Are you certain that God exists?

[matey]

As the story goes, when he got here, there were already people here. Therefore, even if the story is true, Columbus did not discover the Americas. Excavations in the Americas verify this.

Why would such a thing be made up? I can find documents from multiple sources and probably find remnants of structures or equipment. In fact, these may very well be in museums already.

Excellent! Now we have something that had reasons to be made up. Given the international political situation at the time, there was definately a motive for fabrication. The importance of the moon landing was not just significant scientifically, but also to prove to ourselves and the rest of the world that we were better than the Russians.

Now that we have established a motive, how do we go about verification? Since there is no erosion on the moon, we should be able to go up there and find the footprints. In fact, those footprints should still be there a thousand years from now. We can record the entire trip, so that any doubters can see the entire process from boarding the ship to locating the footprints. We can also compare the photographs and images of the original mission to the new images. The more accuracy and details in such an endeavor, the less doubt in future generations.

Is such a thing necesary? I don't believe so. As time goes on, space travel becomes more and more routine. The idea that someone has gone to the moon and back no longer seems so fabulous. But verification awaits for those who still doubt it.

I would argue that Columbus did discover America. He discovered America, as we call it now, in the eyes of Europe. America was not known to them and he sailed his ships across the Atlantic (in 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean blue) and landed in the Bahamas.

And there were already people here, as everybody should know. There were several distinct cultures throughout the America's: Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Eskimos, and the many Plains Indians.

 

[Fascist Christ]

I would argue that Columbus did discover America. He discovered America, as we call it now, in the eyes of Europe.

In a european perspective, that may work. Rather than "discover" I would say that he was the first Spainiard in recorded history to cross the Atlantic from Europe to the Americas. I cannot give credit of discovery to someone who thought he was in India, and their ignorance of the possibility of life on other lands. And withpeople already there, the possibility of a land-bridge from Alaska to Russia, and Viking artifacts found in the Americas, it is hard for me to say who was really "first" to "discover" the land. Columbus gets too much credit.

 

[michel]

I would argue that Columbus did discover America. He discovered America, as we call it now, in the eyes of Europe. America was not known to them and he sailed his ships across the Atlantic (in 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean blue) and landed in the Bahamas.

And there were already people here, as everybody should know. There were several distinct cultures throughout the America's: Incans, Mayans, Aztecs, Eskimos, and the many Plains Indians.

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/butch-1.html
Jeffrey G. Butch
History 392.01
Dr. Tirado
October 25, 1996


Amerigo Vespucci



Who was Amerigo Vespucci? This is a question I asked myself as I was researching the man credited with the discovery of the new world. Much information has been written about Christopher Columbus and very little about Amerigo Vespucci. To understand who Amerigo Vespucci was is to look at his life and times in that time period. This paper is an attempt to look at his history and try to get a better understanding of his life in the “Age of Discovery”. To have a understanding of Vespucci is to remember that to the day of his death, Columbus persisted in claiming he was in parts of Asia. This is part of the old world mentality and shows that Columbus never fully comprehended the achievements of his voyages. Two continents are named after Amerigo Vespucci. A great achievement for a man who many feel is a charlatan of geography. Did he discover America or was this honor bestowed on the wrong man?

“In the middle ages, Europe knew less about the earth than did some of the ancients, for the commercial decline of Rome brought about the contraction of geographical knowledge.” [Pohl 6]. During this time period, men began to disregard authority and learned to rely directly on their own investigations. This is the seed that brought about men like Columbus and Vespucci. The period of the Renaissance is the fertile ground that brought about changes in the world of inquiry and scientific achievement in Europe. “This new spirit of inquiry received its chief impetus from the invention of the printing press whose importance outweighed even the greatest political event of the time.”[Pohl 9]. Printing led to the overthrow of authority and allowed the men of the period to come into immediate contact with each other and stimulated intellectual dialogue. It is by no accident that Florence produced a man like Amerigo Vespucci. The cultural environment of Florence and the availability of printed books with many opportunities led Amerigo Vespucci to the sea and to complete the voyages Columbus failed to complete in the discovery of the mainland now know as the America’s.

 

[michel]

In a european perspective, that may work. Rather than "discover" I would say that he was the first Spainiard in recorded history to cross the Atlantic from Europe to the Americas. I cannot give credit of discovery to someone who thought he was in India, and their ignorance of the possibility of life on other lands. And withpeople already there, the possibility of a land-bridge from Alaska to Russia, and Viking artifacts found in the Americas, it is hard for me to say who was really "first" to "discover" the land. Columbus gets too much credit.

Columbus was a Japhethite given credit for discovering land inhabited by Shemites.

 

[matey]

I know that Columbus did not know he discovered a "new" land. I know he set out to find a new route to the "riches of the East". I also know that Amerigo Vespucci is the namesake for America, given by a German geographer.

But that makes absolutely no difference as to what Columbus discovered. He discovered the "lands of the Western Hemisphere", regardless of whether he knew it or not. He was the first to sail across the Atlantic. I doesn't matter if Amerigo was smarter or more "Rennaissance" than Columbus. Columbus was the First to go. If it was a race, Columbus won. This doesn't minimalize the contributions Amerigo gave to us all, it's just that he wasn't the first to cross to discover the new land.

