thats not entirely true, there are non biblical accounts of Jesuss as well, so the new testament isnt the only book claiming he exists,,

Josie, that the earth is round is a belief that takes quite a bit of faith in the integrity of man,,,,
all the 'sources' we have,


(pictures and claims of men flying above it) are REASONABLY believable, but not INDISPUTABLY because pictures can be doctored and men can lie

I think that anything we come to 'know' through something other than our personal experiences takes faith to believe, even if it is the faith to decide between what is probable vs what is possible

some take sources, and through their faith in the reliability of the source, decide their accounts to be more PROBABLE than other accounts

learning anything takes faith in the validity, integrity, and dependability of a source(or even many sources)

No not really. They aren't that specific or credible. Besides, as I told Cowboy this is just a DISCUSSION. I'm not asking for proof. I've seen all the vague non-biblical so-called accounts. They are not very convincing.

yes, to know requires faith. you've just described the thinking of an agnostic precisely. to really know anything is impossible and requires faith and belief. the earth isn't round either btw. it's wider when measured at the equator than around the poles so better described as oblong. but do i know this if i haven't personally walked both great circles? no i don't but the descriptions i've read about how the earth was determined to be other than flat makes sense to me so i consider it highly plausible that the earth is not flat. the plausibility of god is extremely low if basing plausibility on an equal logic.

that is a personal perception based upon your FAITH in what is credible or not,,,,still brings it back to faith in something though

Truly.

They aren't anywhere near specific enough to even know whether the person referred to in those historic accounts was "Jesus" or some some person who did something vaguely similar to what "Jesus" has supposedly done.

Moreover, there is absolutely no independent historical evidence for any of the supernatural or miraculous claims made about the Jesus of the New Testament, and that's really of far more importance.

For example, you could provide me with an entire library of independent evidence that some guy actually lived, taught against the ways of the Torah, and was actually crucified for his views.

And all you would have done up to that point is give support to my theory that perhaps some real person sparked the New Testment "stories" of Jesus.

There would still be absolutely no independent historical evidence for the outrageous superstitious claims that are being made about this person. (i.e. that he went around healing all manner of sickness, that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, that he ever walked on water, or that God's voice ever came from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.)

So even if we had absolute detailed records of some guy teaching against the ways of the Torah, insulting Pharisees, taking temper tantrums in temples, and being crucified, even that would NOT validate all of the superstitious claims made about this person in the New Testament.

But we certainly don't even have that!

If we even had that the Christians would be screaming that they have absolute hardcore independent evidence of the whole life and times of Jesus. Even though that historical record may be totally lacking any evidence for any of the outrageous superstitious claims made in the New Testament.

I could write a book using Michael Jackson as the main character and make all sorts of miraculous claims about him being the "son" of God and was born of a virgin and I even personally saw him after he had died, and he ascended to heaven! And God himself even spoke from a cloud and told a large crowd of people that Michael Jackson was his son!

So clearly you can find tons of independent historical evidence that Michael Jackson actually LIVED. But does that support all of the outrageous claims that I wrote about him in my book?

I don't think so.

If "plausibility" is all that is required to believe or disbelieve in God, then can someone explain to me how it's plausible to imagine that all matter appeared from nothing? Science states that the universe in NOT static.

How about the plausibility of life forming from inanimate matter?

How about the plausibilty of numerous proteins being formed at just the right time to support said life?

And how did a simple, single-celled creature become more complex from mutations?

What about the position and composition of the Earth?

How about the unlikely event that through mutations, both male and female had to spawn within the same generation to evolve into sexually reproducing organisms?


Myself, I find it more plausible that there's an intelligent creator of the universe than not...

You'd have to first explain to me how it's any more "plausible" that a "God" can exist without a "cause".

Otherwise your concern here seems to be a moot point.



So? Would a static universe be any more "plausible"?



Perhaps it's your assumption that matter is "inanimate" in the first place that's wrong?



