• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An irrefutable proof that Jesus is God

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
No one is forced to follow the commandments like a slave. Cities have traffic laws but people are not forced to obey them. But there are penalties if you do not follow them and the laws are for the protection of all citizens. God does not force people to obey the commandments but there are penalties because they are for the benefit of all people.
How does hell fix anything?
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
How does hell fix anything?
If you have a class of 20 students and 19 obey the rules but 1 causes problems by not obeying the best way to solve the problem is to remove the 1 student who does not follow the rules. God will remove those people who will not follow the rules for the benefit of all the others who are left.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Please explain why I should have said "your observations".
Because when your evidence is the Bible, and and any person with adequate vision can see and understand the content as being inadequate as evidence for the claims that are made FROM the content of the book itself.


Perhaps you might want to explain why you conclude that Christians assume anything, and what makes you think they "heard something about the Bible being true".
As far as I know, Christians have arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is true, based on the evidence indicating it is. That's not assuming.
Because the "evidence" is the book itself, and the dogma inherited from previous generations. There are no facts you present that we can use to conclude your religious claims are true.


I have heard that argument many times, and it is considered a strawman, because the fact that there is fiction does not make every fact fiction.
It's not a straw man, it's a direct set of examples that demonstrate stories themselves in books does not mean these stories are true at face value. We demand evidence that stories, especially fantastic stories with supernatural elements, are true at face value. Since theists claim these stories are true, and can't provide evidence that they happened and are true, then we throw them out and give examples through human history of embellished and invented stories.

If you are going to claim the stories in the Bible are true then you need to demonstrate they are true. Since you can't at least you can demonstrate the stories are plausible. But believers can't even do that. That's why theists fall back on faith.


Many scientists do not reach such conclusion as "something is impossible because we never observed it, or discovered it".
So where do such arguments stem from? Could it be bias?
No. There's just no supernatural phenomenon observed or known to exist. Why should we assume is exists? Bible stories?


There we go. Opinionated bias. Thank you for making that easy for us.
Sorry, it's not bias to acknowledge there is inadequate evidence that a Jesus existed. It's just honest. Of course you don't like it.


Please start by explaining your understanding of "evidence", because since I have been here, I get the impression that some persons on RF believe evidence is something other than it is understood to be.
Your definition verifies that.
Evidence is a collection of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
The evidence can be strong, weak, circumstantial or conclusive, but it is never always conclusive, as though it proves something.
It is interpreted, and oftentimes the conclusion reaches is not correct.
Take DNA evidence for example. It is a piece of evidence containing a body of facts, but those facts may lead to something very different to what one interprets, or concludes, from that circumstantial evidence.
Example The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing
You are trying to minimize the power of evidence here. By doing so it helps you prove your beliefs in what way? Evidence needs to be available to ordinary senses and be understood without special assumptions. There's a knife at a crime scene. Is it the murder weapon covered in blood and fingerprints, or a butter knife that just happens to be present? Evidence is put together with the facts. This is not an advantage for theists trying to prove their claims because there is always going to be facts missing, namely that of any supernatural phenomenon, specifically a God. That's the problem for theists, not for observers without a bias to believe.

Evidence is not proof.
Evidence is a body of facts, which indicates something, and one can evaluate, and reach conclusions.
One does not need to see God for there to be evidence of God. In the same way one does not need to see wind, for there to be evidence of wind.
662782C9D5C9C2334120823247D7D8BD225CD072

Can you see the wind I can't.
Dutch%20windmill-128.gif
Magnetism would be a better analogy. Wind is easily measured. It can even be seen when it picks up debris.

Thus far there is nothing in reality that correlates to the word "God". This is just a word referenced in sentences and believers happen to think it means something.


The view that God does nothing, comes from those who believe that.
This implies a lazy God. But as I just noted there's no evidence available to human senses and reason that suggests any God exists outside of human imagination. Now some believers often believe that there are effects of Gods, like miracles. But this has no basis in fact or reason, it is another desperate need for a religious mind to find justification for their belief.

Those who know God has done, and continues to do, do not have that view. They know what God has done for them. They may not be able to prove to you God's deeds, but as with the blind man that says he sees no evidence, there is no benefits in arguing with such persons. That would not make them see.
How is any of this known? To claim knowledge means it has a factual basis. What I suspect you are doing here is bluffing that you have knowledge when really you have poorly based beliefs, but have to exaggerate it as if that fraud will work in a debate. You may fool yourself with these mind tricks but you can't fool objective thinkers who have seen these trick of language many, many times before.


