Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ibex Pop

Hiya

Recommended Posts

So, I've been thinking about signing up at one of these forums (creation vs evolution) for awhile now. Not sure I have anything to add that hasn't been said elsewhere, and often, but I might watch, and interject, and maybe try putting my two cents into the vending machine now and again.

 

I'm 21. I listen to most of the music genres, but not most of the music in them (I'd need an iPod that never stopped running if I were gonna try for that!), though I'll probably listen to anything once, unless it's mind-blowingly bad. I have a great amount of interest in the sciences, but I'm not a scientist myself. Still, I've a firm understanding of evolution and cosmology, and the sense not to inappropriately conflate the two. I'm an atheist, but for the longest time before that I was a "theistic evolutionist", and I can safely say it wasn't evolution that was at odds with the Christian God, or at least I never thought it was. I left because I couldn't buy into some of the other miracles, and because of the problem of evil, though I'm still open to evidence of a god. But this is of little consequence here, as I'm not here to debate God. So, without further delay, I'll begin lurking. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibex,

 

Welcome to EFT.

 

A quick question; What would you consider evidence for God? I'm presuming, in your book, that creation itself doesn't count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibex, Welcome to the forums, You'll find many topics discussed here. Ask any questions or topics. Again, Welcome. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibex, Welcome to the forums, You'll find many topics discussed here. Ask any questions or topics. Again, Welcome. :P

32598[/snapback]

Hey Bill,

 

Since you're our official lurking welcomer, I'll ask here. How have you been doing?

 

(I apologize in advance for attempting to hijack Ibex's thread. :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ibex,

 

Welcome to EFT.

 

A quick question; What would you consider evidence for God? I'm presuming, in your book, that creation itself doesn't count?

32597[/snapback]

Thanks for the welcome.

 

Your question is simple, and it's easy to be led to offer a single-sentence answer, but it's really not that simple. What would I consider evidence for the Biblical God? That'd take quite a bit, since we'd have be to able to narrow it down to only the one from the countless other conceptions of deities, even the deities that hadn't been conceived. You'd need enough evidence to make a science of it, which means the Christian God would be required to manifest in some way. Observations might include an outcome that was always predictable, a prayer that was always answered when it would stand contrary to probability -- these would only be evidence of some god (one that might answer prayers that weren't even addressed to it, for example), not even the one you believe in, but we don't even see this kind of evidence. All attempts to validate God in a scientific matter have failed, so at best, you have an infinite number of possible deities that do not wish to blatantly expose their existence to us. Compound this with the fact that the Biblical God has no positive ontology, that he is describe only by what he isn't. He isn't bound by the physics of our universe, he isn't visible, he isn't tangible (or even corporeal), he has no description we could possibly utilize to look out into the universe and say "Now that's God." A characteristic wavelength, a body made of monopoles, a description of what comprises him and what his measurable effect on the environment is (this has to be independent of nature, because if the whole of nature is your god's functioning, then there is again, no way to test for it, and you've made the two uselessly synonymous, going so far as to make science, the whole of it, direct inquiry into your god, making science the best theology, where theology is normally predicated on a deity's unnatural influence over nature).

 

When you get right to it, there is no evidence of any gods, save the ones that we wouldn't describe as gods (if the sun is your god, it definitely exists). The loosest, non-anthropomorphizing definitions of a god might work: whatever created the universe (if it was created at all), or the mechanics of the universe that govern its function, or the universe itself, but I wouldn't call any of these things god, as doing so would give the impression that they were something with a human-like volition. These are all things that are well beyond man's narrow thoughts on emotive gods: you cannot imagine what gravity feels, because it does not. You cannot imagine how intelligent the strong nuclear force is, because it is not intelligent at all. The gods, by comparison, are human things.

 

All things considered, if a black man named Lux Aeterna knocks on my door until I answer it tomorrow, starting at 10:00 AM, and he then provides a valid Oregon (I'm not from there) driver's license confirming his name, and he tells me he was sent by the Christian God to show me that there was truth to the myth, well, I'll believe him. It's entirely irrational, easily faked, and the Biblical God should be capable of far greater feats that would much better serve man, but despite how easily this could be hoaxed, I would accept it, tentatively, as sufficient evidence to believe in the Biblical God. Now, since every Christian I've ever asked for this evidence from has, in turn, asked me why I think I deserve it, I'll tell you now that I do not. If the Biblical God exists, he's free to let me march into hell or heaven, purgatory or oblivion, and neither you nor I can gripe about it. But belief isn't something you just switch on because it's convenient. There needs to be a reason for it, if you are honest with yourself. I see no reason for trying to believe (insomuch as one tries, and isn't just convinced), apart from social acceptance, and that is not sufficient for me.

