Jump to content


Photo

Hiya


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:18 PM

None of GW pictures are photographs - and even if they were - photos can be faked. (Notice you said usually on the faked part.)

View Post


Okay, compare this to Christ. If we look at a stack of paintings of GW from different painters we see a striking resemblance between them. This gives credit to him being real.

If we look at paintings of Christ however, we see a striking difference. Some people paint him white, some black. The truth is we have no idea what he looked like. This gives credit to him being an artistic interpretation, not real.

Christ also existed outside of the literature of the bible. And you're right, GW didn't defy the laws of physics. Which is exactly the point. He wasn't God. Christ IS God. You wanted proof, I gave it to you. You choose not to believe it.

View Post


Why is it you seem to think that Christ doing the impossible makes it more likely he existed? This just doesn't seem logical to me.

Ditto goes with the Eiffel Tower. Unless you've been  there and seen it first hand, you don't know for sure. (Ever see what Tom Cruise did in Mission Impossible? Talk about faking things that look real.)

View Post


Haven't seen mission impossible actually (really bad of me :o) but I have seen the shots of the Eiffel Tower in the upcoming movie "G.I Joe". It looks great...but still quite fake. Those of us in the multimedia field can pick up on the subtlest little things that make an image fake. It is extraordinarily rare for me to make this mistake.

On top of this I can look at photos of the Eiffel Tower taken years before computer manipulation came into play. I should also take into account the sheer number of photos I can look at simply by punching it into Google. It would have to be some conspiracy to have manipulated literally millions of photos. I am confident the Tower is real.

No, Arch - my examples are spot on.
You asked for evidence of God and I gave it to you. You just don't want to believe it.
I did this whole denial of the evidence process for 35 years and understand where you're coming from.

View Post


Sorry Jeff, although a good starting point your examples are little more than wishful thinking. You need a lot more and better evidence to convince a sceptic.

Regards,

Arch.

#22 Jeff Wilhelm

Jeff Wilhelm

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Butler, PA

Posted 08 August 2009 - 06:12 PM

Okay, compare this to Christ. If we look at a stack of paintings of GW from different painters we see a striking resemblance between them. This gives credit to him being real.

View Post

You lost me, Arch. The only historical figures that are real are the ones that we have paintings of?
There are no photographs nor paintings of my great, great, grandfather. Does that mean he is not real, that he didn't exist? According to you, the population of the earth must have been very sparse from years gone by - no photographs nor paintings = no existence.

If we look at paintings of Christ however, we see a striking difference. Some people paint him white, some black. The truth is we have no idea what he looked like. This gives credit to him being an artistic interpretation, not real.

View Post

So Christ didn't exist because paintings of him done hundreds or a thousand or more years after his death are different? If all the paintings were copies of 1 artist's interpretation would that give them validity?

Every dinosaur drawing is an interpretation. Does that mean dinosaurs didn't exist?

In fact, you have no idea what I look like - does that mean that I'm not real?

Does that make sense?

Why is it you seem to think that Christ doing the impossible makes it more likely he existed? This just doesn't seem logical to me.

View Post

You lost the train of our conversation. Recorded, eye-witness events of a man breaking the laws of physics by performing miracles and raising himself from the dead were given as evidence of God.

I used GW, since you have never seen him, but read about him. You believed the written accounts and would believe them if it were possible to read them 2000 years from now.

But you don't want to believe the written accounts of Jesus because you don't know what he looked like.

Does that make sense?

On top of this I can look at photos of the Eiffel Tower taken years before computer manipulation came into play. I should also take into account the sheer number of photos I can look at simply by punching it into Google. It would have to be some conspiracy to have manipulated literally millions of photos. I am confident the Tower is real.

View Post

Have you ever seen real photos of the Eiffel Tower? All the Google images have been digitized. All the photos in magazines or text books, encyclopedias, etc are reproductions.

You have probably seen this link to Life magazine - Real or Fake? photos - it's pretty cool. Real or Fake?

I don't want to get carried away with the photo thing, but was using it as an example of how you accept evidence that you personally didn't collect or see.

People generally will accept written, 1st person evidence of historical events - as in the case of GW.
When it comes to the bible, many seem skeptical.

It depends on their world view. A non-believer is skeptical of the bible. A believer is not.