And all this affirms my certainty in the existence of God. How? I see how history gets distorted and how everybody has a different perception on what happened. And how new evidence comes forth all the time as to the peopling of the "Americas". The "peopling of the Americas" being completely a different page in History than the discovery of the lands of the Western Hemisphere by Christopher Columbus on October 12, 1492.

So if everybody has a different perception, mine is the only perception that counts in my belief in God. There lies my certainty that God exists. Evidence is not needed in my belief in God. If I were to go about trying to come up with evidence for someone else that God exists, I would likely come up empty-handed, even though I believe that everything in this world is God (He created it so it all has to be Him, I think).

I believe that God is not about evidence. He is about a way of thinking, i.e. believing. Belief, as I'm sure it has been already said on this thread, doesn't require evidence or that you be able to prove it. Evidence and proof is the domain of science. Science involves, I think, a completely different faculty of the brain. If I try to prove God by proof and evidence, I will come up empty-handed. But I will still give God credit for it.

 

[michel]

So if everybody has a different perception, mine is the only perception that counts in my belief in God. There lies my certainty that God exists. Evidence is not needed in my belief in God. If I were to go about trying to come up with evidence for someone else that God exists, I would likely come up empty-handed, even though I believe that everything in this world is God (He created it so it all has to be Him, I think).

Good points, Matey. Keep in mind:

1. God created the Earth and...
2. ...turned it over to Adam and Eve, who...
3. ...was tricked out of it by Satan, who...
4. ...offered it to Jesus, Who...
5. ...declined it, Who...
6. ...is coming back for it, Who...
7. ...is going to rebuild it, and...
8. ...give it back to us.

 

[Fascist Christ]

I need to know. How do you get from "god exists" to something as mythological as this:

Good points, Matey. Keep in mind:

1. God created the Earth and...
2. ...turned it over to Adam and Eve, who...
3. ...was tricked out of it by Satan, who...
4. ...offered it to Jesus, Who...
5. ...declined it, Who...
6. ...is coming back for it, Who...
7. ...is going to rebuild it, and...
8. ...give it back to us.

Seriously now, can you arrive at such a conclusion without storybooks? How else can we explain how religion becomes an epic soap opera?

The premise that god exists brings forth no such stories. In fact, the premise denies it. There is no practical purpose for god to have created a devil, or a paradise, or a special apple tree, or to have a son, or to have that son murdered, or to raise the dead, or promote racial favoritism... all these things are foolish fabrications that insult our creator's benign and universal nature.

 

[michel]

The premise that god exists brings forth no such stories. In fact, the premise denies it. There is no practical purpose for god to have created a devil, or a paradise, or a special apple tree, or to have a son, or to have that son murdered, or to raise the dead, or promote racial favoritism... all these things are foolish fabrications that insult our creator's benign and universal nature.

Ignoring your assessment about 'fabrications and fairy tales', here's your answer:

1. God created the Earth - (Genesis 1:1)
2. Turned it over to Adam and Eve - (Genesis 1:28-30)
3. Who were tricked out of it by Satan - (Genesis 3)
4. Who offered it to Jesus - (Matthew 4:8-9)
5. Who declined it - (Matthew 4:10)
6. Who is coming back for it - (Acts 1:11)
7. Who is going to rebuild it - (Revelation 21:1)
8. And give it back to us - (Revelation 21)

 

[michel]

There is no practical purpose for god to have created a devil,

He didn't

or promote racial favoritism

Cute --- any Bible scholar will see through that in a heartbeat.

all these things are foolish fabrications that insult our creator's benign and universal nature.

Dream on.

 

[Fascist Christ]

Ignoring your assessment about 'fabrications and fairy tales', here's your answer:

1. God created the Earth - (Genesis 1:1)
2. Turned it over to Adam and Eve - (Genesis 1:28-30)
3. Who were tricked out of it by Satan - (Genesis 3)
4. Who offered it to Jesus - (Matthew 4:8-9)
5. Who declined it - (Matthew 4:10)
6. Who is coming back for it - (Acts 1:11)
7. Who is going to rebuild it - (Revelation 21:1)
8. And give it back to us - (Revelation 21)

Thank you for listing the passages of the storybooks and the verses of the poetry to back up my statement.

 

[Fascist Christ]

He didn't

Cute --- any Bible scholar will see through that in a heartbeat.

Dream on.

Did you have something to add to the conversation?

 

[Radar]

He didn't


Cute --- any Bible scholar will see through that in a heartbeat.


Dream on.

Are you saying that god did not create the devil? Then that would explain how he has no power over Satan. How did the Devil come about? God supposedly created the heavens and the earth and all there inhabitants. Is the Devil not a fallen angel? Were angels created by god? Was the serpent in the garden the devil? If so why couldn't god keep him out? And if the devil is a fallen angel then why didn't god just destroy him? That is the god of the Old Testament who did not send things to hell but just destroyed them. It seems to me that if this fairy tell is true then Satan (the devil) would be god's equal and this could be one of the other gods that is spoke of in the 10 commandments. Because God is a jealous god. This would also make hell a creation of god, sort of god's dungeon with the sentence of eternity no matter how big or little your sin was with no chance of parole. Seems a bit much to me.

