Mauserand9mm=[quote/] You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer.
What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have.
Just look up the meaning of evidence.
You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping.
No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof.
Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you:
I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was.
You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought.
You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof....
Wikipedia and I are in agreement....
I understand your source of confusion.
You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days.
I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice.
I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.)
Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better ....
Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)...
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
Not sure where you got that image from but the text it contains is hilariously wrong. If it came from a book that you have, the best thing you should do is to simply burn it.
One other thing that you don't understand is that under your definition "evidence" can be proven false of the claim made with it - in that case it's not evidence and never was. It was only ever "observation", "data" or "exhibits". Evidence doesn't suddenly become non-evidence. I thought that would have been evident. As an example:
A body is discovered, by neighbors, of person who has been very obviously stabbed to death and the knife is nowhere to be found in the vicinity. Constable Raspy happens to find a blood covered knife in a ditch just down the road of the crime scene. He puts on rubber gloves, carefully picks up the knife and places it inside a plastic zip-lock lunch bag, and puts on a label sticker and writes "ËVIDENCE" on it.
At the subsequent investigations the forensics team discover that the blood on the knife is not the victims and is actually chicken blood. So the knife is not evidence at all, and never was. It was an exhibit that was proven to not be evidence of the crime. (The premise that it was evidence of the crime turned out to be false and it was premature and wrong to consider it as evidence in the first place. Constable Raspy was subsequently demoted having made this mistake, and receiving warnings, many times before.)
[As a side note: The fingerprints on the knife were found to belong the leader of the satanic chicken chokers cult but no case was launched since no fowl play was reported.]
I'm still keen to see what observational data you have that you are setting aside as your unproven "evidence" of god.
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let me try again regarding evidence vs proof just in case you will read it when you are sober.....
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
"What a load of Crock. I don't write the definitions given in dictionaries.
As it happens, there is a condition where people hold convictions without the support of evidence....which is why we say they have faith that their conviction is true.
Now, as we are talking about religion, which is a belief in any of a number of versions of God or gods, without the support of evidence, what do our dictionaries tell us?
faith 2: belief that is not based on proof: (He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.) 3: belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
Definition of faith b- 1: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
As anyone can see, these are not my definitions. It is not something I insist on, or how I ''understand it.''
This is just the definition of faith in relation to any belief that is held without the support of evidence.
As we have no evidence for the existence of any of the many versions of God or gods, to believe in these things is a matter of faith: as defined above.
You don't have a leg to stand on."
Nope and as usual you are either just plain wrong or in some clumsy attempt to “redefine” biblical. "What a load of Crock is right. You retreat into your own mind and dredge up nonsense based on your own opinion and NOT based on Jesus or Chrisian doctrine.
Like MM, you are simply making things up in an apparent attempt to convince ... yourself.....IDK...
So…..in this case you build a strawman to knock down.
Faith…..
1. - Where does “faith in God” come from?
Romans 1:16-17 ….”Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.”
2. – How does one receive “faith.” Faith is a gift but you must stretch out your hand and receive it. A “gift” is not a gift unless the recipient takes it. Believe the testimony of the Spirit about your own sin and the truth about Jesus and “choose” or “believe” …. Or “accept”…… use your own descriptor words here …. and faith is imparted to you. When it is imparted, there is no more doubt.
Ephesians 2:8-9……”For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
3. – Once you have faith, it is very very real.
Hebrews 11:1…..”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…”
Get that? “… the EVIDENCE of things not see.”
Simple terms…. “proof”
One can view this faith as “assurance”… or as confidence or simple “reality” …. Or as a “firm foundation”…. Or….. “the real being of..”…. or “ the actual existence of” ….or a “resolute trust” …. Or as “the substantial nature of….”
There are two points here... the first is that yes, there is real, reliable evidence..... the second is..... you... as yet, do not have it.
Hebrews 11:1 does not refer to external, objective evidence as a foundation for belief, it tells us that faith is its own justification.
''Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'' - Hebrews 11:1 equates to ''belief that is not based on proof''
You say that there is evidence, but what you mean is subjective experience, which is an expression of faith.
Well, you are still wrong. You keep going back to a dictionary definition of faith and yet the general discussion regards “faith” as set forth in the Bible. You are apparently unprepared to discuss biblical faith. No surprise there.
Well, I'm not wrong because you happen to declare ''you are still wrong.''
In fact it has nothing to do with me. As pointed out, it's just basic logic, evidence and justification.
Hebrews clearly states that faith is its own justification when we are told ''faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen''
Here we have faith as ''the substance of things hoped for'' and it is faith that is ''the evidence of things unseen.''
If you are unable to grasp this much, nothing can be done to help you understand that faith is a belief held without the support of evidence, that with sufficient evidence, you don't need faith.
