Dear Christians,

[The Silent One]

One Question I do have is , what independant authentication do you have that God does not exist?

Outside of a bunch of people saying he does not exist, because that can be matched by as many people saying he does Exist.

 

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This makes no sense. You're not required to prove non-existence, non-existence is the neutral state.

 

Someone in China could say I don't exist, and until presented with proof I do, wouldn't have to accept anything to the contrary. I'll say this once, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE NON-EXISTENCE.

[Antlerman]

I think you would have to dis proove your own conciencness or awareness if you like, to proove that God does not exist.

 

Where does that awareness come from?

 

Then there is that full range of emotions that we all have that is also not physical.

 

Lots to explain away eh!

 

Peace

What are you talking about? I don't need to prove the God does not exist. I am stating the obvious. There is no invisible snork on your shoulder. If you say there is an invisible snork, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one making a fantastical claim and offer no proof whatsoever, other than your lack of knowledge.

 

Do you think there is no other explanation for awareness than a magical genie? I suspect you don't want to understand where it comes from. You want to keep yourself lacking explanations for things so you can fill it with your God belief.

[Checkmate]

Why is the Burden of Proof aspect always lost on Christians? Or are they being deliberately obtuse?

[Ouroboros]

I think you would have to dis proove your own conciencness or awareness if you like, to proove that God does not exist.

 

Where does that awareness come from?

The illusion of the meme machine, called the brain. Your consciousness is a result of the complex "software" running in the gray mass inside your skull. I can see and understand this concept, but it takes a person that can break free from the bondage of religion and supernatural explanations, to get it.

 

Then there is that full range of emotions that we all have that is also not physical.

No, but emotions can be redirected, manipulated and initiated with chemicals and other methods. Which proves the emotions are the result of the physical. It depends on it, and is not separate.

 

Lots to explain away eh!

I know it's a difficult subject to understand, and very hard to explain. It requires that you open your mind to new thoughts, and that's the biggest challenge.

 

Peace

Apple pie.

[MQTA]

One Question I do have is , what independant authentication do you have that God does not exist?

Outside of a bunch of people saying he does not exist, because that can be matched by as many people saying he does Exist.

 

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Whether or not God exists has nothing to do with all the beliefs one may have about God. Where is God saying HELLO? Only in ones imagination. Where is HE? HELLO? Anyone home?

[MQTA]

Why is the Burden of Proof aspect always lost on Christians?  Or are they being deliberately obtuse?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do they care about what anyone else believes anyway? Just stick to your own group of like believers and leave everyone else ALONE.

[Antlerman]

Why is the Burden of Proof aspect always lost on Christians?  Or are they being deliberately obtuse?

Exactly what I'm saying. Razor and those like him are throwing sand into their own eyes as an act of desperation to be able to hang onto their beliefs. We need to hold Razor to this, specifically why he thinks we have to disprove God, UFO's, or any other fairy tales people create. The burden of proof lies with them alone.

 

It is as stupid as looking up into the sky and saying there's a blue elephant up there, us saying no there's not, then Razor responding, "You can't prove there isn't." That's just stupid. We shouldn't let him wiggle out of this.

[pug]

Not so sure that the universe had to have a beginning.  IIRC Hawking was working on a zero-boundary condition universe, one that did not need a starting big bang.  Not sure whatever became of that line of work, though. 

 

As far as the Isrealites and Egypt, how come there is no famous writing about the slaves leaving or the sudden death of a Pharoh and his Army (and like any good beuacracy, they wrote down a lot)?  I mean, there should probably be some kind of monument to it at least or some writing on a toomb somewhere, had it happened.

 

As far as Troy and the Illiad (and the Odessy and the Aeneid), there is a ruin that corresponds to Troy at about the time that it should have been sacked as it was in those epics.  Turns out that there were about nine versions of Troy, each building on the ruins of the last and I believe the one that corresponds to that story is VIIb.  Been a while, but this is what I recall from my studies in Latin in HS (it came up as we did some serious work with the Aeneid).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

 

This paper has shown that most of the ancient writers equated the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC Most ancient writers put the Jews in Egypt for 215 years or less.

 

According to most ancient writers the 430 years in Egypt was taken to start with the promise to Abraham, and the 400 years from the birth of Isaac.

 

Others begin these years with Abraham's entry into Canaan. All of the ancient Jewish and Christian writers considered in this paper took the 430 or 400 years to cover the time in Egypt as well as Canaan. Biblical writers also agree with these ancient traditions, and the archaeological evidence reinforces these views.

[pug]

Nevertheless, many individuals have advanced interesting theories. One good example is the Tempest & Exodus by Ralph Ellis, which focuses on the founder of the New Kingdom, Ahmose.