 

[michel]

Are you saying that god did not create the devil? Then that would explain how he has no power over Satan. How did the Devil come about? God supposedly created the heavens and the earth and all there inhabitants. Is the Devil not a fallen angel? Were angels created by god? Was the serpent in the garden the devil? If so why couldn't god keep him out? And if the devil is a fallen angel then why didn't god just destroy him? That is the god of the Old Testament who did not send things to hell but just destroyed them. It seems to me that if this fairy tell is true then Satan (the devil) would be god's equal and this could be one of the other gods that is spoke of in the 10 commandments. Because God is a jealous god. This would also make hell a creation of god, sort of god's dungeon with the sentence of eternity no matter how big or little your sin was with no chance of parole. Seems a bit much to me.

How 'bout you pare this down to one question, and depending on how you accept the answer, we go from there, okay? But if you think the Bible is a fairy tale, please say so clearly so I know whether to ignore you or not. I don't wish defend fairy tales.

 

[michel]

I don't wish defend fairy tales.

Correction: I don't wish to defend fairy tales.

 

[Radar]

Correction: I don't wish to defend fairy tales.

So in other words you don't have answers for my questions. I believe there are only 7 questions.
1.Are you saying that god did not create the devil? If not then.
2.How did the Devil come about?
3.Is the Devil not a fallen angel?
4.Were angels created by god?
5.Was the serpent in the garden the devil?
6.If so why couldn't god keep him out?
7.And if the devil is a fallen angel then why didn't god just destroy him?

Start any where you like.

 

[Ahmadi]

No. I cannot think of any compelling justification of why god would try to communicate to us with signs when he has already given us the gifts of Reason and an entire Creation to learn from. Feel free to challenge me on that one.

That's a very silly statement. If reason and the 'entire' creation had been enough to learn from and know that God exists without even a shadow of doubt, then everybody in the world (or at least the entire Scientific community) would have a firm belief in the existence of God. Signs and miracles make certainty possible. Otherwise, very, very few people would have accepted prophets. Many accepted the existence of God because of the miracles and signs they saw.

Also, there are inherent problems with miracles, which Thomas Paine does an excellent job in explaining in the Age of Reason.

Based on the problems with the signs that he must have discussed, did he provide any standard, or criteria for a sign to be acceptable?

First of all, how do we know if something is a miracle from God? Something would have to happen that could not have otherwise happened without his intervention. But how can we know that it could not have happened? We do not know everything about the Creation, and can therefore not conclude undoubtably that the miracle was not just some natural or artificial occurance. We cannot reasonably say it was supernatural until we rule out those other two possibilities...You might see a man who appears to be flying, and some might believe that he truly was flying. However, a reasonable man would immediately think that there must be strings from which he is suspended, or some other such illusion.

You see, my understanding is that a sign or a miracle doesn't have to be supernatural or something that could not happen. A sign is a natural occurance which can be explained by Science. However, the time that a specific natural occurance happens and the predicted results that actually occur are miraculous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, the time that a specific natural occurance happens and the predicted results that actually occur are miraculous.

... a bit like using entrails to foretell the future. Every delusion is replete with 'signs'.

 

[Ahmadi]

Of course. I don't know about you, but if I see a pregnant woman, I figure she probably had sex. If she told me it was artificial insemenation, I would believe her. If she said that a ghost told her in a dream that she was pregnant and that it was his child, I would think she was crazy, lying, or too naive to know what sex is.

Furthermore, what is the significance of the virginity? Is there something wrong with sex? Or is it supposed to be an amazing feat that a 15-year-old could be a virgin?

A miracle is a sign of a lie. A "sign from god," if not a miracle, is most likely a natural or artificial occurance that you found more meaning in than just face value, but that does not make it from god.

Again, conception without sex is rare but it has been scientifically proven to have occured. Sometimes, very rarely, a woman is known to have conceived a child without intercourse and that is because she had some sort of an ability or a system in her body that enabled her to conceive. The miracle is not in the conception because it is scientifically possible. The miracle is that God told her that she will conceive even without intercourse and it actually happpened. It is possible that the angel that she saw in a vision, who appeared in the form of a young man, must have triggered the system in her body when she just looked at him. The miracle is not in the conception itself but the timing of the conception and the fulfillement of a prophecy.

A miracle or a sign is so because God Himself predicts it to occur. It is God's words that are being fulfilled.

 

[Ahmadi]

... a bit like using entrails to foretell the future. Every delusion is replete with 'signs'.

Well, even I can do that to predict that you will die before the year 3000 but that doesn't make it a sign. The accuracy and the correctness and the exact nature of the sign makes it a sign. Delusions don't have the kind of signs that a religion does.Knockout

 

[Ahmadi]

This is what is great about the Scientific Method. We have to be able to duplicate the experiment to give it any credibility. Since the only times these things ever happen are in stories, we are not warranted in believing them to be any more than stories.

Well, my religion says that you can try it as much as you want and you will get the results that are told.