Not to mention using the source material, holy books, etc, as 'evidence' for their claims.
Mauserand9mm=[quote/] You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer.
What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have.
Just look up the meaning of evidence.
You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping.
No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof.
Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you:
I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was.
You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought.
You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof....
Wikipedia and I are in agreement....
I understand your source of confusion.
You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days.
I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice.
I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.)
Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better ....
Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)...
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
Nothing is proven without evidence.
A proposition is proven on the strength of its supporting evidence;
The standard answer is that to identify knowledge with true belief would be implausible because a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true.
The analysis of knowledge may be approached by asking the following question: What turns a true belief into knowledge? An uncontroversial answer to this question would be: the sort of thing that effectively prevents a belief from being true as a result of epistemic luck. Controversy begins as soon as this formula is turned into a substantive proposal. According to evidentialism, which endorses the JTB+ conception of knowledge, the combination of two things accomplishes this goal: evidentialist justification plus degettierization (a condition that prevents a true and justified belief from being "gettiered").
However, according to an alternative approach that has in the last three decades become increasingly popular, what stands in the way of epistemic luck, what turns a true belief into knowledge is the reliability of the cognitive process that produced the belief.
Consider how we acquire knowledge of our physical environment: we do so through sense experience. Sense experiential processes are, at least under normal conditions, highly reliable. There is nothing accidental about the truth of the beliefs these processes produce.
Thus beliefs produced by sense experience, if true, should qualify as instances of knowledge. An analogous point could be made for other reliable cognitive processes, such as introspection, memory, and rational intuition. We might, therefore, say that what turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes.''
Mauserand9mm=[quote/] You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer.
What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have.
Just look up the meaning of evidence.
You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping.
No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof.
Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you:
I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was.
You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought.
You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof....
Wikipedia and I are in agreement....
I understand your source of confusion.
You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days.
I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice.
I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.)
Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better ....
Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)...
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
Nothing is proven without evidence.
A proposition is proven on the strength of its supporting evidence;
The standard answer is that to identify knowledge with true belief would be implausible because a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge. Beliefs that are lacking justification are false more often than not. However, on occasion, such beliefs happen to be true.
The analysis of knowledge may be approached by asking the following question: What turns a true belief into knowledge? An uncontroversial answer to this question would be: the sort of thing that effectively prevents a belief from being true as a result of epistemic luck. Controversy begins as soon as this formula is turned into a substantive proposal. According to evidentialism, which endorses the JTB+ conception of knowledge, the combination of two things accomplishes this goal: evidentialist justification plus degettierization (a condition that prevents a true and justified belief from being "gettiered").
However, according to an alternative approach that has in the last three decades become increasingly popular, what stands in the way of epistemic luck, what turns a true belief into knowledge is the reliability of the cognitive process that produced the belief.
Consider how we acquire knowledge of our physical environment: we do so through sense experience. Sense experiential processes are, at least under normal conditions, highly reliable. There is nothing accidental about the truth of the beliefs these processes produce.
Thus beliefs produced by sense experience, if true, should qualify as instances of knowledge. An analogous point could be made for other reliable cognitive processes, such as introspection, memory, and rational intuition. We might, therefore, say that what turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes.''
If you are referring to my discussion with mauser9mm, so who was discussing "Truth vs Belief"? Not us, and not any threads that I know of....and God did not enter on my part of the discussion....my conjecture was/is "evidence and proof are not the same" period.
Although what you state above is agreeable with me, it has nothing to do with mauser and my discussions....thanks for your input.
In a thread last week at least two people mentioned good works. One professing that they did good works and the other quoting the book of James, intimating that a Christian is to be focused on doing good works.
Maybe so. I missed it and don't really care to read any such thing.
It is undeniable that in American Christian Theology most churches teach good works, following the law/Ten Commandments, as a way to please God. This message is anchored in the idea that there is an impact on someone’s salvation and standing with God in direct relation to performing good works.
In my experience this is an untruth, and appears to be from a sower of bad seed looking to start division and strife amongst believers. I've been in a few churches. Never seen what the OP claims is undeniable. Specifically, I have never been in a church that taught the 10 commandments and the following of them would lead to salvation.
I have a question for those that hold this view. The question is based on the scriptural truth that there is no one on this earth who is righteous. This mornings responsive reading was from Psalms 143. The words drew my thoughts back to the statements made last week.
Psalm 143:2
[2] Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you.
This confession of David, “a man after God’s own heart” and echoed throughout scripture, quite famously in Romans 3,
How are you guys who claim righteousness and or holiness, either primarily or secondarily, measuring it? What is the evidence or actions in your life by which you measure the claim?