The same happens with evolution - the believer believes, the skeptic is skeptical.

I have been on both sides of both arguments - on the non-believer, evolutionary side for over 40 years. About 4 years ago I changed my worldview.

I am very confident that the bible is historically accurate, even the part about Christ. I am also confident that evolution and all it implies, is false.

I'm going to see G.I. Joe this week. It looks like it will be cool.

Regards,
Jeff

<Edit = Adam Nagy - You'll get used to doing the quotes. :lol: They provide great benefit for future reference. It's worth it. >

#23 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 August 2009 - 07:31 PM

You lost me, Arch. The only historical figures that are real are the ones that we have paintings of?
There are no photographs nor paintings of my great, great, grandfather. Does that mean he is not real, that he didn't exist? According to you, the population of the earth must have been very sparse from years gone by - no photographs nor paintings = no existence.

View Post


Haha, I really have lost you haven't I :lol:

My point was that different people saw GW and were able to recreate a physical image of him quite accurately. We don't see that with Christ. During his life, no one ever drew a portrait of him. Why would such an influential man never have any artworks made of him?

Another reason for believing in GW is that he left remnants of his life behind. I don't know the specifics, but I'm sure there is a museum somewhere that has his personal relics still intact. Other than his word, what did Christ leave behind?

Now, why do I believe your grandfather existed? Simple, you're here! I don't know who he was, but he certainly must have existed.

So Christ didn't exist because paintings of him done hundreds or a thousand or more years after his death are different? If all the paintings were copies of 1 artist's interpretation would that give them validity?

View Post


No, I'm saying there is much more evidence for GW being a real person than there is for Christ. I believe Christ was a real person, I just don't think your logic for his existence is particularly good.

Why are you thinking in hundreds of years later? Why not while he was still alive? Surely with all the amazing works he was doing someone in the general public would have done a couple of quick sketches of him. Why is there nothing?

If paintings were all copies no, it wouldn't give any more validity. Probably less. This is indeed something an historian would need to watch out for, as it could be misleading.

Every dinosaur drawing is an interpretation. Does that mean dinosaurs didn't exist?

View Post


No, we have bones to prove they existed. Do you have Christ's bones? (Well, obviously not, he ascended :D)

In fact, you have no idea what I look like - does that mean that I'm not real?

View Post


It is indeed a possibility Jeff Wilhelm does not exist. But someone is writing back to me. You may be another person with a fake name, but you definitely exist.

You lost the train of our conversation. Recorded, eye-witness events of a man breaking the laws of physics by performing miracles and raising himself from the dead were given as evidence of God.

View Post


Finally! Some serious evidence. This is the kind of stuff I'm actually interested in talking about. If you like, come check out the forum we've got going on the historical Jesus. It should be quite enlightening for all.

The historical Jesus

I used GW, since you have never seen him, but read about him. You believed the written accounts and would believe them if it were possible to read them 2000 years from now.

View Post


I have no reason not to believe it. He was a pretty impressive guy, but he never did anything that would usually be considered impossible. Jesus did.
If GW did do things that seemed impossible, I would want more than writings.

Have you ever seen real photos of the Eiffel Tower? All the Google images have been digitized. All the photos in magazines or text books, encyclopedias, etc are reproductions.

View Post


This is true. What difference does it make? They are copies of the original, and I assume are accurate copies.

You have probably seen this link to Life magazine - Real or Fake? photos - it's pretty cool. Real or Fake?

View Post


Oooh, awesome! I love these things. Only done the first page but I'm hitting with an 80% accuracy so far. It's a little confusing though. I think they're all real. Some of them have multiple 'real' photos stuck together, but that's still real.

People generally will accept written, 1st person  evidence of historical events - as in the case of GW.
When it comes to the bible, many seem skeptical.

View Post


This is because of the overwhelming alternative evidence, and less about the written. It also ties in with GW doing pretty ordinary things, while Christ did the impossible.

I'm going to see G.I. Joe this week. It looks like it will be cool.

View Post


Blast, I forget most of you guys are American. It's not out here yet :( (Australia)

Regards,

Arch.

EDIT: Just done another couple of pages from the website. I'm rather impressed with myself :D I must be up around 90% now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users