Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Teallaura]

I'm sure an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God would have the knowledge the presence and the power to make his existence known to all his creation. I'm none of those things, so asking me how a god could do that is silly.

Okay Jim. There is a God, and He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

He has made His existence known - I have just told you. He has the knowledge, presence and power - He chooses to use witnesses. I tell you He is real as a witness of what He has done, of three miracles and as a student and follower of His Word.

What you chose to do with that knowledge is up to you - I would hope you would consider exploring the possibilities before shutting the door to what you don't want to hear. But you have no excuse - now formally - to deny that you knew God was real. You have been told - rejecting the information does not equate to having not had the knowledge.

If you are familiar with Exodus, you know that God performed many miracles getting His slow witted, stiff necked, grumbling, bumbling band of people from Egypt to the Promised Land - and it was never enough. A miracle won't help a heart of stone - that heart will only find a way to deny or rebel. A miracle won't prove God's existence to someone who refuses to believe.

If you are willing to consider, there is evidence. If you are not, the evidence remains but it is useless to you.

[JimL]

sigh. I don't blame Allah for my lack of belief. I have actually investigated the evidence for Allah and Islam. And compared to the evidence for Christianity, it is sorely lacking. It is not Allah's fault. It is just bad evidence. If I am wrong though, I will not blame Allah. I will just admit I was wrong but I did try to find the truth but it was my fault for failing. And as I said before, I started out as a skeptic like you, not believing in God, but I was agnostic enough to be open to the possibility.

You may feel the same about evidence for God at all. But instead of saying that it is your fault for not trying or being open to the evidence, you want to blame God for it. The real problem is that such an excuse isn't going to count for anything when you meet up with him at the Judgment. You can comfort yourself with blaming God for not providing enough proof now, but it won't mean a thing when you are face-to-face with him.

Oh please Sparko, you're point of view is just so pathetic and ridiculous. You believe in an evil tyrant, a god who will annihilate, or burn in hell, or some other such horrific punishment, his supposed beloved children simply because of their not believing that he exists. Its such a sad and ugly thing to believe. I have no fear of god, because unlike you, if indeed a god exists, I don't believe he/she/it would be so evil, and if he were, then why should anyone give a damn?

[JimL]

Okay Jim. There is a God, and He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

He has made His existence known - I have just told you. He has the knowledge, presence and power - He chooses to use witnesses. I tell you He is real as a witness of what He has done, of three miracles and as a student and follower of His Word.

What you chose to do with that knowledge is up to you - I would hope you would consider exploring the possibilities before shutting the door to what you don't want to hear. But you have no excuse - now formally - to deny that you knew God was real. You have been told - rejecting the information does not equate to having not had the knowledge.

If you are familiar with Exodus, you know that God performed many miracles getting His slow witted, stiff necked, grumbling, bumbling band of people from Egypt to the Promised Land - and it was never enough. A miracle won't help a heart of stone - that heart will only find a way to deny or rebel. A miracle won't prove God's existence to someone who refuses to believe.

If you are willing to consider, there is evidence. If you are not, the evidence remains but it is useless to you.

Yes, the so called evidence you just provided is useless Tea, but thanks anyway.

[JimL]

easy to say? Tassman is the one who proved it over and over in this thread.

I didn't used to believe in God, but now I do. And if it could be proved to me that Christianity is wrong with similar evidence to that which convinced me it is true, then I would disbelieve. Why would I want to believe a lie despite evidence it was a lie?

Well, what changed your mind, what was the evidence that was so convincing to you?

Yet given the same hypothetical situation, Tassman said he would still disbelieve in God despite scientifically verifiable evidence and God himself talking to him and providing the evidence. Who's the one who is close-minded?

I'm sure you are taking his words out of context, which isn't nice Sparko, Tass believes in science so to say that he wouldn't believe in the existence of a god that was scietifically verified, I think is probably a lie.

[JimL]

That God has done all that is necessary for mankind to be saved, to come into and to have a relationship with Him is a fundamental element of Christian Theology. God became a man, lived the perfect life of Messiah, allowed Himself to be killed, was dead and buried and rose from the dead bodily. If a person dies and comes back from the dead to tell you about God - what more can God do? Look at your own words when asked "If God appeared to you and ...". You said "... the question presupposes that it is God that appeared to me". It would appear you have basically blocked yourself into an intellectual corner were there really isn't much if anything that could convince you God is real. And I certainly am not likely to get around that. But a starting place has to be whether or not you want to know if God is real. That is like step number one.

And actually, I have not professed to 'have experiences nonbelievers have not had'. I have had experiences I attribute to God. I have asked some of my atheist friends if they have experienced anything similar. They ALL said no. I was curious because some make the claim everybody experiences God and so they can be blamed for not believing. I was asking to see if that was true, if that makes any sort of sense. I found out it doesn't.