To keep focus, the question is not meant to open up a conversation about good works theology. The question is rather specific. There are more than a few guys on this forum who recently and historically have emphasized good works as a necessity for salvation.
A primary underlying principle of this teaching is that one either works with God or alone to “be holy”.
For those who hold to this view how do you measure your good works, your successfulness in completing good works and how do you assess God’s measurement of your good works?
What is your aim with this thread? Is it your desire to trap someone in scriptural debate and prove them wrong?
But you see, Your response is all feeling. There is nothing objective there. How have you worked to make yourself more like Christ.
If sanctification is fully up to me or is some synergistic work that I do in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit there must be something objective to show for it.
You missed it?
USMC 0351
We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If you are referring to my discussion with mauser9mm, so who was discussing "Truth vs Belief"? Not us, and not any threads that I know of....and God did not enter on my part of the discussion....my conjecture was/is "evidence and proof are not the same" period.
Originally Posted by Raspy
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let us examine the accuracy of these statements shall we?
On 6/9/22 it certainly was about religious belief and Raspy dismissed the necessity of evidence:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by Spotshooter
Mauser - What is your soul ?
Can you articulately define what that is ?
I know our Aussie friends do not believe and that is their choice....but my belief of the soul is....the part of a person that is not physical. It is the part of every human being that lasts eternally after the body experiences death. Genesis 35:18 describes the death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, saying she named her son “as her soul was departing.” From this we know that the soul is different from the body and that it continues to live after physical death.
That's not evidence, that's just what somebody wrote.
Sorry, I forgot.... Atheist need evidence....and Christians and others do not.
Upon reconsideration of the importance of evidence and proof Raspy modifies his views to try to muster up some sort of credibility. On 6/13/22 Raspy responded:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of.
Originally Posted by TF49
Accept or reject....Choose wisely.....
Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue.
Oh?, but faith is made of demonstrable evidence as in textual studies, to show that we have trustworthy versions of the original biblical documents....historical studies, to show that there is considerable demonstrable truth in the Gospels.....biblical studies, to demonstrate the remarkable consistency the Bible demonstrates from beginning to end.... the use of philosophical arguments to show that there is a reasonably high probability that God exists.....then there is the non-eternality of the physical universe....the unique nature of humans, including rationality, consciousness, moral responsibility.... fine-tuning of the universe to permit chemical complexity, and thereby life itself....the existential conflict of humans: our awareness of falling short of something better....
so yes, I consider the above as EVIDENCE.....but, and this is a big but, there is no actual PROOF....that is why Christians and others have the BELIEF....gambling issue (Pasqual's Wager), yes, that is what started me off in believing (decades ago) as the stakes would just too high for me not to believe... like I said before, I am choosing to believe because the fifty-fifty odds are just too great for me to wager...so I will continue to pray, ask for forgiveness, and always do the right thing.... But I don't believe that it can stop there. I must become mature in my faith and have definitive reasons for it that are based on the truth and not just pragmatism, because as stated before, God can see what is truly in the heart.
The bible is factually and historically wrong, written over centuries past the alledged events and by some unknown authors. And there is zero evidence to support the fantastic events written down in it. Don't even start to talk about the inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of clarity. What is it, 200 denominations of Christians reading from the same book?
The bible is evidence than many people wrote a book. Harry Potter has at least a known author.
You still cling to the totally flawed Pascal's Wager - it could be argued to show that the atheist is going to be better off, but gambling taken seriously is prety stupid anyway.
Well, my friend, I wrote of evidence and not of proof...that is my story...you may choose as you believe..i like the biblical evidence....the Wager is not flawed from my perspective...either there is or either there is not an afterlife.
On 6/16/22 Raspy continues to associate evidence with religious belief:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
So given to my 1st paragraph above....." Maybe because of the enormous evidence (no proof).....so my question to you in return is this: Given “all that we know today,” what are the odds that unguided evolution resulted in organisms like us with such remarkable abilities? Should primates really be good at physics, given our current theories in evolution and physics?"
I do not know what Jesus looks like, but if you saw the below in person, would that convince you of an afterlife...just curious...
I would say "Who's the drag queen?".
Jesus (if he existed) was middle eastern and probably looked like this:
Your first paragraph is a typical "god of the gaps" fallacy response. You have to prove that a god exists and that he/she/it created everything. The correct answer is "we don't have all the answers (yet)". It's no excuse to make stuff up in the meantime.
I must have said it to you many times....that there is loads of evidence, but no actual proof....I also said I do not know what Jesus looks like....and I give you that he may have looked like your image....but, if you did see one of the images in person, what that convince you of an afterlife?
Never mind...you will say something snarky and will never say yes or no....
Originally Posted by Raspy
...and God did not enter on my part of the discussion...... I am not talking about God at all....
