religious

[MK Shrimper]

Now that's funny stuff. Many people think Christians or followers of any religion are mad because they are totally faith based. This obviously isn't true, but what you've just said above is very faith based indeed.

Theres many books out there which point to compelling evidence. If you really want proof he does I can see which ones and direct you in that direction for you to make your own educated mind up.

Interesting thing about the big bang theory, people think it contradicts the Bible, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that the Bible talks about the big bang somewhere, it was on an internet site so maybe it was a little dodgey..

1) There's no books to prove the God exists. Truth denies faith, and without faith....

2) Any archaic sentence in a book written over 1600 years ago (yes 400 years after "Jesus" was supposedly crucified) can be twisted to say anything if you want it to.

 

[BrettieAngell]

This thread is funny!

 

[Mr. Benedict]

This thread is funny!

These type of threads always are. No-one will ever win the argument here, but it's always quite a thought provoking debate to participate in and read through :)

 

[Cricko]

I find that such a sell out answer. Everything was created, the Universe was created from a massive explosion and this is pretty much 99.99% scientific fact. If the forces that shaped out Universe were 0.00000001% out of balance it wouldn't exist and I honestly believe that there have been (and possibly still are) literally billions upon billions of Universes created, the vast majority of which were (or are) barren, lifeless places.

I think the enormity of that is far more mind-buggering than some "omni prescent" being waving a finger and bring life out of nothing.

Man creates God because the human brain just cannot accept the fact of how utterly unimportant we are and how one day, nothing will exist.

What are you talking about,String Theories alone are only just understandable,this by the way creates Parallel Universes....There are more solar systems out there than all the sand on all the beaches of this world.

Again why do you think we no it all..........in fact why do you think we know anything in the big picture.

 

[fredheim_holm]

Oh really? There is not one scrap of scientific evidence to suggest that there is a god that I know of and I challenge anyone to find me one that has a sound footing and not based on conjecture.

Well, of course there isn't scientific evidence. But that doesn't mean to say there isn't evidence. It's historical evidence, that Jesus died on the cross and rose again. As 'proven' (I say proven, because many many of the top Legal people in America agree that if it was a case in court the evidence would easily give the verdict to resurrection) by many in America. Basically, with historical events, you have many pieces of evidence. I stated earlier that theres around 24,000 + manuscripts backing up what the Bible says. I found that overwhelming personally.

And of course, if there was 1 manuscript or 10 that were against it, it would practically send the religion into disarray. The fact is that there is a mass of historical evidence for the Bible and there is next to (I say next to, I've not heard of one) no legible evidence against it. As I say, theres no scientific proof of the resurrection, as there can't be. You can't go and swob the area now.

 

[Mad Cyril]

The one that gets me with this God bloke is that in The Old Testament he is a vindictive, "if I don't get my own way, I'll kill you all", nasty piece of work. He then has a kid, in The New Testament, and suddenly he is an all round good guy, who is love, and who is peace. Why is that?

It was a cynical re-branding exercise just like when Michael Barrymore went on Celebrity Big Brother.

 

[Mr. Benedict]

Well, of course there isn't scientific evidence. But that doesn't mean to say there isn't evidence. It's historical evidence, that Jesus died on the cross and rose again. As 'proven' (I say proven, because many many of the top Legal people in America agree that if it was a case in court the evidence would easily give the verdict to resurrection) by many in America. Basically, with historical events, you have many pieces of evidence. I stated earlier that theres around 24,000 + manuscripts backing up what the Bible says. I found that overwhelming personally.

And of course, if there was 1 manuscript or 10 that were against it, it would practically send the religion into disarray. The fact is that there is a mass of historical evidence for the Bible and there is next to (I say next to, I've not heard of one) no legible evidence against it. As I say, theres no scientific proof of the resurrection, as there can't be. You can't go and swob the area now.

Hang on Fred. You forget that in the era that you are talking about, practically the only people that could read and write were the clergy, and they're hardly going to say that the bible is wrong are they?

And I'm sorry, but there is NO evidence to say that Jesus DEFINITELY rose from the dead so to present that as fact would be churlish.

 

[Cricko]

Oh really? There is not one scrap of scientific evidence to suggest that there is a god that I know of and I challenge anyone to find me one that has a sound footing and not based on conjecture.

And there is not a scrap of evidence against it.

 

[fredheim_holm]

1) There's no books to prove the God exists. Truth denies faith, and without faith....

It depends what you mean by proof. If you take proof of court as proof, or as it being very likely that a man killed a woman then you should take it that the resurrection happened, due to overwhelming evidence.

2) Any archaic sentence in a book written over 1600 years ago (yes 400 years after "Jesus" was supposedly crucified) can be twisted to say anything if you want it to.

I must disagree. It's been proven that all the gospels (the only books you need in the bible for it all to fall down if it was proven wrong) were all written within 60 years of Jesus death. Don't you think that if the disciples were spouting rubbish that the people would laugh them off and it would never have got to a worldwide belief? That's a poorly educated excuse I must admit.