I claim no such perfect knowledge of anything. I think each one should go where the evidence leads them.
That's what I do. I can't choose for you.
Yet you just claimed knowledge when you have none, perfect or imperfect. You have very weak beliefs and you feel compelled to embellish how well supported they are. You are choosing to lie and decide about these matters and don't seem aware you are doing it. That is the trap that religion sets for individuals who know WHAT they believe, but no idea WHY they believe it.

No one comes to a factual and rational conclusion a God exists. People are exposed to these beliefs in their social experience and they adopt these beliefs and behaviors subconsciously. This behavior becomes a sort of operating software for social beings and they aren't terribly aware of how and why they ended up believing. It just happens as a result of social experience, much like language acquisition.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
What a Pauline-mythical-Christianity-holyspiritgod, who plays politics with its denominations; saying something to Mormons and yet different things to Catholics and Protestants? Isn't he divisive, please?
Right?

Regards
Hello paarsurrey,
Well, you said it... a Pauline mythical God doesn't exist. And many churches are Pauline, imo.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I love how the Bible says humans cannot be trusted and then expects us to believe a text written by humans.
I don't believe I need to quote all the texts in the Bible that says they wrote God's words, because I think you either know them, or know of them.
One who sees the evidence for God, only need to do one thing - examine the texts to see if they are true.
Like the Beroeans. Acts 17:11

For example... Has what has been writen proved to be true?
Yes. As Joshua said, "Not one word has failed. They have all come true."
So when we read the texts, and we see what it says come true or is proved true, we know it is not the word of men, but the word of God.
Hence we trust it... completely. Not as the word of men, which it isn't, but the word of God.
(1 Thessalonians 2:13) Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers.

I believe one who reads the Bible knows these things. Just check how many times the expression "the word of God", is used in the Bible.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
If you have a class of 20 students and 19 obey the rules but 1 causes problems by not obeying the best way to solve the problem is to remove the 1 student who does not follow the rules. God will remove those people who will not follow the rules for the benefit of all the others who are left.
But removal only shows the teacher couldn’t deal with the root issues.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
what were the claims of Apollonius in the 50s onwards, and what were the contrasting claims of the so called "Christians" of that time? What are the sources closest to the source? Think about it.
The point I'm making is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; there are many of the former, and so far none of the latter.

Or as FitzGerald's Omar puts it ─

The Revelations of Devout and Learn’d
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn’d,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep​
They told their comrades, and to Sleep return’d.​
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
If you have a class of 20 students and 19 obey the rules but 1 causes problems by not obeying the best way to solve the problem is to remove the 1 student who does not follow the rules. God will remove those people who will not follow the rules for the benefit of all the others who are left.
Right, swiftly, righteously. Sometimes God removes them in their 90's by natural causes because God is so efficient and right on top of things. Sometimes God removes a child with deadly genetic diseases before the baby can break any rules, just in case, as an example to the rest of us.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The point I'm making is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; there are many of the former, and so far none of the latter.

Or as FitzGerald's Omar puts it ─

The Revelations of Devout and Learn’d
Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn’d,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep​
They told their comrades, and to Sleep return’d.​

Yeah. The famous meme.

But still, when you are comparing, you must compare wider in my opinion.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yeah. The famous meme.

But still, when you are comparing, you must compare wider in my opinion.
As you'll have noticed, I'm a materialist, not least because I have no reason to think that the supernatural exists in any form other than as concepts held or things imagined by individuals.

That still leaves such interesting questions as, was there an historical Jesus?

And how much, if any, of the NT, is sound historical reporting.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
As you'll have noticed, I'm a materialist, not least because I have no reason to think that the supernatural exists in any form other than as concepts held or things imagined by individuals.

That still leaves such interesting questions as, was there an historical Jesus?

And how much, if any, of the NT, is sound historical reporting.

You dont have to be a theist or atheist. When you give comparisons, it should be compared. Thats what I say to you.

Your comparison was Apollonius of the 1st century, his beliefs in the second half of the first century, and the Christian beliefs of the 1st century. So what were they? And what are the records? How do you compare these records? How do you compare the beliefs?

Thats the question. Hope you understand.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
These need to reform and become non-Pauline and non-mythical, please.
Right?