Please don't let me think that you are a complete wanker. Where's the "evidence" that you claim to have? Or is that why you decided to remove religion from the topic because I had repeatedly asked for your evidence and you don't have any and are too weak in your faith to admit that? I'm starting to think that you may be the spawn of Happy Crapper.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
To keep focus, the question is not meant to open up a conversation about good works theology. The question is rather specific. There are more than a few guys on this forum who recently and historically have emphasized good works as a necessity for salvation.
A primary underlying principle of this teaching is that one either works with God or alone to “be holy”.
For those who hold to this view how do you measure your good works, your successfulness in completing good works and how do you assess God’s measurement of your good works?
What is your aim with this thread? Is it your desire to trap someone in scriptural debate and prove them wrong?
If you are referring to my discussion with mauser9mm, so who was discussing "Truth vs Belief"? Not us, and not any threads that I know of....and God did not enter on my part of the discussion....my conjecture was/is "evidence and proof are not the same" period.
Originally Posted by Raspy
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let us examine the accuracy of these statements shall we?
On 6/9/22 it certainly was about religious belief and Raspy dismissed the necessity of evidence:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by Spotshooter
Mauser - What is your soul ?
Can you articulately define what that is ?
I know our Aussie friends do not believe and that is their choice....but my belief of the soul is....the part of a person that is not physical. It is the part of every human being that lasts eternally after the body experiences death. Genesis 35:18 describes the death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, saying she named her son “as her soul was departing.” From this we know that the soul is different from the body and that it continues to live after physical death.
That's not evidence, that's just what somebody wrote.
Sorry, I forgot.... Atheist need evidence....and Christians and others do not.
Upon reconsideration of the importance of evidence and proof Raspy modifies his views to try to muster up some sort of credibility. On 6/13/22 Raspy responded:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of.
Originally Posted by TF49
Accept or reject....Choose wisely.....
Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue.
Oh?, but faith is made of demonstrable evidence as in textual studies, to show that we have trustworthy versions of the original biblical documents....historical studies, to show that there is considerable demonstrable truth in the Gospels.....biblical studies, to demonstrate the remarkable consistency the Bible demonstrates from beginning to end.... the use of philosophical arguments to show that there is a reasonably high probability that God exists.....then there is the non-eternality of the physical universe....the unique nature of humans, including rationality, consciousness, moral responsibility.... fine-tuning of the universe to permit chemical complexity, and thereby life itself....the existential conflict of humans: our awareness of falling short of something better....
so yes, I consider the above as EVIDENCE.....but, and this is a big but, there is no actual PROOF....that is why Christians and others have the BELIEF....gambling issue (Pasqual's Wager), yes, that is what started me off in believing (decades ago) as the stakes would just too high for me not to believe... like I said before, I am choosing to believe because the fifty-fifty odds are just too great for me to wager...so I will continue to pray, ask for forgiveness, and always do the right thing.... But I don't believe that it can stop there. I must become mature in my faith and have definitive reasons for it that are based on the truth and not just pragmatism, because as stated before, God can see what is truly in the heart.
The bible is factually and historically wrong, written over centuries past the alledged events and by some unknown authors. And there is zero evidence to support the fantastic events written down in it. Don't even start to talk about the inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of clarity. What is it, 200 denominations of Christians reading from the same book?
The bible is evidence than many people wrote a book. Harry Potter has at least a known author.
You still cling to the totally flawed Pascal's Wager - it could be argued to show that the atheist is going to be better off, but gambling taken seriously is prety stupid anyway.
Well, my friend, I wrote of evidence and not of proof...that is my story...you may choose as you believe..i like the biblical evidence....the Wager is not flawed from my perspective...either there is or either there is not an afterlife.
On 6/16/22 Raspy continues to associate evidence with religious belief:
You mixed up the quotes....
I must have said it to you many times....that there is loads of evidence, but no actual proof....I also said I do not know what Jesus looks like....and I give you that he may have looked like your image....but, if you did see one of the images in person, what that convince you of an afterlife?
Never mind...you will say something snarky and will never say yes or no....[/quote]
You are picking and choosing...you are wrong, and you are a perpetual loser that keeps going and going with insinuations and lies...
Without God in our conversation, you said evidence and proof are the same...I said you are wrong. It seems you think I mean evidence of God and proof of God.....no, just the words evidence and proof, and that's it period...this is not a quote from me....see below...
Originally Posted by Raspy
[quote=mauserand9mm][quote=Raspy][quote=mauserand9mm][quote=TF49]Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
The above is manipulated by you....that is not my quote...you are either intoxicated or a liar or both. That is a quote from TF49.
You said evidence and proof are the same thing.....below is where evidence vs proof started....
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer.
What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have.