So I know from what they have told me that at least as regards those friends they have not had similar experiences. And the specific case I am speaking of there involves a sense of the presence of God, of events that struck them as direct answers to prayer or the like. I also know from conversations with Christian friends that most of what I have experienced would find similar analogues in their lives as well. Some have had more dramatic events and answers to prayer, others less so. So it does seem - anecdotally anyway - that one difference between people that believe in God and people that don't could lie at some fundamental level of how they experience life, whether or not they have an innate sense of the presence of God.

But the 'special' comment is misguided. I have no sense of superiority or inferiority over the issue. I just don't understand why some people have them and others don't. And I can empathize with why a person that had never sensed the direct presence of God might find belief in Him questionable at the very least.


Jim

Man shouldn't have to be saved from his own creator, any more than a child should have to be saved from its parent.

[JimL]

And I'm pretty sure that would be a case you would lose. I know very few that follow Christ that have not at some point in their life questioned its validity or struggled with whether or not to continue to believe. In Western culture especially there are far more elements that would encourage one to abandon such faith than which encourage one to keep it. In other parts of the world to follow Christ is to be a sub-human. Persecution in Islamic and communist countries can be very difficult and in many cases fatal.

And as an aside. Historically those that chose to truly follow God have always been in the minority. This is what most of the Old Testament history of Israel is all about. Perhaps many people have a sense there is a God. But far fewer choose to actually try to follow Him. Too many other 'more important' things to worry about. This is also what Jesus taught (see the parable of the sower). And as I said earlier - God is not interested in forced allegiance (one major difference between Islam and Christian faith). He is interested in those that choose to follow Him. I believe that is a strong reason why He doesn't make Himself known in the way you would prefer.


Jim

One has to first know that a particular god exist in order to consciously choose to follow him, and nobody knows that god exists. Everyone choose to follow their belief of god, not necessarily god.

[oxmixmudd]

Man shouldn't have to be saved from his own creator, any more than a child should have to be saved from its parent.

That is silly. You don't suppose Hitler deserved some sort of punishment for what he did? Yet God would be his creator would he not? And the salvation we need is from ourselves and the consequences of who we make ourselves to be apart from that salvation.

And consider a son of a judge where that son becomes some sort of heinous monster committing all sorts of unspeakable and murderous acts. If that judge is just, then that son will have to face the punishment for his acts regardless of who his father is.

Jim

[JimL]

That is silly. You don't suppose Hitler deserved some sort of punishment for what he did? Yet God would be his creator would he not? And the salvation we need is from ourselves and the consequences of who we make ourselves to be apart from that salvation.

And consider a son of a judge where that son becomes some sort of heinous monster committing all sorts of unspeakable and murderous acts. If that judge is just, then that son will have to face the punishment for his acts regardless of who his father is.

Jim

I think perhaps you misunderstand your own religion, being saved doesn't depend upon how good or evil you have been, it depends upon whether or not you have come to believe in the savior. It is not surprising that you like to drag out a Hitler to support your argument, but I'm no Hitler, I'm just a regular guy who has read the bible and has heard all the arguments pro and con and have come to a reasonable conclusion in my own opinion that your god is a fallacy. So, according to you and your beliefs, regular guys like myself deserve to spend eternity in hell simply for thinking for ourselves and coming to the conclusion that the god of the bible is a fallacy, right?

[oxmixmudd]

One has to first know that a particular god exist in order to consciously choose to follow him, and nobody knows that god exists. Everyone choose to follow their belief of god, not necessarily god.

That is your opinion. Your belief. And it is no more substantial, no more legitimate according to your own criteria than the beliefs you claim to know are false.

Jim

[Tassman]

Well, what changed your mind, what was the evidence that was so convincing to you?

I wouldn't worry about it, he's demonstrably gullible.

I'm sure you are taking his words out of context, which isn't nice Sparko, Tass believes in science so to say that he wouldn't believe in the existence of a god that was scientifically verified, I think is probably a lie.

prove

[oxmixmudd]

I think perhaps you misunderstand your own religion, being saved doesn't depend upon how good or evil you have been, it depends upon whether or not you have come to believe in the savior. It is not surprising that you like to drag out a Hitler to support your argument, but I'm no Hitler, I'm just a regular guy who has read the bible and has heard all the arguments pro and con and have come to a reasonable conclusion in my own opinion that your god is a fallacy. So, according to you and your beliefs, regular guys like myself deserve to spend eternity in hell simply for thinking for ourselves and coming to the conclusion that the god of the bible is a fallacy, right?

I do understand my religion. But you gravely misunderstand the problem that makes salvation necessary.

