These are miracles. I am talking about evidence of god through science. You are talking about the flood now?
First you wanted evidence now you don't?
Stop dancing around and just tell me what you believe as a theist: God is (A) accepted on faith alone. Or (B) accepted by evidence.
Tell me, did it take faith for Moses to believe God on Mt Sinai?
Yes.
Tell me, what did God tell him to do?
The (work) Moses was given was to return to Egypt, to free the tribes of Israel, Right?
Tell me (would you or any rationalist) having been a former prince of Egypt, return to the land from where you fled under a murder charge?
Who might be safe under his father's care, but hardly safe from his brother who now had all authority in Egypt?
Wouldn't this brother more than likely kill you as a threat to his throne or not?
Tell me would just believing God get you anything without going?
And isn't going to Egypt a death sentence?
So how can faith not go hand in hand with works?
If bush all of a sudden decided he was going to become an Iraqi citizen what would the chance of him surviving there a week be?
I'm sure the odds would be infinite, don't you THINK?
But arrogance is OK if it comes from religious people. I sure wish most theists of the world would take that approach...
Arrogance is one thing, confidence is another, and since you didn't include my story. (You obviously didn't understand with your Heart (feelings) instead of your mind (mouth). Well maybe you need to consider taking your own advice also, which isn't just saying so, its doing it. Or maybe wishing for it will help, sounds scientific!
Before God we are all equally wise and equally foolish. - Albert Einstein
By the way, Einsteins god was more akin to the order of the universe, not any god from any religion.
Or so you say, yet he was friends with Velikovsky who was a Jew also, who used myth to prove the Old Testament. I suspect theres more to his faith than meets the eye. And since you and I aren't God and can't judge his heart, we just don't know? Do We!
There is evidence that Jesus lived, but I don't see any evidence of Jesus being what the bible claims him to be. Basically,
if you believe the bibles claims of Jesus, you return to faith because there is still no tangible evidence of the miraculous.
Well, history proves a whole lot of other people believed! How am I to know Caesar was Emperor or even that Kennedy was President then?
The Bottom line is the Bible has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability, more than any book on the face of the earth.
It has no evidence to support its miraculous claims, you are talking about this:
Well, I'd say that rising from the dead constitutes a proof of miracles. If you were a Roman soldier guarding his tomb, it would be the death penalty for ya, a pretty heavy price for a conspiracy wouldn't you say? No you are talking about this, but you want proof! Of miracles your say, you can't test, and then won't believe, well here!
Ezekial Chapter 1
-----------------
And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire enfolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man. And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings. And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the color of burnished brass. And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings. Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies. And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went. As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the color of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of a host: when they stood, they let down their wings. And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the color of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spoke.
Now you and your science couldn't describe to me, what Ezekial saw, anymore than I could have a descent conversation with you, could I?
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible. The scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts (A.D. 900). The significance is that when compared, manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same, indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission. The two copies of Isaiah proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."
That it was transmitted accurately is old news, and not evidence of the bibles claims. I know how stringent the writers and copyers of the bible were. If only they were so concerned about evidence supporting the claims of the book.
Well doesn't the fact that it was transmitted acurately show proof? How are you suppose to show proof after 1000's of years? Even the Shroud of Turin which science debunked has stood back on its feet and proved that it was the same time period, had genera from the geo-region, had the same blood type on it as the Mandylion. Yet science still hasn't convinced me to my mind, my scienctific mind, how the image could have formed on the shroud?
Yea, yea yea. Circle of life and all that non-sense. Each living and dying contributes to the ecology of the planet, So what?
You claimed that arrogance causes man to seek immortality. I told you that there are those who accept death. I don't know why you brought up ecology.
Well, don't dying organisms contribute to the organic matter in the soil? Food for scavengers? You really know nuthing about the Circle of Life do you Haha, what a Joke!!!
And subscribes more to a FAITH in a belief system you have, than countering any objection to evidence of God. Which only strengthens my position, and assumes any position I take is biased and false.
You are the one subscribing to faith here. There being atheists who accept death has nothing to do with a faith. That is not faith, but an attitude.
Well, I got agree with you and me here!
Well, I didn't say that they did?
You won't say which position you hold to.
To say it can't be both is an oxymoron.
To say it cannot it cannot be both is simple reasoning. (A) precludes (B). (B) precludes (A). Therefore, only one can be correct.
Seriously, answer me. Must god be accepted by faith alone, or does one believe in god based on evidence?
If the first one, there is no evidence of god because god apparently desires that people believe by faith alone.
If the latter is true then there is evidence of god, and one can accept that god exists based on said evidence, making faith unneeded.
Well if the 2nd question didn't answer this, or have any more objections? reasonable ones, and preferable without shouting or using a demeaning tone then no. Few people are capable of expressing with equity opinions which differ from there own prejudices. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions. - Albert Einstein
Why is my position important to you, for all you know I maybe an atheist.
Your position is important because if you are a theist, I am asking you to take a position of two in which only one can be true. If you are a theist of the kind I typically converse with, then I am certain you will not choose either because to choose one and deny the other would upset what you believe and you would then realize that you believe in two contradictory things. A non-theist would realize that belief in a god requires one or the other and would try to determine which is correct, or would determine that god perhaps does not exist. The non-theist in my experience prefers to find out what is true in order to form a right worldview, as opposed to defending a pre-conceived worldview. I would predict non-theist if you behaved in that way. You have performed exactly as I predicted, as I find a theist would and often does. I deduce that you are a theist.
For One, I don't like being called a theist, Two I'm the only one here brave enough to answer your petty questions. Like I said I choose both, and both are correct as you can see! All paths lead to God, except the one that leads to Hell (which means Grave)! Well, If scientists are so smart why haven't they found God yet? In the spirit of Horse Racing, don't count your bets to soon!
Well, if you don't believe, all the evidence in the world won't matter right?
Just the opposite! If you do not bring pre-conceived belief to the table, then the evidence does matter because you are free to determine what is correct! You can use what works, not what you believe.
Sorry, as much as you think I have pre-conceived beliefs, you are as equally endowed with them!
Reasoning ..... The chicken precludes the egg right? ....... I still have nothing to the contrary.
Well I suppose if you wouldn't look for any evidence, or study the paradox at all, then you never would?
I don't need to study the paradox it's solved, Aristotle stated this over 2000 years ago!
Well, some philosophers say it isn't and just an extension of a universal consciousness. Not really perception is the same externally or internally. It just depends if its materalistic or not.
And how do we know if the universe is really external, or whether we are plugged into the matrix and the like? We do not ultimately know.
However, I will still choose to go with what works. If perception is of a material brain or a supernatural soul ultimately, what appears to work is unchanged. What appears to be still appears to be. I do not find any evidence of a soul, so I do not assume there is one. I could come to an answer I would accept, but there is no point. As I could easily be wrong regardless and there is no apparent effect.
Blah, blah ... Supernatural in the Bible means more natural, Meaning a spiritual body is what God intended for us to be. He said it, I believe, I work for it, your authority doesn't work for me and proves nothing. Other than you wish to put the creature above the CREATOR!
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein
I am certain of the latter.
Yea thats what Einstein said, correct.