Just look up the meaning of evidence.
You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping.
No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof.
Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was.
You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought.
You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof....
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Wikipedia and I are in agreement....
I understand your source of confusion.
You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days.
I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice.
I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.)
Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better ....
Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)...
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Not sure where you got that image from but the text it contains is hilariously wrong. If it came from a book that you have, the best thing you should do is to simply burn it.
One other thing that you don't understand is that under your definition "evidence" can be proven false of the claim made with it - in that case it's not evidence and never was. It was only ever "observation", "data" or "exhibits". Evidence doesn't suddenly become non-evidence. I thought that would have been evident. As an example:
A body is discovered, by neighbors, of person who has been very obviously stabbed to death and the knife is nowhere to be found in the vicinity. Constable Raspy happens to find a blood covered knife in a ditch just down the road of the crime scene. He puts on rubber gloves, carefully picks up the knife and places it inside a plastic zip-lock lunch bag, and puts on a label sticker and writes "ËVIDENCE" on it.
At the subsequent investigations the forensics team discover that the blood on the knife is not the victims and is actually chicken blood. So the knife is not evidence at all, and never was. It was an exhibit that was proven to not be evidence of the crime. (The premise that it was evidence of the crime turned out to be false and it was premature and wrong to consider it as evidence in the first place. Constable Raspy was subsequently demoted having made this mistake, and receiving warnings, many times before.)
[As a side note: The fingerprints on the knife were found to belong the leader of the satanic chicken chokers cult but no case was launched since no fowl play was reported.]
I'm still keen to see what observational data you have that you are setting aside as your unproven "evidence" of god.
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let me try again regarding evidence vs proof just in case you will read it when you are sober.....
Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it.
If you are referring to my discussion with mauser9mm, so who was discussing "Truth vs Belief"? Not us, and not any threads that I know of....and God did not enter on my part of the discussion....my conjecture was/is "evidence and proof are not the same" period.
Originally Posted by Raspy
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let us examine the accuracy of these statements shall we?
On 6/9/22 it certainly was about religious belief and Raspy dismissed the necessity of evidence:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by Spotshooter
Mauser - What is your soul ?
Can you articulately define what that is ?
I know our Aussie friends do not believe and that is their choice....but my belief of the soul is....the part of a person that is not physical. It is the part of every human being that lasts eternally after the body experiences death. Genesis 35:18 describes the death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, saying she named her son “as her soul was departing.” From this we know that the soul is different from the body and that it continues to live after physical death.
That's not evidence, that's just what somebody wrote.
Sorry, I forgot.... Atheist need evidence....and Christians and others do not.
Upon reconsideration of the importance of evidence and proof Raspy modifies his views to try to muster up some sort of credibility. On 6/13/22 Raspy responded:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of.
Originally Posted by TF49
Accept or reject....Choose wisely.....
Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue.
Oh?, but faith is made of demonstrable evidence as in textual studies, to show that we have trustworthy versions of the original biblical documents....historical studies, to show that there is considerable demonstrable truth in the Gospels.....biblical studies, to demonstrate the remarkable consistency the Bible demonstrates from beginning to end.... the use of philosophical arguments to show that there is a reasonably high probability that God exists.....then there is the non-eternality of the physical universe....the unique nature of humans, including rationality, consciousness, moral responsibility.... fine-tuning of the universe to permit chemical complexity, and thereby life itself....the existential conflict of humans: our awareness of falling short of something better....
so yes, I consider the above as EVIDENCE.....but, and this is a big but, there is no actual PROOF....that is why Christians and others have the BELIEF....gambling issue (Pasqual's Wager), yes, that is what started me off in believing (decades ago) as the stakes would just too high for me not to believe... like I said before, I am choosing to believe because the fifty-fifty odds are just too great for me to wager...so I will continue to pray, ask for forgiveness, and always do the right thing.... But I don't believe that it can stop there. I must become mature in my faith and have definitive reasons for it that are based on the truth and not just pragmatism, because as stated before, God can see what is truly in the heart.
The bible is factually and historically wrong, written over centuries past the alledged events and by some unknown authors. And there is zero evidence to support the fantastic events written down in it. Don't even start to talk about the inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of clarity. What is it, 200 denominations of Christians reading from the same book?
The bible is evidence than many people wrote a book. Harry Potter has at least a known author.
You still cling to the totally flawed Pascal's Wager - it could be argued to show that the atheist is going to be better off, but gambling taken seriously is prety stupid anyway.
Well, my friend, I wrote of evidence and not of proof...that is my story...you may choose as you believe..i like the biblical evidence....the Wager is not flawed from my perspective...either there is or either there is not an afterlife.