The right time? And what "time" would that be? When it actually happened? What's so special about that time other than this is when it actually happened?

As large as the universe is and as many stars as it contains it should come as no surprise that such a situation could ultimately occur by pure random chance given the homogeneity of its atomic content. In fact, if it were "By design" I would expect it to be far more orderly with many other nearby planet showing signs of life.

It would be a pretty "poor design" if like only occurs very rarely which appears to be the case.

So that observation seems to be negative indication of purposeful design.



That is fairly well understood in terms of DNA and genetics.

Once you are handed DNA the rest of evolution is easy to explain.



It appears to be random compared to the position and composition of many other planets even within our very own solar system.



Why do you call this "unlikely" that seems like you have a predetermined answer to your question already. Actually biologists have explained perfectly rational reasons of how and why this has occurred.



I do too, but I'm sure that my views of what that "creator" is and how it goes about "designing" stuff is drastically different from your views.

As far as I can see, if an "intelligent designer" did indeed create the atomic content of the universe, then he/she/it/them created that content in such a way that it would indeed evolve naturally via a process of random events.

In other words, you don't stop with the creation of the universe. But instead you seem to feel a need to have the creator babysit the universe and guide every atom and molecule along. In other words, you seem to be questioning evolution itself like as if it needed to be guided specifically.

Does this mean that you don't believe the creator was "intelligent" enough to have created a universe that could "self-evolve".

Why create a universe that needs to be baby-sat?

If "With God all things are possible" then why not just allow that God could have indeed created the atoms and the Big Bang knowing that this creation itself would be sufficient to evolve into life.

Suggesting that such a God would have needed to babysit the whole process seems to imply that the God would have been not been confident that his atomic design would be sufficient to evolve into life on it's own.

So as far as I can see, the very notion of a "baby-sitter" God is an automatic implication that God needs to keep making subtle "improvements" on his original design.

In other words, to deny evolution, is to deny a supposedly all-knowing and all-capable God who could indeed create a universe that could evolve into life on it's own with no further intervention from him.

So why demand that God has to "baby-sit" the process?

Moreover, if HUMANS were the "Goal" of this design, then why even bother to also design bacteria, viruses, and even animals that would attack, infect, and otherwise destroy his "creation" of the humans which was supposedly the "goal" of his design?

Can you offer an answer to that question?

Probability of life forming from inanimate matter? Very high when factored by time.

Just the right time has no meaning when one measures time... Giving the know time that exists 'just the right time' would have occured 'in time'.

Single celled creature would naturally become more comples... over time.

Every one of the questions above can be answered 'in due time'.

Yet God is greater than time...

so I must agree... It is most plausible that there is an intelligent creator of the Universe...

And yet, this allegedly omnipotent creator needs the obedience, worship and money of and from human beings or gets all mad and destroys things in a fit of pique when "He" doesn't get what he wants?

Sounds to me a sock puppet for Believers who simply MUST have only the best Creator in their court.

-Kerry O.

What non religious books have stated that Jesus was real?

In the top religions of the world god is perceived as a spoiled male of the human species. I wonder why that is? Rhetorically asking of course.

(Edited from No to Perhaps...)

Perhaps, but it is based on my "faith" in what is credible or not, and that it is based on my reasoning on what is credible after comparing different sets of evidence and reasoning them out. It is not based on a single (one or two) books.

By using reason, I chose one possibility over another simply because one collection of evidence made more logical sense than another or outweighed another.

I do not place faith in information or evidence if it is not supported by other reasonable information and even then it is not what I call "faith." I just chose one to be more likely than another.

Faith to me is built on something more, that consistently works and makes reasonable sense.

I have faith that the sun will come up every morning, but that is not absolutely guaranteed. If the earth were knocked out of its orbit, that could change that.

I have faith in the universal law of attraction because it appears to make logical sense and I've seen it work even though there are some people who probably believe that I am deluding myself. That would be like a person having faith in God and others thinking that they are deluding themselves.