 

Others site interesting theories surrounding the reign of Akhenaten, while some cite evidence of the Exodus such as chariot wheels that have been discovered in the Red Sea.

 

While Ralph Ellis's account has some merit, chariot wheels in the Red Sea prove nothing.

 

In the final analysis from the information we have today, it is quite possible that an exodus did take place, though the Biblical account of it may be embellished with fictional details.

 

Perhaps someday there might be found real proof of this historical event, but for the time being, the Biblical account lacks any real grounding in the Archaeological record.

 

 

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm

[pug]

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html

 

Then again:

 

In light of modern day archaeological capabilities, the Exodus story has to be highly suspect when after so many years of repeated archaeological surveys using the latest scientifically advanced equipment and techniques in all regions of the peninsula including the mountainous area around Mt. Sinai, provides not a single archaeological artifact, not a single sherd, or not a trace of a campsite from the alleged 2,000,000 Israelites wandering 40 years in the desert.

 

http://www1.minn.net/~nup/Exodus.htm

 

[diggin]

There is no archaeological evidence of a flood

 

AO Hudson: "Braidwood and How, 1948/51, made some discoverises at Qalal Jarmo and Karim Shahir about 80 miles distant from the settlements mentioned above [referring to mountainside settlements above a salt marsh in Iraq] in the headwaters of the Kiyala river system. This must have been the type of life of the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Noah to perhaps the fourth generation. The lowest levels show evidence that the villagers lived on wilde wheat and barley, berries and fruits and the flesh of wild sheep, goats, adn pigs. Then come the indications of agriculture and stock-breeding. Braidwood records (Prehistoric investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, 1966) 'The Kurdistan foothills are the original source of the earliest village farming in the world... This is a major landmark in human history ... Nowhere ele in the world were the wild wheat and barley, the wild sheep, goats, pigs, callte and horses to be found together in a natural environment. This meant an entirely new way of life for all mankind.' This was said, of course, upon the popular assumption that mankind evolved from a long continued state of primitive savagery to the point wehre they began to cultivate plants and breed animals for themselves. The Genesis story contradicts this; the eight who survived the flood were already civilized and knowledgeable and all the evidence is that they were brought out of the ark and into the new earth ... in a locality where they could readily commence to apply the skills they already possesed, and after perhaps a relatively limited number of yeras begin to reap their own harvest and make use of their own flocks and herds. Potery at first was unknown; domestic vessels were made of wood but even the earliest ones were perfectly round as if turned on a lathe. The finest specifmen of a wooden egg cup ever known comes from a house which must date to the time of Noah's grandsons. Stone was worked to produce bowls and tools. No village has been found to exceed twenty to twenty-five houses, bu there are always six or seven rooms which would seem to indicate large families; this would beessential to the rapid increase of the reace from three pincipal forebears." - Bible Study Monthly, May/June, 2005, p 57-60.

 

 

You are evidentially referring to the Mitochondrial Eve, she was not 2000 years ago (why do Christians always attempt to warp their info, don’t they think we can read and research) but rather 150,000 (a bit before the supposed flood)  the single common male ancestor was relatively recent 45,000 years ago.  If you are wanting to refer to the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) then you are referring only to a mathematical construct, the same science that proved Bumble bees can’t fly.

 

Correct. Not everyone agrees with the length of time you cite... I'll send more info when I get it.

I did not say 2000 years ago, though. And I am NOT a young earth creationist. I agree with the evidence of a Big Bang 13.6 Billion years ago, etc. At the moment I am still persuaded that the special creation of man occurred about 6000 years ago, but have no problem with a more ancient age for the various hominids.

 

I wouldn’t take the word of a document that was formulated around 560 BCE, by YHWHist priests to support the Temple state that the Persians had given Ezra permission to found.

 

Does this mean if it could be proven that the Torah is older than this, it would arrest your attention slightly?

 

I believe that mankind has this built in love of his fellow man,

 

You've got more faith than me, man!

 

Seriously, I think that if we only look at human history, evolution is a better predictor and explainer of what has transpired geopolitically than the mainstream Christian view that God is good but man messed things up, and it's man's fault.

[diggin]

You are evidentially referring to the Mitochondrial Eve, she was not 2000 years ago (why do Christians always attempt to warp their info, don’t they think we can read and research) but rather 150,000 (a bit before the supposed flood)  the single common male ancestor was relatively recent 45,000 years ago.  If you are wanting to refer to the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) then you are referring only to a mathematical construct, the same science that proved Bumble bees can’t fly.