You demonstrate that misunderstanding by thinking God is mad at you for thinking more than superficially about the problem. That is not the problem. If God was who you think He is, you'd be correct to conclude that god is a fallacy. But your misunderstanding of who God is does not define who He is. (though I sympathize with the fact you may have been taught that is who God is by members of the Christian faith. Deep thinking is often seen as a threat by those steeped in religious tradition, and most people prefer simple answers to complex ones)

You also demonstrate that misunderstanding with the silly notion no child should ever have to fear their parent. Of course they do - if they commit evil. Hence I bring up Hitler - a man that is generally considered about as bad as they get. And I'm not going to play into the idiocy that one should never use Hitler in an argument. The point in your argument we should not need to fear God's judgement can be shown ridiculous by asking if God should judge Hitler. But I don't bring Hitler into the argument to say YOU are like Hitler, only to show that your use of NEVER is absurd. One absolute extreme is fairly challenged by another.

My second point, the child that does indeed need to fear his parent simply makes the point that God is not JUST our creator, He is also the arbiter of justice and what is good. If He gives evil a pass, He becomes evil Himself. So even in the human realm we can understand that a parent that is a just judge can't just give his own child a pass. How much more so the God of the Universe who by His very nature defines what is good and bad.

To who you and I are and why salvation is necessary: My take on Sin is similar to that of CS Lewis as presented in the book "The Great Divorce". That we need to be saved from sin because of what we become in eternity if we are not saved from it. Not so much because of some specific sin we commit here on the Earth. It is not that a person does some sort of great evil and thus needs to be cast into Hell. Nor is it that God is so petty that he banishes people for the most trivial of slights. It is that apart from salvation who we are in eternity becomes something terrible that must be dealt with.


Jim

[Tassman]

. I understand why a person that does not have any direct personal evidence for God would doubt His existence.

Good of you.

Ultimately because without God you will not find eternal life.

All livings things die; there is no substantive reason for thinking otherwise.

Nevertheless, I believe there is a God and I believe He has revealed Himself to the world through the Christian Scripture and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And I think you are wrong, as do most people on the planet.

That is your belief. But there exists no actual facts that can support that belief (That there are no eyewitnesses)... You choice to dismiss those eyewitness accounts is not evidence they are not eyewitness accounts, they are just your opinion.

It is the scholarly consensus that there are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story. The only two events subject to almost universal agreement are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is widely disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus and the miracles...including the resurrection and the fanciful details surrounding it.

No - I'm trying to get you and JimL to get a bit outside your own limited thinking and ask yourself some questions that need asking.

WE provide the evidence of what would convince us of the existence of God. Why should we? The burden of proof rests with you to show why we should believe such unsubstantiated nonsense.

I have the same evidence you do - excepting my own experience with God. The Gospels, the scripture, the testimony of other believers. This is what everybody has. We do know that the Messianic Prophecies where written before Christ lived per the C14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have a thorough understanding that the Gospels narratives were written very early in the process due to the fact we have fragments from within the 1st century AD. They certainly reflect the fact the oral stories where circulating much earlier due to the facts surrounding such document preservation and origin. There are the writings of Josephus. There are the extra-biblical writings which also hail from the 1st century which reference the Gospels and the letters. I don't expect these and others to be sufficient for you, but it is not true that my proselytizing is 'all I've got'.

I don't 'blame' JimL for not believing. I wish I could impart my own experiences to him and to you, at least then you would have the same starting point that I do for Faith.

Thanks for the personal testimony.

[oxmixmudd]

Good of you.

Oh good grief. I wonder why I even bother to be honest with you or tell you anything that might be of a personal nature. All you know how to do is mock people and revel in your own presumed superiority.

All livings things die; there is no substantive reason for thinking otherwise.

Correct. But then again, I'm not talking about physical life.

And I think you are wrong, as do most people on the planet.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

It is the scholarly consensus that there are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus story. The only two events subject to almost universal agreement are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is widely disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus and the miracles...including the resurrection and the fanciful details surrounding it.

That would depend on the scholars. You believe those who happen to support what you'd prefer be true. The most negative take possible.

WE provide the evidence of what would convince us of the existence of God. Why should we? The burden of proof rests with you to show why we should believe such unsubstantiated nonsense.

I've not demanded anything of you Tassman. Neither have I tried at any point to prove to you my beliefs are true. I've simply challenged the arguments you make in support of your own beliefs about God. But like Jorge, not to agree with you is the unpardonable sin.


By those that do not believe - of course. Theologically, they have been acknowledged and well documented for millennia. Arguments in the 19th century USED to claim certain prophecies MUST have been written much later by Christian authors and inserted into the Hebrew tet because they we so OBVIOUSLY talking about Christ. Then after the discovery of the DSS and dating them to before Christ was born, the arguments changed. The simple fact is they existed prior to Christ's birth and many were recognized as Messianic before Christ's birth. A rather musical list can be found simply by reading the score of Handel's "Messiah".