The difference is, people don't understand why bad things happen to good people and there are people who curse God for not protecting them or for not answering their prayers.

I don't have that problem because I understand how prayer and the law of attraction actually work. I can't curse the law of attraction because it is does not have a personal agenda like a God might be imagined to have.

When most people say "It's God's will, I say (to myself) it is the law of attraction and science of creation that is at work. The only "will" that actually exists is the will of thinking centers.
A human being with "free will" is a thinking center.

The "will" is the ability to direct a conscious thought. It is the ability to choose what you will place attention on and think about.

That is why it is called "free will" because there is not some being or God interfering with your thinking and causing bad things to happen to good people. Everything that happens is a result of our own creation and our own thoughts and vibrations.

My "faith" is based on my belief in the law of vibration. That belief is based on more than something I read in a single book. It is backed up by tons of scientific facts, and supported by hundreds of books.

You have faith in your own reasoning, same thing...

NOT THE SAME THING as placing your faith in someone else's reasoning.
oR IN TRUSTING THEM FOR NO REASON.

I have faith in MY OWN REASONING.

BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.

Fear of something actually works better to indoctrinate people to believe something. If fear doesn't work or in combination make them hate something and it makes it easier yet to believe.

When you look at religious indoctrination fear is the first thing taught to the children. That is why it is hard for them to let it go all the way when they logically realize it isn't fact or for that matter healthy for humans to believe it.

Scientific facts are checked and checked and checked again to make sure that they are worthy of being scientific fact. That is why there are still scientific theories because there is no way to verify them over and over.

The difference is people will believe impossible unreasonable and illogical things simply because they trust a single authority figure.

That single authority figure is THE CHURCH, or their parents or their pastor or preacher who interprets a book for them. A book that for the most part is unproven and does not make logical sense. A book whom people claim is the word of God.

If you have faith in God, that is good. But if your faith is based on a single book or a single authority, to me, that is a risky proposition. You are betting YOUR SOUL and how you spend YOUR LIFE on that. You are giving up your own free will to do what you have been told is "GOD'S WILL." But that could just be the will of the authority or the will of your church.

I say that if you are living by other people's rules and you are unhappy doing so, then you are not doing "God's will." I say that God lives in and through its creation (us) and God's will is to be happy, free, and creative.

Truly.

Now isn't that the most curious thing?



But really though, when you say the "top religious", should that really be plural? I mean, I realize that most people consider all the different fragmented beliefs of the Abrahamic religion to be "different religions", but the truth is that they are all based on precisely the very same foundational concept of the jealous God of Abraham. So in that sense doesn't this truly make them all the very same religion? Just in disarray and total confusion?

Of course, it is true that this kind of view was common to many of the ancient god mythologies, from Thor, to Zeus, and so on. But most people today don't even consider those to be valid "religions".

I think secular atheists who want to quench these mythological pictures of a spoil-brat jealous God should call it like it is and refuse to even acknowledge that the "Abrahamic myth" is nothing more than a single mythology that just got completely out of control.

To even acknowledge that they are "separate" religions tends to give people hope that maybe their version of the religion is somehow the "correct version". They need to realize that it's all the same nonsense.

And this is where your reasoning fails you...

You think I get my beliefs and ideas from the "church" or a book?
You're dead wrong on that one. In fact I constantly tell people to check for themselves, to search for the truth themselves. If you want to get "technical" about it, the scriptures tell you to also.

You, (yes you), as well as others, tend to generalise the religious and state what they do or do not believe. I think this is done to make a person feel better about themselves, to boost their pride. To say that they're "blind sheep". (don't misunderstand me, scriptures say that "many will be deceived" and I see that in reality) That statement also pertains to the "non-believers" as well. They support the lie just as much as the believers do...

So what it boils down to is that you do place your faith in someone else's reasoning, whether it be scientific or religious...

You misunderstand the "Abrahamic myth" constantly, otherwise you'd know that "God" is unknowable...