Regards
That's up to them, paarsurrey.
Where I live we are free to believe in anything.
But we are also free to speak our minds.

That's an improvement ..... :)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Because when your evidence is the Bible, and and any person with adequate vision can see and understand the content as being inadequate as evidence for the claims that are made FROM the content of the book itself.
Great. So since my evidence is not solely the Bible, as it would be like taking up a book, reading it, and saying "Ah. The truth." without testing it against known facts, and observations or experience, your opinions are not observations, but opinions that are clearly biased.

Because the "evidence" is the book itself, and the dogma inherited from previous generations. There are no facts you present that we can use to conclude your religious claims are true.
That's false. See above. Also I have presented facts. Not to you, because you evidently don't care for any. You never even asked.

It's not a straw man, it's a direct set of examples that demonstrate stories themselves in books does not mean these stories are true at face value. We demand evidence that stories, especially fantastic stories with supernatural elements, are true at face value. Since theists claim these stories are true, and can't provide evidence that they happened and are true, then we throw them out and give examples through human history of embellished and invented stories.
It's a strawman.

If you are going to claim the stories in the Bible are true then you need to demonstrate they are true. Since you can't at least you can demonstrate the stories are plausible. But believers can't even do that. That's why theists fall back on faith.
Exactly what I mean. You've made up your mind. Are you afraid of the facts?

No. There's just no supernatural phenomenon observed or known to exist. Why should we assume is exists? Bible stories?

Sorry, it's not bias to acknowledge there is inadequate evidence that a Jesus existed. It's just honest. Of course you don't like it.
Why would someone be bothered about one who just has opinions... based on nothing? That makes no sense.
People are bothered about things that are meaningful, not meaningless.
Virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.

You are trying to minimize the power of evidence here. By doing so it helps you prove your beliefs in what way? Evidence needs to be available to ordinary senses and be understood without special assumptions. There's a knife at a crime scene. Is it the murder weapon covered in blood and fingerprints, or a butter knife that just happens to be present? Evidence is put together with the facts. This is not an advantage for theists trying to prove their claims because there is always going to be facts missing, namely that of any supernatural phenomenon, specifically a God. That's the problem for theists, not for observers without a bias to believe.
What is evidence, please?

Magnetism would be a better analogy. Wind is easily measured. It can even be seen when it picks up debris.
Wind can be seen? I rest my case.

Thus far there is nothing in reality that correlates to the word "God". This is just a word referenced in sentences and believers happen to think it means something.
Opinion noted. Unless... do you have something more than what F1fan feels like saying?

This implies a lazy God. But as I just noted there's no evidence available to human senses and reason that suggests any God exists outside of human imagination. Now some believers often believe that there are effects of Gods, like miracles. But this has no basis in fact or reason, it is another desperate need for a religious mind to find justification for their belief.
Perhaps when you explain what evidence is, we can go from there, but again, I have acknowledged your opinion.

How is any of this known? To claim knowledge means it has a factual basis. What I suspect you are doing here is bluffing that you have knowledge when really you have poorly based beliefs, but have to exaggerate it as if that fraud will work in a debate. You may fool yourself with these mind tricks but you can't fool objective thinkers who have seen these trick of language many, many times before.
You seem to have a different definition for everything. Or do you just define things to support whatever you claim?
Define knowledge please.

Yet you just claimed knowledge when you have none, perfect or imperfect. You have very weak beliefs and you feel compelled to embellish how well supported they are. You are choosing to lie and decide about these matters and don't seem aware you are doing it. That is the trap that religion sets for individuals who know WHAT they believe, but no idea WHY they believe it.
Now you are calling me an empty headed liar. Lol. You are Buddhist? I never would consider you Buddhist. You sound more Atheist.

No one comes to a factual and rational conclusion a God exists. People are exposed to these beliefs in their social experience and they adopt these beliefs and behaviors subconsciously. This behavior becomes a sort of operating software for social beings and they aren't terribly aware of how and why they ended up believing. It just happens as a result of social experience, much like language acquisition.
I rest my case.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I set out the comparisons in my first mention of Apollonius. It's not as if he's unknown or unremarked.

Your comparison was Apollonius of the 1st century, his beliefs in the second half of the first century, and the Christian beliefs of the 1st century. So what were they? And what are the records? How do you compare these records? How do you compare the beliefs?

Thats the question. Hope you understand.
 
Top