The dating of the gospels ranges from 40+ years after the events (Mark) to 70+ years (John) and based upon hearsay, not eyewitness accounts.

Just differentiating fact from you personal opinion. The simple fact is that the early Christians believed that when Christ said He was coming soon, He meant soon as it relates to normal human experience. It wasn't until later they realized they needed to start writing down the stories that were told orally. The very fact we have fragments from those times tell us the stories themselves where circulating before those dates. And quite possibly that manuscripts for them were also circulating earlier than that. IT is very unlikely that these fragments represent the very first written copies - and you should know that. What they represent is the time by which enough copies had been produced there was some likelihood at least part of one would be preserved. The other thing you should know is that the people writing and telling these stories were rank and file commoners. Not royals or people of importance whose writings would be revered and preserved. Again indicating these writing fragments represent an much larger set of existing works whose probability of preservation was significantly reduced over the sorts of works that would have been in the possession of royalty or government. All of that together with the existence of sufficient numbers of Christian to have produced such works 40 to 70 years after the events speak to their origin a generation or so before. Which is consistent with these being actual documents produced by actual eyewitnesses, traditionally Mark and John.

And I wonder where those Christians came from. Oh - I know, they all had one mass hysterical hallucination and appeared out of nowhere.

In short your little list is not impressive or convincing.

To one as skeptical and caustic as you are, no list could possibly be otherwise.

Thanks for the personal testimony.

You are welcome.


Jim

[Tassman]

Correct. But then again, I'm not talking about physical life.

That would depend on the scholars. You believe those who happen to support what you'd prefer be true. The most negative take possible.

https://ehrmanblog.org/question-abou...d-the-gospels/

I've not demanded anything of you Tassman. Neither have I tried at any point to prove to you my beliefs are true. I've simply challenged the arguments you make in support of your own beliefs about God.

Not so. YOU wanted ME to give YOU arguments of what would convince me

By those that do not believe - of course. Theologically, they have been acknowledged and well documented for millennia. Arguments in the 19th century USED to claim certain prophecies MUST have been written much later by Christian authors and inserted into the Hebrew tet because they we so OBVIOUSLY talking about Christ. Then after the discovery of the DSS and dating them to before Christ was born, the arguments changed. The simple fact is they existed prior to Christ's birth and many were recognized as Messianic before Christ's birth. A rather musical list can be found simply by reading the score of Handel's "Messiah".

Just differentiating fact from you personal opinion. The simple fact is that the early Christians believed that when Christ said He was coming soon, He meant soon as it relates to normal human experience. It wasn't until later they realized they needed to start writing down the stories that were told orally. The very fact we have fragments from those times tell us the stories themselves where circulating before those dates. And quite possibly that manuscripts for them were also circulating earlier than that. IT is very unlikely that these fragments represent the very first written copies - and you should know that. What they represent is the time by which enough copies had been produced there was some likelihood at least part of one would be preserved. The other thing you should know is that the people writing and telling these stories were rank and file commoners. Not royals or people of importance whose writings would be revered and preserved. Again indicating these writing fragments represent an much larger set of existing works whose probability of preservation was significantly reduced over the sorts of works that would have been in the possession of royalty or government. All of that together with the existence of sufficient numbers of Christian to have produced such works 40 to 70 years after the events speak to their origin a generation or so before. Which is consistent with these being actual documents produced by actual eyewitnesses, traditionally Mark and John.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbo...ospels-part-1/

And I wonder where those Christians came from. Oh - I know, they all had one mass hysterical hallucination and appeared out of nowhere.

Given that Pliny died in 113AD and Tacitus in 120AD and Suetonius in 140AD etc, there is ample time for a fledgling religion to have grown to the point of being noticed and commented upon by these figures.

To one as skeptical and caustic as you are, no list could possibly be otherwise.

Now, now!

[Sparko]

Oh please Sparko, you're* point of view is just so pathetic and ridiculous. You believe in an evil tyrant, a god who will annihilate, or burn in hell, or some other such horrific punishment, his supposed beloved children simply because of their not believing that he exists. Its such a sad and ugly thing to believe. I have no fear of god, because unlike you, if indeed a god exists, I don't believe he/she/it would be so evil, and if he were, then why should anyone give a damn?

*your

so your response to me showing you that your claim about me was wrong and if I were wrong about Allah I would not blame him, like you would God for your unbelief is to mock me and insult the God you don't believe in? really? This is an example of "sour grapes"



You prove my point. You are the one who doesn't WANT to believe in God, even if there is a possibility he is real, so you make it God's fault for not giving you enough evidence. Yet you won't even bother to look at any evidence because you don't want God to exist.