arkon

Actually you are totaly wrong. I am convertable. Show me proof, physical hard undeniable proof and I will most certainly convert. Just the same as Astralia given time and the correct location could convert me, doesn't seem possible at the moment, but never say never that's my motto.

Seems, from reading the replies to your last post, all of us atheiests are convertable. So just shows that the current proof of God isn't really strong enough to stand up against a sane persons scutiny.

Big Galah

Going back a bit...

I think the problem is what happened between when events occurred and when they were written down.

Taking Jesus' life as an example, which in the context of the arguments here is probably appropriate, the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) give most of the detail of what we know about his life.

It's believed by historians (though of course open to argument) that these 'books' were written somewhere in the region of 30 (Matthew) to possibly 120 (John) years after the fact - but what is known it that those guys weren't there on the day of the crucifixion with notebooks and 'press' tags in their fedoras writing down the eyewitness accounts.

The fact that they tell (basically) the same story is not, I think, any proof of the facts contained therein (you could argue it's because they tell the same story that they are included in the bible - there are other discredited gospels that tell different stories).

That said, I think you'll find most people who do have faith have probably avoided this thread because of the condescending or, dare I say it, uneducated, tone of some of the posters.

From a personal point of view I think it's entirely possible and probable that Jesus existed. That he rose from the dead and is the son of god is a concept that I cannot accept, however. That's what faith is, I suppose, and I don't have it.

Mmm, maybe I should have left this alone.

big.

Hutch

All I did was say to my wife, "That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!"

themerlin

"He's not the son of god he's a very naughty boy"

wren

Great thread

I'd be interested to know what people think about bible prophecy... How can it be explained that no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and apparently there are hundreds)?

How could a mere human pinpoint the birth town of Jesus seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

Sally

Name and shame!

Big Galah

Nope, that was just me being stupid...I should remove that bit.

As for bible prophecy: make any prophecy vague enough and you'll be able to say it was predicted - after the fact.

The birth town of Jesus?

Do you know for a fact it was Bethlehem?

It was probably Nazareth. People going back to their town of birth for a census? Absolutely no evidence for this happing there at the time, and a completely ridiculous concept, when you think of it...

If there's one lesson we learn from history it's that no one can predict the future.

As for Micah, I just tried to buy his CD and they were sold out. Bet he never saw that one coming.

Prophecy my ass (or anyone else's).

Big.

Wol

>>I realised then there was nothing I could do to get my mate back. Then about 3 years later he was cured! He was flying a helicopter over a north sea oil rig and looked up at the rotors, and realised the only thing holding him in the air was a massive U bolt that holds the rotors on, NOT GOD, and that just snapped him out of it...<<

A classic U-Turn....

Wol

And now of course some physicists are saying that reality may not exist unless there's an observer - based on quantum entanglement as I understand it (which ain't far <g>)

There's an article about it in last week's NS.

I feel about this sort of esoteric physics rather the same as god: I need it to be explained to my satisfaction, not taken on trust.

wonkothesane

Well this thread is just way too interesting But in response to the original post, problems start way before the end of Genesis 2. It is generally accepted by bible scholars that the creation story in Genesis is actually two stories shunted into one. You will notice that in Genesis 1, Man (and woman!) is (are) created on the sixth day, after the rest of the world was made. In Genesis 2, things start off the other way around: God formed man from the dust and then breathed life into his nostrils. And then the garden of Eden was created. It was then at a later point that Eve was made from Adam's rib.

Uncle Fester

Haven't read all the posts as I'm at work and don't have time, but there is an excellent book around called "Truth and lies in the Bible" which points out all of these anomalies - well worth a read if you've stuck in on a wet Sunday afternoon and there's nothing on telly

Uncle Fester

Is that the same as "if a man speaks in the forest and his wife isn't there to hear him, has he really made a sound?"

wonkothesane

Saint Anselm developed an ontological argument for God's existence, which was then expanded by Leibniz and formalised by Gödel.

The original went like this (quoting from Wikipedia) argument like this:

God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.

You can see Gödel's mathematical proof
here.

arkon

How do you know he did? It's easy to come up with prophecies after the event. For example if I was to wait 200 years, write a prophecy that the nazi's were going to lose WW2, date my documents as say 1550, Id' look like a phrophet in a thousand years or so. Out of curiosity give us some more that came true that were written down before they happened.

arkon

It doesn't matter, as no matter what the man did the woman won't believe him.