 

This from a friend who reads the periodicals in question:

 

Parsons gave 6,500 years ago: Thomas J. Parsons, "A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region;" Nature Genetics 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367.  Howell is consistent with that.  N. Howell, I. Kubacka, D.A. Mackey, "How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve?;" Am. J. Hum. Genet. 59, 3, Sep. 1996, pp. 501-509.  Ann Gibbons, Science 279, Jan. 1998, p. 28-29, says if the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were constant, mitochondrial Eve would have been 6,000 years ago.  (These estimates are based on measured mutation rates, not on those inferred from an assumed populating of Australia 40,000 years ago, etc.)  [Rohde's paper last year implies from many different computer models that the MRCAs of both genders could be no more than several thousand years ago.] 

 

(back to Diggin writing again) From my other reading I am persuaded that the Bible offers a very tight chronology of 6000 years back to the creation of the man it calls Adam, verifiable with both multiple ancient civilizations and astronomy, and coming forward to 2043 AD. (The Bible does not offer a chronology for the time from the beginning to the end of the first 6 creative "days", when it claims man was created. It just uses the term "day" which Christian researchers such as Hugh Ross demonstrate clearly is metaphorical and does not contravene much scientific evidence of the antiquity of the universe.) Now biologists with no religious axe to grind are finding corroboration of the 6000 year timespan of homo sapiens as we know it from their mitochondrial DNA degeneration calculations.

 

Have you found any evidence that would challenge the veracity of the sources listed above?

 

Now, Hugh Ross writes about Dark Energy, stating that the calculations about it were quite disturbing to the physicist from Case Western who first published on the topic in the last decade. Reason: if his initial findings were true, then the amount of precision that would have been required in the initial balancing of energies at the time of the big bang for our universe as we know it to exist, and for life to be possible at all, would have been an amazingly huge number to 1 -- I forget the actual number but I think Hugh said an exponent of 120.

 

Some of this info is found on Hugh's site, no doubt -- www.reasonstobelieve.org

I don't endorse everything Hugh thinks about theology, but he is a published astronomer, a Ph.D. with credentials that seem adequate, who is convinced the Bible is unique among ancient writings in confirming the latest discoveries of astronomy... and he has encountered lots of opposition from the same folks you and I find ridiculous, Heimdall, the young earth creationists.

I'm currently reading his latest book "A Matter of Days" which is quite good at exposing the witch hunt mentality of young earth creationists.

 

Anyway, I'm out of time for a week or so but if you get a chance apply that whizzical, quizical mind of yours to the question of dark energy and whether or not it implies intention on the part of whatever power was involved in the beginning of the universe.

[crazy-tiger]

Now biologists with no religious axe to grind are finding corroboration of the 6000 year timespan of homo sapiens as we know it from their mitochondrial DNA degeneration calculations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but I just have to correct you there...

Now biologists with a religious axe to grind

[Levi]

Hello dear friends. As I've noticed throughout the Christian belief structure, there seems to be a lot of turning to the Bible to prove God. I'd like to explain my thoughts on this, and offer a small challenge.

 

I believe that to accept the Bible as true - and therefore for the proof within it to be accurate, and the 'fulfilled' prophecies within it to be considered anything more than chance and coincidence, we first have to establish its authenticity.

 

This requires 2 things: Proving God exists - and proving that God is the author/inspiration of the Bible. However, 2 authenticate a document - you need an outside source - rather than the document itself.

 

I challenge you therefore, to provide me with non-biblical evidences, recordings and proof that 1) God exists (if this is proving to dificult for you, you may ignore this point, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically accept God's existing a priori.) 2) He is the Christian God, and the Bible is his inspired word.

 

The conditions of this are as such: The Bible is not to be used, or referenced as a source. No scriptures, no prophecies, nothing from the Bible.

 

I eagerly look forward to any information you can provide me with.

 

Thank you, TSO

 

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

non-biblical evidence is provided by Ron Wyatt archaeologist.

 

Download videos and audios here:

 

Please visit: www.arkdiscovery.com

 

 

Cheers,

 

Levi.

[Mythra]

Here is an article written by a christian, exposing Ron Wyatt as the Con Man and Scam Artist that he is.

 

Thanks anyway, Levi.

 

Try again.

 

Mythra.

 

 

sigh. It was so much easier to fool people before the internet age.

[Sadie]

I'm not going to try and convince you because nothing we Christians say are going to convince you. But for me looking at the complexity of the universe and and the complexity of the human body. How could we just magically appear? In my mind that doesn't make logical sense. In life there is cause and affect. Life as we know it is an affect of something. You can't have a cause without an affect. So if their is no higher being than what are what caused us? What did we come from? And how did every thing come into place under such perfect order?

[crazy-tiger]

I'm not going to try and convince you because nothing we Christians say are going to convince you. But for me looking at the complexity of the universe and and the complexity of the human body. How could we just magically appear? In my mind that doesn't make logical sense.

