also, to discuss and answer questions. I have seen many come to Christ, but usually those who respond to these posts tend to be non believers. Yes it is my goal, to bring people closer to Christ more importantly, to Salvation.
You can't force people to believe. It's impossible. And people don't move closer to Christ unless they themselves decide to. This is lost on a lot of people. Understanding one's gifts and using them in a way to get people to notice that something different will always be one of the most effective ways to engage those with genuine curiosity.

This is probably why Jesus suggested the approach over lecturing people. Didn't go so well in the OT.
You can't force people not to believe. It's impossible. And people don't reject Christ unless they themselves decide not to. This is important to a lot of people. Understanding that it's not my job to lead people to Christ by force, it's my job to inform people of the truth and let them decide is the best way to engage those with genuine curiosity. This is why Jesus told people the truth and warned them of what would happen if they didn't place their Faith in Him for Salvation. Jesus and the Disciples were killed for doing exactly what I am doing because people rejected the message of of the Gospel. Glad to know that this is the way that Jesus and the Disciples did it.
 
Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we are all accountable to God for what we believe. It's not my job to force anyone to believe, but it is my job to tell people the truth and let them decide. Also, to discuss and answer questions. I have seen many come to Christ, but usually those who respond to these posts tend to be non believers. Yes it is my goal, to bring people closer to Christ more importantly, to Salvation.
Some tips
How do you know what my calling from God is unless you are God? Everyone is called to share the Gospel, but some are gifted to do so. isn't it interesting that those who don't want to hear the Gospel are now deciding who is called to share it and who isn't. I will continue to share it.
 
Ah shucks. I can't take the credit. My old man has taught me from an early age that your beliefs are yours and they are based on experiences unique to you. Others often can't and won't understand and we need to be comfortable with that. All we can do is live the example in hopes that people notice and engage in a genuine way. I've never seen the approach this guy is using work in any consistent way to bring people closer to Christ if that's the goal. But if I am being completely honest, I'm not really sure that's his goal.
Well, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but we are all accountable to God for what we believe. It's not my job to force anyone to believe, but it is my job to tell people the truth and let them decide. Also, to discuss and answer questions. I have seen many come to Christ, but usually those who respond to these posts tend to be non believers. Yes it is my goal, to bring people closer to Christ more importantly, to Salvation.
You can't force people to believe. It's impossible. And people don't move closer to Christ unless they themselves decide to. This is lost on a lot of people. Understanding one's gifts and using them in a way to get people to notice that something different will always be one of the most effective ways to engage those with genuine curiosity.

This is probably why Jesus suggested the approach over lecturing people. Didn't go so well in the OT.
You can't force people not to believe. It's impossible. And people don't reject Christ unless they themselves decide not to. This is important to a lot of people. Understanding that it's not my job to lead people to Christ by force, it's my job to inform people of the truth and let them decide is the best way to engage those with genuine curiosity. This is why Jesus told people the truth and warned them of what would happen if they didn't place their Faith in Him for Salvation. Jesus and the Disciples were killed for doing exactly what I am doing because people rejected the message of of the Gospel. Glad to know that this is the way that Jesus and the Disciples did it.
I'm sure you feel like you're making some sort of point. I just don't know what it is. All I can tell you is Jesus would never take the approach you are here. He was very much in the "lead by example" camp
 
A belief is not a truth no matter how many times you say it is. Truth is factual and can be proven, while a belief is something someone holds (hopes) to be true, even without evidence to support it.
 
Or maybe more direct to the point. Let's say all the theories you present are accepted as 100% fact. NONE of them prove to us the Christian God exists. None of them prove ANY particular God exists. They just prove we have an incomplete understanding of the universe. Your BELIEF is the answer to those unexplained points is God.
Those Scientific realities ALONG WITH the Biblical and Historical evidence completes the understanding, but the Atheist refuses to even consider that they might be wrong. That is the issue.
Is there anything in the universe that wouldmake you consider admitting god does not exist?
No, because I KNOW God. I have a real relationship with God. I have seen true miracles in my family. God has spoken to me and directed me in very serious situations. I know about over 100 prophecies of Jesus written before His birth that came true in His actual life, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, ect. I know the Scientific evidence that proves that there is no way that matter and energy can exist on their own and that life can come from nothing. Darwinian Evolution is impossible. I know too much to consider that God does not exist. God is real whether you believe it or not.
And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
 
And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
In fairness, Paddington cited things he feels are evidence. If there is literally a voice in his head that is God, he wouldn't be able to prove it to you but it's evidence of God for him. The problem I have is that it's likely inconsistent with what he would allow as evidence for another version of God. There are billions of people on this planet just as convinced they know the true God and will point to different religious texts as evidence. My guess is Paddington would say they're worshipping a false god and only the Judeo-Christian god is the real God. IMO, that's an extremely arrogant and narrow minded position.
 
And this is where the intellectual honesty bares itself. If you ask an atheist/agnostic the same question, the answer would be EVIDENCE. It is clear that you are married to your belief regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
IMO, that's an extremely arrogant and narrow minded position.
You can say that about any cult

You could.

Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
 
Do you think mainstream Christianity is a cult?
There are multiple definition of the word cult. Mainstream Christianity, and any religion would fit the most basic definition - "worship".

But in the modern context I don't think most Christian churches try to isolate you from friends and family, diminish the meaning of family, etc. to promote an exaggerated loyalty to a leader or leaders. Most aren't all that authoritarian, though I guess we can debate on the degree that particular groups allow beliefs to be really questioned, though I wouldn't be a church member if there were no churches that allowed questioning of the faith. While I think this definition requires a "no" answer, I have known those that went to supposedly mainstream Christian churches where many (even all of) these things were certainly present.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top