Please don't let me think that you are a complete wanker. Where's the "evidence" that you claim to have? Or is that why you decided to remove religion from the topic because I had repeatedly asked for your evidence and you don't have any and are too weak in your faith to admit that? I'm starting to think that you may be the spawn of Happy Crapper.
Remember, evidence and proof are not the same...and you are a real jerk.....the below is evidence that I accept and believe.
#1....A 2,000-year-old burial box inscribed with the name of a relative of Caiaphas, the high priest of the New Testament who played a key role in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, was confirmed to be authentic by Israeli experts.
#2...Christian story says that Jesus’ body was laid on a burial bed and enclosed in a tomb before being resurrected and ascending to Heaven several days later. A shrine protecting a tomb located in what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is widely believed to be the location of where Jesus was crucified and laid to rest.
#3...Shroud of Turin has been a subject of intense study—and controversy. Skeptics have alleged that the shroud’s imprint was created by medieval forgers, citing carbon dating studies that occurred in the 80s (which have been refuted in the scientific community). But scientists from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) have arrived at a very different conclusion after years of research. Evidence suggests that the image depicted was created by a flash of intense light comparable to ultraviolet lasers—34 trillion watts of ultraviolet light, to be exact. ENEA scientists couldn’t reproduce the image at the current level of technology that’s available today. Needless to say, such advanced technology would not have been possible in medieval times.
#4...Nazareth plays a key role in the Christian story. It’s where Jesus grew up and where an angel appeared before Mary to tell her she would give birth to the child of God. Today, Nazareth is a bustling city of 75,000 people. It was never proven to have existed during Biblical times when Jesus walked the Earth—which is a favorite attack line used by skeptics in doubting the existence of Jesus.
But just a few years ago, Israeli archaeologists discovered the remains of a house from the time of Jesus in the heart of Nazareth. It was found under the courtyard of the former Sisters of Nazareth covenant in the process of erecting a new Christian center. It is a simple home of two rooms and a courtyard, which contained several fragments of chalk vessels, which is a clue that Jews lived here in this period, researchers said. Due to the number of burial caves and other archeological discoveries found nearby that date to the early Roman era, researchers believe that ancient Nazareth was likely a village of about 50 residences.
Archaeologist Ken Dark of the University of Reading believes that this site could have even greater significance—he believes it could actually be the childhood home of Jesus. Throughout history, several structural attempts have been made to protect the home from being destroyed, which suggest its importance.
#5...In 2008, Israeli archeologists confirmed the authenticity of a first-century stone tablet with a Hebrew inscription that mentions the angel Gabriel and tells the story of a messianic figure who would suffer, be killed by the Romans, and rise in three days. It is believed to have been created just decades before Jesus’ birth. The Gabriel Stone, also known as the "Gabriel's Revelation,” is 3-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of text inscribed in ink. It was first found near the Dead Sea in 2000 before being studied formally. The creation of the Gabriel Stone is associated with the same community that scribed the Dead Sea scrolls.
This is an important discovery because it affirms the divinity of Jesus and challenges claims that the narrative of a suffering messiah who was crucified wasn’t just made up by early Christians to explain the scandal of the cross. It also refutes the claim that Jews during Biblical times had no concept of a suffering messiah.
#6....What if the Bible isn’t just a religious book—but also a history book? The idea that the Bible is simply a collection of inspired stories that were passed down through oral tradition is falling out of favor among some leading New Testament scholars. They believe that the Bible may have been written based on eyewitness testimony and written sources. Experts are discovering that the Bible is more historically accurate than once believed, and that it could give an accurate picture of who Jesus was. Why is this shift in Bible scholarship happening? The Bible contains historical details that would have been possible to get right unless you were there.
For example, the statistical distribution of names mentioned in the gospels matches up almost perfectly with the statistical distribution of names in first-century Palestine, as New Testament Scholar Richard Bauckham explains in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.”
This might seem like an unimportant detail, but, the scholar believes that it would have been nearly impossible to get the names right unless the gospel writers had contact with the people who are mentioned in the Biblical books. This is just one detail out of many that seemingly confirms the accuracy of the Bible.
#7...Archeologists found an ancient synagogue in the lower Galilee region, which is where the New Testament says that Jesus delivered sermons to his early followers.
The synagogue was discovered during a 10-year excavation at a site in Tel Rechesh, which is still ongoing. This discovery is important because it is the first synagogue discovered in Galilee area. It is the eighth synagogue in total that has been found, dated to what is called the Second Temple Era, which ended in AD 79 after the Romans attacked Jerusalem.
The New Testament describes Jesus preaching at synagogues in Capernaum and Galilean villages. Christianity, which spread after Jesus’ death, placed great emphasis on the sermons he delivered at these synagogues, according to scholars.
..oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
What's the title and authorship of the book?
lost the book many years ago...
Of course you did
So now you are calling me a liar.....well many have told me to put you on ignore as atheist perpetually misspeak of what was said....I guess I will do it...I will also say some prayers to you and for you, so that when on your deathbed, that you will please ask Jesus for forgiveness...
If you are referring to my discussion with mauser9mm, so who was discussing "Truth vs Belief"? Not us, and not any threads that I know of....and God did not enter on my part of the discussion....my conjecture was/is "evidence and proof are not the same" period.
Originally Posted by Raspy
Man, you are off course...what in the world kinda of mishmash mixed salad verbiage is that? Where is the point that we are discussing? I am not talking about God at all....but you are using the typical atheism tactic, and that is to redirect away from the point....the point is, you said evidence is proof...and I proved you wrong....oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
Let us examine the accuracy of these statements shall we?
On 6/9/22 it certainly was about religious belief and Raspy dismissed the necessity of evidence:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by Spotshooter
Mauser - What is your soul ?
Can you articulately define what that is ?
I know our Aussie friends do not believe and that is their choice....but my belief of the soul is....the part of a person that is not physical. It is the part of every human being that lasts eternally after the body experiences death. Genesis 35:18 describes the death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, saying she named her son “as her soul was departing.” From this we know that the soul is different from the body and that it continues to live after physical death.
That's not evidence, that's just what somebody wrote.
Sorry, I forgot.... Atheist need evidence....and Christians and others do not.
Upon reconsideration of the importance of evidence and proof Raspy modifies his views to try to muster up some sort of credibility. On 6/13/22 Raspy responded:
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by TF49
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian.
All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of.
Originally Posted by TF49
Accept or reject....Choose wisely.....
Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue.
Oh?, but faith is made of demonstrable evidence as in textual studies, to show that we have trustworthy versions of the original biblical documents....historical studies, to show that there is considerable demonstrable truth in the Gospels.....biblical studies, to demonstrate the remarkable consistency the Bible demonstrates from beginning to end.... the use of philosophical arguments to show that there is a reasonably high probability that God exists.....then there is the non-eternality of the physical universe....the unique nature of humans, including rationality, consciousness, moral responsibility.... fine-tuning of the universe to permit chemical complexity, and thereby life itself....the existential conflict of humans: our awareness of falling short of something better....
so yes, I consider the above as EVIDENCE.....but, and this is a big but, there is no actual PROOF....that is why Christians and others have the BELIEF....gambling issue (Pasqual's Wager), yes, that is what started me off in believing (decades ago) as the stakes would just too high for me not to believe... like I said before, I am choosing to believe because the fifty-fifty odds are just too great for me to wager...so I will continue to pray, ask for forgiveness, and always do the right thing.... But I don't believe that it can stop there. I must become mature in my faith and have definitive reasons for it that are based on the truth and not just pragmatism, because as stated before, God can see what is truly in the heart.
The bible is factually and historically wrong, written over centuries past the alledged events and by some unknown authors. And there is zero evidence to support the fantastic events written down in it. Don't even start to talk about the inconsistencies and contradictions, and lack of clarity. What is it, 200 denominations of Christians reading from the same book?
The bible is evidence than many people wrote a book. Harry Potter has at least a known author.
You still cling to the totally flawed Pascal's Wager - it could be argued to show that the atheist is going to be better off, but gambling taken seriously is prety stupid anyway.
Well, my friend, I wrote of evidence and not of proof...that is my story...you may choose as you believe..i like the biblical evidence....the Wager is not flawed from my perspective...either there is or either there is not an afterlife.
Please don't let me think that you are a complete wanker. Where's the "evidence" that you claim to have? Or is that why you decided to remove religion from the topic because I had repeatedly asked for your evidence and you don't have any and are too weak in your faith to admit that? I'm starting to think that you may be the spawn of Happy Crapper.
Remember, evidence and proof are not the same...and you are a real jerk.....the below is evidence that I accept and believe.
#1....A 2,000-year-old burial box inscribed with the name of a relative of Caiaphas, the high priest of the New Testament who played a key role in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, was confirmed to be authentic by Israeli experts.
#2...Christian story says that Jesus’ body was laid on a burial bed and enclosed in a tomb before being resurrected and ascending to Heaven several days later. A shrine protecting a tomb located in what is now the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is widely believed to be the location of where Jesus was crucified and laid to rest.
#3...Shroud of Turin has been a subject of intense study—and controversy. Skeptics have alleged that the shroud’s imprint was created by medieval forgers, citing carbon dating studies that occurred in the 80s (which have been refuted in the scientific community). But scientists from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) have arrived at a very different conclusion after years of research. Evidence suggests that the image depicted was created by a flash of intense light comparable to ultraviolet lasers—34 trillion watts of ultraviolet light, to be exact. ENEA scientists couldn’t reproduce the image at the current level of technology that’s available today. Needless to say, such advanced technology would not have been possible in medieval times.