 

[BrettieAngell]

And there is not a scrap of evidence against it.

and round and round we go John!! ;)

 

[fredheim_holm]

Hang on Fred. You forget that in the era that you are talking about, practically the only people that could read and write were the clergy, and they're hardly going to say that the bible is wrong are they?

They were DEFINATELY going to say the bible was wrong! They hated it, so much that they killed Jesus (fact, he lived and died).

They hated the fact that he thought he was the messiah and therefore killed him. Any chance they had to disprove it they would. The most educated people at the time were the government, and they ordered the execution, mocked him and brutally killed him. Do you think they'd not bother reading the Bible and find any flaws to stop this uproar?

And I'm sorry, but there is NO evidence to say that Jesus DEFINITELY rose from the dead so to present that as fact would be churlish.

There is evidence to say 99% sure that Jesus rose from the dead. It's historical evidence at its greatest.

 

[MK Shrimper]

What are you talking about,String Theories alone are only just understandable,this by the way creates Parallel Universes....There are more solar systems out there than all sand on all the beaches of this world.

Again why do you think we no it all..........in fact why do you think we know anything in the big picture.

Don't you think that we are beginning to understand how the Universe(s) work? We're no longer cavemen living in caves and drawing paintings on walls - we have scientists in Cern creating the very instant that our Universe came into existence...we have some incredible minds who have seen how String Theory unites Einstein's Big Force/Little Force conundrums.

Who's to say that if the human race is still around in another 1000 years that we won't know everything there is to know?

 

[SARF]

If jesus had been killed in say America 30 years ago,.. would electric chairs as opposed to cucifxes be worn round people necks?

 

[Mr. Benedict]

It depends what you mean by proof. If you take proof of court as proof, or as it being very likely that a man killed a woman then you should take it that the resurrection happened, due to overwhelming evidence.
.

What overwhelming evidence?

Courts are unreliable and can acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent.
If there's no hard fact you cannot present something as proof.

 

[C C Csiders]

Don't you think that we are beginning to understand how the Universe(s) work? We're no longer cavemen living in caves and drawing paintings on walls - we have scientists in Cern creating the very instant that our Universe came into existence...we have some incredible minds who have seen how String Theory unites Einstein's Big Force/Little Force conundrums.

Who's to say that if the human race is still around in another 1000 years that we won't know everything there is to know?

And indeed, whether Matt Harrold has scored from open play.

 

[SARF]

Could have been dangerous if he had been hung in London.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

I think the main problem with the notion of God's existence is that humans are mortal and living in a mortal world. What goes up must come down, all good things come to an end, another part of the cycle - infinity and infinite existence are so rarely discussed or thought about that they may as well not exist.

In my eyes, it's completely conceivable that a God could have existed infinitely in the past and wil exist infinitely in the future. I think that whilst the implication of God's form ("So God created man in his own image") makes the religion more accessible, it also implies that God suffers the same frailties as humans.

Lol, who said he was a bloke.......who said he was anything.....but energy...vibrating at such speed as to cause effect...We are all only energy..we are but a simplistic race that has got rapped up in our own selfish attitudes to think we know it all....Once again I will say listen to your heart, that vibrates the most ..maybe there is some truth there.

I find that such a sell out answer. Everything was created, the Universe was created from a massive explosion and this is pretty much 99.99% scientific fact. If the forces that shaped out Universe were 0.00000001% out of balance it wouldn't exist and I honestly believe that there have been (and possibly still are) literally billions upon billions of Universes created, the vast majority of which were (or are) barren, lifeless places.

I think the enormity of that is far more mind-buggering than some "omni prescent" being waving a finger and bring life out of nothing.

Man creates God because the human brain just cannot accept the fact of how utterly unimportant we are and how one day, nothing will exist.

Why do science and god have to be mutually exclusive?

There is one thing the Big Bang Theory cannot explain and that is where the massive source of energy came from that started it. Why not such a creative force as Cricko describes? That is probably the best description of 'God' to me, a source of creative energy beyond the realm of our insignificant imaginations. and yes this creative force has probably created many more universes besides ours.

Start of the old testament - "and God said let there be light", what else is that other than a f@cking big explosion? Which then leads to the question how the **** did they know that?

What are Adam & Eve, surely the same as the first two monkeys to climb down from the tree's and become 'human'. Again, How the f***

 

[fredheim_holm]

What overwhelming evidence?

Courts are unreliable and can acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent.
If there's no hard fact you cannot present something as proof.

The 24,000 manuscripts and other pieces of evidence, such as that no-one can disprove it, and there is no logical explanation against the resurrection at all.

 

[Andyhsufc]

Im very much the sort of person that has to see it to believe it (very important when you support Southend united!) and i suppose that kind of stops me believing in God!

 

[Mr. Benedict]

The 24,000 manuscripts and other pieces of evidence, such as that no-one can disprove it, and there is no logical explanation against the resurrection at all.

Yes there is. Once you are dead you are dead and you cannot bring ANYONE back to life. Once your heart stops and your brain is dead, that's it, goodnight gracie.

Fred, you can't use ancient manuscripts as proof of anything, I'm not going to be convinced by those - find me the "other" evidence and I may consider the theory.