No, it doesn't... then again, no-one says that we magically appeared

In life there is cause and affect. Life as we know it is an affect of something. You can't have a cause without an affect. So if their is no higher being than what are what caused us? What did we come from? And how did every thing come into place under such perfect order?

What perfect order? The Earth being just the right distance from the sun? That's only perfect for life as it is commonly known... (some life exists under very different conditions)

The environment being just perfect for life? Wrong way around... the environment is dynamic, always changing. Life has adapted to the environment.

 

If there is nothing "higher" than what caused us, then where did it come from? Could it be that the universe has always been here and that there is no "higher" being that caused it? Without being too technical, before the big bang, there was no time... thus there was no "before" the big bang. Essentially, the universe has always been here. (of course, with the lack of time, the cause could very well have been the effect... ie. the big bang caused the big bang. Confusing, isn't it? )

[Checkmate]

No, it doesn't... then again, no-one says that we magically appeared.......

Not true! Christians make this claim every day! Isn't THAT the point of Creationism? "God did it!" God blew his Divine nose and "poof", there it was. Just like "magic". ALL of creation. So easy. So simple. So braindead.

[Checkmate]

I'm not going to try and convince you because nothing we Christians say are going to convince you. But for me....blah, blah, blah....

Why do Christians keep repeating this self-defeating mantra? "I'm not here to convince you, BUT, here I am talking nonsense to you ANYWAY."

 

I mean, for people who AREN'T trying to convince anyone, they surely do give the impression of people who ARE trying to convince everyone!

 

Funny behavior. Seems to me that a "vow of silence" would be more appropriate than constantly offering unsolicited opinions.

[MQTA]

No, it doesn't... then again, no-one says that we magically appeared.......

Not true! Christians make this claim every day! Isn't THAT the point of Creationism? "God did it!" God blew his Divine nose and "poof", there it was. Just like "magic". ALL of creation. So easy. So simple. So braindead.

I always envision a table cloth being spread out... viola... instant Universe

 

I just don't get the leap.. if there were something that created or designed, that's one thing.. but to go from THAT all the way down to this warrior of the OT that talks about Other Gods, how can the claim be just One?

 

Life, the Universe, and Everything, got it's beginnings, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. Existance proves nothing from this point of view. We're here, everything else is subject to personal view

[crazy-tiger]

No, it doesn't... then again, no-one says that we magically appeared.......

Not true! Christians make this claim every day! Isn't THAT the point of Creationism? "God did it!" God blew his Divine nose and "poof", there it was. Just like "magic". ALL of creation. So easy. So simple. So braindead.

I forgot that lot...

 

 

Ok... no-one says we magically appeared except those who believe in Creationism.

[Mythra]

I'm not going to try and convince you because nothing we Christians say are going to convince you. But for me looking at the complexity of the universe and and the complexity of the human body. How could we just magically appear?

 

A god who could create the universe would be infinitely more complex than the universe itself. Did HE just magically appear? Oh, that's right. He has existed eternally. Without a beginning. But it's impossible that the universe has existed eternally. Without a beginning.

 

Sunday school 101. I should have remembered.

 

 

And how did every thing come into place under such perfect order?

 

Arguments against perfect order:

 

Cancer.

 

Tsunamis.

 

Hurricanes.

 

Mosquitos.

[DanInPA]

Arguments against perfect order:

 

Cancer.

 

Tsunamis.

 

Hurricanes.

 

Mosquitos.

 

You forgot scrotums.

[Asimov]

I'm not going to try and convince you because nothing we Christians say are going to convince you.

 

Because you hold no truth. Truth isn't very elusive, Sadie.

 

But for me looking at the complexity of the universe and and the complexity of the human body. How could we just magically appear? In my mind that doesn't make logical sense. In life there is cause and affect. Life as we know it is an affect of something. You can't have a cause without an affect. So if their is no higher being than what are what caused us? What did we come from? And how did every thing come into place under such perfect order?

 

Well your 'logic' is fallacious and an appeal to emotion.

[Astreja]

Arguments against perfect order:

 

Cancer.

Tsunamis.

Hurricanes.

Mosquitos.

Winnipeg, Manitoba in January. *brrr*

 

There is one very important thing to remember about all this "being exactly the right distance from the Sun" nonsense. Life capable of observing this pseudo-order will only develop in zones with appropriate climates. Planets that are inhospitable to life simply will not have any life capable of observing if they're the "right" or "wrong" distance from their particular star. So there's selection bias at work there.

 

The universe is 99.9999999% chaos with scattered pockets of temporary order, and only in areas of relative stability can life survive and evolve to produce high sentience. No god is required for this to happen, just aggregation of organic compounds in a quiet corner of a solar system.