 

That's a really long post for a simple question, eh? You have my respect, and I'm not here to argue with anyone about whether Jehova does or doesn't exist (we apparently can't tell), only to observe and maybe interject in some discussions of evolution, so I hope this answer will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd need enough evidence to make a science of it,

I thought science was not religion. So why would anyone need to make religion into science from the science side, unless science itself is religion through the theory of evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought science was not religion. So why would anyone need to make religion into science from the science side, unless science itself is religion through the theory of evolution?

32735[/snapback]

Science is not a religion, and incidentally, religions are free to have as much evidence in their favor as elemental periodicity, and let us not forget most religions will claim whatever scientific validation they can get, Christianity being no exception. Your reply does not follow from anything I said, or I do not understand, so please elaborate.

 

If I understand your objection, I said, equivalently, that something blue would have to have yellow stripes for me to be satisfied with it, and you then say that you thought that yellow was not blue, and ask why everything should be blue, unless yellow itself is blue through red. If that's correct, your objection is broken as it does not logically follow that all yellow should be blue (nor did I ever want it to be so), and the existence of red cannot make all yellow be blue, unless you've twisted them into being the same color. I hope this analogy has been, forgive the pun, illustrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bill,

 

Since you're our official lurking welcomer, I'll ask here. How have you been doing?

 

(I apologize in advance for attempting to hijack Ibex's thread. :) )

32600[/snapback]

Hi Adam, I've been doing fine, finished up my Doctorate in Biblical Studies and just browsing the forums here. Finishing up my Power Point on Creation Evangilism that I'll be presenting to my local church and hopefully expand out to other congregations. I saved your videos on your presentation but have not yet looked at them, but I will. With the new members here, it seems we will have some great discussions here. ok, off to the corner to lurk in the shadows....LOL :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not entirely sure if this the appropriate place to put this, but I didn't see any other that seemed suitable. My mother has been very (but not dangerously) sick, lately, and I've fallen pretty far behind in replying to various threads. I'm probably just going to lurk for awhile now. If anyone would really like to see my reply to something (I doubt it), PM me the post's link and I'll have a look. No promises. I was going to start a thread about modern cosmology, and what it can tell us about the history of the Universe, but that will have to wait, too.

 

I'll be watching. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ibex,

 

Your welcome to start threads and see how they're discussed if that helps keep you involved. You're not obligated to any level of participation.

 

What's your mother's name? I'd like to pray for her, if you don't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not a religion, and incidentally, religions are free to have as much evidence in their favor as elemental periodicity, and let us not forget most religions will claim whatever scientific validation they can get, Christianity being no exception. 

32785[/snapback]

I agree, and evolutheisim as well! In fact, the Darwinist have made a fortune out of claiming whatever scientific validation they can conjure up.

 

 

Welcome to the forum Pop. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not entirely sure if this the appropriate place to put this, but I didn't see any other that seemed suitable.  My mother has been very (but not dangerously) sick, lately, and I've fallen pretty far behind in replying to various threads.  I'm probably just going to lurk for awhile now.  If anyone would really like to see my reply to something (I doubt it), PM me the post's link and I'll have a look.  No promises.  I was going to start a thread about modern cosmology, and what it can tell us about the history of the Universe, but that will have to wait, too.

 

I'll be watching.  Peace.

33867[/snapback]

Hi Ibex,

 

I will be praying for you mom. Hope she gets well soon.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ibex,

 

Your welcome to start threads and see how they're discussed if that helps keep you involved. You're not obligated to any level of participation.

 

What's your mother's name? I'd like to pray for her, if you don't mind.

33870[/snapback]

Eh, I don't mind a kind gesture, but don't ya think God ought to know who I am and my mother? :D

Sorry, it's the internet, and posting rather unique first names is asking for trouble down the line. Not from you, maybe not even anyone here, but the simple fact is that I'd give up my anonymity long before anyone else's.