#4...Nazareth plays a key role in the Christian story. It’s where Jesus grew up and where an angel appeared before Mary to tell her she would give birth to the child of God. Today, Nazareth is a bustling city of 75,000 people. It was never proven to have existed during Biblical times when Jesus walked the Earth—which is a favorite attack line used by skeptics in doubting the existence of Jesus.
But just a few years ago, Israeli archaeologists discovered the remains of a house from the time of Jesus in the heart of Nazareth. It was found under the courtyard of the former Sisters of Nazareth covenant in the process of erecting a new Christian center. It is a simple home of two rooms and a courtyard, which contained several fragments of chalk vessels, which is a clue that Jews lived here in this period, researchers said. Due to the number of burial caves and other archeological discoveries found nearby that date to the early Roman era, researchers believe that ancient Nazareth was likely a village of about 50 residences.
Archaeologist Ken Dark of the University of Reading believes that this site could have even greater significance—he believes it could actually be the childhood home of Jesus. Throughout history, several structural attempts have been made to protect the home from being destroyed, which suggest its importance.
#5...In 2008, Israeli archeologists confirmed the authenticity of a first-century stone tablet with a Hebrew inscription that mentions the angel Gabriel and tells the story of a messianic figure who would suffer, be killed by the Romans, and rise in three days. It is believed to have been created just decades before Jesus’ birth. The Gabriel Stone, also known as the "Gabriel's Revelation,” is 3-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of text inscribed in ink. It was first found near the Dead Sea in 2000 before being studied formally. The creation of the Gabriel Stone is associated with the same community that scribed the Dead Sea scrolls.
This is an important discovery because it affirms the divinity of Jesus and challenges claims that the narrative of a suffering messiah who was crucified wasn’t just made up by early Christians to explain the scandal of the cross. It also refutes the claim that Jews during Biblical times had no concept of a suffering messiah.
#6....What if the Bible isn’t just a religious book—but also a history book? The idea that the Bible is simply a collection of inspired stories that were passed down through oral tradition is falling out of favor among some leading New Testament scholars. They believe that the Bible may have been written based on eyewitness testimony and written sources. Experts are discovering that the Bible is more historically accurate than once believed, and that it could give an accurate picture of who Jesus was. Why is this shift in Bible scholarship happening? The Bible contains historical details that would have been possible to get right unless you were there.
For example, the statistical distribution of names mentioned in the gospels matches up almost perfectly with the statistical distribution of names in first-century Palestine, as New Testament Scholar Richard Bauckham explains in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.”
This might seem like an unimportant detail, but, the scholar believes that it would have been nearly impossible to get the names right unless the gospel writers had contact with the people who are mentioned in the Biblical books. This is just one detail out of many that seemingly confirms the accuracy of the Bible.
#7...Archeologists found an ancient synagogue in the lower Galilee region, which is where the New Testament says that Jesus delivered sermons to his early followers.
The synagogue was discovered during a 10-year excavation at a site in Tel Rechesh, which is still ongoing. This discovery is important because it is the first synagogue discovered in Galilee area. It is the eighth synagogue in total that has been found, dated to what is called the Second Temple Era, which ended in AD 79 after the Romans attacked Jerusalem.
The New Testament describes Jesus preaching at synagogues in Capernaum and Galilean villages. Christianity, which spread after Jesus’ death, placed great emphasis on the sermons he delivered at these synagogues, according to scholars.
For each you would need to confirm that they are true (I can spot the more obvious false ones ie have been falsified already eg the Turin shroud.). Then you'd have to honestly look at what each would mean if true, and do so without extrapolation beyond the scope of what is given (the fact that Nazareth exists today doesn't validate in any way Jesus' existence or what he is alleged to have done). None of the above directly support the validation of any fantastic occurrences - only the faith that it may be true to those wanting it to be true. Hardly evidence.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
..oh, and the book is from a Yale University geopolitical class.
What's the title and authorship of the book?
lost the book many years ago...
Of course you did
So now you are calling me a liar.....well many have told me to put you on ignore as atheist perpetually misspeak of what was said....I guess I will do it...I will also say some prayers to you and for you, so that when on your deathbed, that you will please ask Jesus for forgiveness...
That's only because you had lied earlier.
Projections of your faults and fears onto others doesn't go down all that well. I hope that you never end up on Judge Judy.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/YNqm9IA.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/tFH1eqG.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/8oSln3N.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/42zaERZ.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/shL0pcF.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/h1wChCg.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/nqbsrRM.gif)