 

Again, thank you for the gesture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I don't mind a kind gesture, but don't ya think God ought to know who I am and my mother? :P

Sorry, it's the internet, and posting rather unique first names is asking for trouble down the line.  Not from you, maybe not even anyone here, but the simple fact is that I'd give up my anonymity long before anyone else's.

 

Again, thank you for the gesture.

34040[/snapback]

Hey Ibex, I don’t blame you for not wanting to put personal information on the internet. But, I don’t think you were being asked for anything other than a first name (or a hyphenated name) for the purpose of focus in his prayer. I’m sure Adam will understand your feelings on this. We can just pray for “Ibex’s mom†if you’re more comfortable with that.

 

God Bless

 

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that good. Ibex's mom works for me. As Ibex said God knows what going on anyway.

 

Ibex, how is your mom doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay. My mom is fine, and my family had a good fourth. It's been a little hectic lately, and I'm more behind on threads here than ever. I think I'll just continue lurking and posting when I have the time, and I'll answer past objections as they are put to me again. No sense tearing up dynamic threads with weeks-old responses. I saw some reasonable objections, and I'm sure I'll see them again. If anyone really wants to hear my response to something, PM me, as per the norm.

 

Gonna lurk around. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome.

 

Your question is simple, and it's easy to be led to offer a single-sentence answer, but it's really not that simple.  What would I consider evidence for the Biblical God?

32715[/snapback]

Hello, Ibex.

I'm a newbie here, too. I suppose I can say welcome, so welcome!

 

You want evidence for God?

 

Just suppose the bible is true. (Many have tried to disprove it, with no success.)

 

If it IS true, God manifested in the form of Jesus Christ, who IS the creator and IS God. He claimed to be both of these.

 

You will probably acknowledge that George Washington was our 1st president. How do you know? Written records and written 1st person observations. No one alive today has seen him or talked to anyone who saw him. GW was a historical figure.

 

If someone reads about GW 2000 years from now, he will still have been the 1st president. The 2000 years will not change the facts. How could someone prove who GW was? They would refer to the written record. If it can be confirmed by other sources, one would probably believe it.

 

Christ was also a historical figure. There are written accounts of him outside the bible. Because the accounts are 2000 years old, does that make them invalid? He performed many miracles, the most important was his resurrection.

 

So we have the same circumstance here. It is your choice about whether or not you want to believe what was written - either about GW, JC or anyone else.

 

Unless we are first person participants, it is hard for us to know anything. I have never seen the Eiffel Tower nor talked to anyone who has been there. Does it exist? I suppose so, since I can read about its construction, etc. Do I want to believe what I read? Hmmmm. . .

 

The written record tells us that Christ is the biblical God.

 

Again, welcome.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

Not sure if a welcome forum is the best place to discuss this, but I wanted to point out to you why your GW and Eiffel Tower examples are incredibly wrong.

 

I believe there was a GW because of written works yes. I also believe he existed because he left behind evidence of his time on earth. I can also find pictures of him, where people have recorded his existence outside of literature. There are also no unbelievable stories about him defying physics.

 

The same goes for the Eiffel Tower. I can look at photos and video of it. I'm also in the multimedia field and can usually tell when these have been faked.

 

That said, I do believe there was a Jesus, I just don't think the reasons you listed for believing in him are terribly accurate.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

 

Not sure if a welcome forum is the best place to discuss this, but I wanted to point out to you why your GW and Eiffel Tower examples are incredibly wrong.

 

I believe there was a GW because of written works yes. I also believe he existed because he left behind evidence of his time on earth. I can also find pictures of him, where people have recorded his existence outside of literature. There are also no unbelievable stories about him defying physics.

 

The same goes for the Eiffel Tower. I can look at photos and video of it. I'm also in the multimedia field and can usually tell when these have been faked.

 

That said, I do believe there was a Jesus, I just don't think the reasons you listed for believing in him are terribly accurate.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

36831[/snapback]

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

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

36866[/snapback]

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.

36866[/snapback]

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.)

36866[/snapback]

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.

36866[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

36905[/snapback]

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.

36905[/snapback]

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.

36905[/snapback]

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.

36905[/snapback]

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. >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

36962[/snapback]

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?

36962[/snapback]

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?

36962[/snapback]

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?

36962[/snapback]

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.

36962[/snapback]

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.

36962[/snapback]

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.

36962[/snapback]

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?

36962[/snapback]

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.

36962[/snapback]

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.

36962[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms