I know that this is a very much debated topic in these threads, however where is the proof that God, and Jesus did exist??? I am hoping that someone who replies to this thread can come up with a better answer than faith. Where is the proof to justify the existance of Jesus, and God???

Also I am hoping that the believers will be able to quote more than biblical quotations either from the new or old testament.

Also TG, I am curious as to whether you are religious or not??? Reason why I ask is that religion seeks to nullify the existance of gay couples within its ranks. If GOD says love your neighbour, then how can religion be so hypocritical as take a stance against the gay community at large???

As you all know I am a bhuddist, NOT as peace loving as some, or maybe I like to incite anger and/or controversy, however reading the bible the other week, I also realized as someone who holds a degree in science, how many scientific errors there are especially in the old testament.

Religion is a mirage. Jesus is truth.

I don't think there's much question about Jesus' existance. Time , Newsweek and the like have done many articles on him (usually during Easter and Christmas). The question is, do you believe the claims he made about himself and what others said about him?

As far as God's existance, I suppose I could offer that 80% of the human population can't be wrong (10% aren't sure and another 10% don't believe). The point is, its something that mankind shares as a common belief (just as there's a sense of a moral law for everyone). I think its something that God gives us.

As far as gays and God and love. You can still love someone even if you think what they're doing is wrong.

But how about this? Instead of attacking the faith of some, why not explain what's so great about Buddhism?

Heh, this is almost getting tiring.

There is just as much proof FOR religion as there is AGAINST it. I have my technical reasons (entropy, reasons why a homogeneous bang congeals to a heterogeneous universe, mathematical coincidences of electron charge, etc), but they are only supportive theories. Lack of proof does not define lack of existence. This earth has been round and revolving around the sun long before we ever found any proof of it.

As for not using the Bible, I think I like Rabban's analogy best. I'll tell you about religion without using the bible as soon as you tell me about the relationship of electricity and magnetism without using excerpts of physics book.

I'll let TG answer for herself, but she has stated many times what her position is on this. Just read a few of her posts listed on her profile.

The gay concept is a sore spot for me. There are arguments right now that the whole "gay is bad" thing was either taken out of context or a mistranslation in the bible. Not all believers are homophobic. However, while I have nothing against gays, I should mention that "love your neighbor" INCLUDES loving the sinners. Gay-bashing or not, we are technically supposed to love them anyway. The Church (as a stereotypical whole) is against accepting gay-affinity as a non-sin. They'll accept a gay man, but they will expect him to reform. Gay marriages are being performed, so obviously not all priests are against them. The concept is simply in debate.

As for the scientific errors in the Old Testament: keep in mind that these are stories told by people as they saw it. Accuracy of portrayel may be a tad skewed. The Red Sea did not part like 2 giant walls as shown in the movies, but more of a sudden extreme low tide that exposed a sand-bar bridge. A wooden stick that becomes a snake is often just a very well-trained snake (I've seen the trick on Animal Planet some time ago). They have even come up with a theory for the plagues of Egypt (although the lamb's blood saving the 1st-borns is still a mystery). So, what were the scientific errors? Chances are, someone has already come up with an explanation. Even the great flood was explained, since there are indications that the Earth's atmosphere was contained in a sphere of water like a thick bubble. Somewhere along the line, the bubble "popped" causing a horrendous downpour. This also explains why you could not see a rainbow until the sphere dropped.

There ya go, nuk. Feel free to respond.

- BombJames Bomb

Maybe?

Beat me to the punch! Heya, Rabban!
Actually, many think that the New Testament had a lot of Buddhism concepts in it. Of course, its not too far-fetched to believe that other religions can be somewhat in synch on what "doing the right thing" is.

Had to play devil's advocate (hee hee hee!) but listing population percentage as support doesn't fly. For a long time, almost the entire world believed this planet to be flat. Oops!

I like my logical reasons better.

In this world where no religion can be proven, sometimes the best way to find the truth is to drill and pick apart all the other beliefs until only one is left standing. Just make sure you critique your own religion as well!

(And yes, I have decided that the belief that "this world came to existence by pointless" chance is a bunch of hooey. If luck had that kind of power with those odds, I would have won the lottery three times by now.)

- BombJames Bomb

@ Rabban,

Just because a majority of people follow christianity it doesn't mean that it is right. I respect peoples' religious views, however like every other person in life I am seeking knowledge. I am in no way trying to convert anyone into or away from religion.

In Galileo's time people believed that the earth was flat, it has been since disproved, so this is a clear example that in life the majority do get things wrong.

Please look at this link which provides a concise look into bhuddism . ALSO before anyone makes a comment in regards to Nukleuz, and the Wheel of Eight Spokes, please note that there is a difference between the Nukleuz that is known in real life, and the Nukleuz here in PTT. Why the "dual personality"??? Because life is fun!!!!! And personally I think that some people take things too literal in these forums.

Anyway, back to the topic of discussion, I hope that the above is a satisfactory answer.

@ James, I am reaching for my bible, and I will give you a summation of my findings, pertaining to scientific errors in the Bible.

To long

@ James,

Here is a short list of some scientific errors I found within the bible:-

Insects with four feet?
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23
Just for the record, insects have six feet and arachnids have eight. You'd think the ancient Israelites might have picked up on this little detail, what with eating locusts and beetles and all.

Bats identified as "birds"?
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19
An almost identical passage occurs in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. The bat is of course a flying mammal, not a bird.

Rabbits claimed to chew their cud?

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:6
To chew the cud means to eat grasses, swallow, then regurgitate later for further chewing. Rabbits simply do not do this. However, rabbits do eat their own poo, in order to absorb certain nutrients that passed through unabsorbed the first time. This is similar to human urine drinking.

The Creation of the Universe: Genesis 1:12: The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1: 15-16: and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

In these two verses of Genesis, it is described that plant life and vegetation were created and sustained before the sun was created. This is scientifically impossible. All vegetation and living things need sunlight to survive. Without the sun, photosynthesis of plants could not take place. Another inaccuracy of verse 1:16 is the description of the moon being a source of light. It is true that the moon gives light to the Earth, but this light is cast by a reflection from the suns light. Another verse of Genesis says 3: And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-4) One would ask, how can there be light and darkness when the Sun has not been created yet? Furthermore, darkness is merely the absence of light. The Creator of light would have no need to separate the two because darkness and light is not a condition that needs to be separated.

Furthermore, the first chapter indicates that the Earth was created before the stars, including the sun. Modern scientific data, however, has concluded that the sun is older than the Earth, or at least the same age: Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the Sun is at least as old as the Earth... (Novotny, p. 248). As well, recent data has concluded the age of stars can go back almost to the beginning of the Universe "For example, we can detect thorium in the earliest stars," he said. "Thorium has a half-life of 14 billion years. So we observe how much thorium the star has now, and compare that to how much we think it was born with. Thus, we have a clock," Sneden said. "This method gives us the ages of these stars directly: 12 to 16 billion years. These numbers are very similar to what other scientists are saying is the age of the Galaxy." http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0201/13decay/ .
It is apparent that the author of Genesis had no idea that the stars were created before the Earth was. Referring back to the first verse of the Bible In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. (Genesis 1:1) No, God did not create the Earth in the beginning. Recent scientific research has confirmed that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, about one-third of the time of the universe itself. Now, if you want to metaphorically say that the Earth was originally part of the Big Bang, and it was separated and then formed after billions of years, then yes, the statement would then be accurate. However, if a Christian or Jew believes in the Big Bang, then what would he/she say about this statement in the Quran? Have not the disbelievers known that the Heavens and the Earth were joined together (as one united piece) and then We parted them? (21:30) How did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) know such a thing?

Basic Genetics Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the runnels, that is, the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. (Genesis 37:39)

In these verses of the Bible, we find that Jacob is devising a plan to create more sheep that are striped and spotted to fool his father-in-Law Laban. His plan is to take rods of plants and make stripes and spots in them, and then put them near his flocks watering trough. By looking at the plants, the flocks produce young that are striped and spotted. Now, let us reflect on this verse. If it were truly from the creator of the Universe, would it have this scientifically inaccurate material about genetics? All young from all animals are made from their chromosomes of their parents. The human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes each, which provide the structure of their bodies, including, yes, stripes and spots. It is apparent that the author of these verses had no prior knowledge of genetics.

The Flatness of the Earth: The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. (Ecclesiastes 1:5) Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken. (Pslams 104:5) That it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? (Job 38:13) He will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

Modern astronomical findings have deduced recently that the Earth is round. For centuries, everybody thought the Earth was flat. This is apparent throughout the Bible, as it says the Earth is a flat body. The first verse I quoted from Ecclesiastes states that the Sun runs back to the place it rises from, stating incorrectly that the Solar System is geocentric. This idea states that the sun is orbiting the Earth in a constant circle, racing up to point where it rose and set. If, in fact, the one who wrote this verse knew that the Earth was round, he would know that the Sun sets and rises in a different place for everybody on Earth. There are innumerable rising and setting points, as the Earth rotates as it orbits the sun. The four corners of Earth, which are mentioned several times in the Bible, do not exist, as the Earth is egg-shaped. It is not a game board, as many people thought, where human beings could fall off into space. The Quran, on the other hand, has verses that are in complete agreement with modern science. He wraps the day into the night and wraps the night into the day. (39:5). Moreover, he hath extended the Earth, like an ostrich egg. (79:30) It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in its rounded course. (21:33)

There are also verses in the Bible that state that the Earth has pillars He shakes the Earth from its place and makes the pillars tremble. (Job 9:6) This idea was eliminated in the Quran: God is He who raised up the heavens without any support (13:2)

Sorry for the length of my argument, but I somehow doubt, that a credible answer would nullify my findings.

Before you all go on letting this guy create a bogus argument with you, consider the cut and paste method he uses for his so called "findings." The site he got this from was somewhat of a cult favorite about 7 years ago in my area.

http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/discrepancies/scientific-errors/

You've never even picked up a bible.

LOL. His findings. Nice try. Yep, all the Buddhists go to rotten.com for their research. You really crack me up.

Last edited: Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 3:20:52 AM

80% of he population can't be wrong Rabban? Haha. Wow, what a shaky house to base your proof on. I can prove that 80% can be wrong. Just look at market share for Windows/PCs vs. Macs. ;) Sorry but I just had to say that.
As the saying goes: Insects outnumber humans 200 million to 1, but it doesn't make them the superior species. That's true for most people anyway. %)

Last edited: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 11:39:28 PM

I seem to support nuk's statements...whoever they belong too

B

Also take into account, that the bible has predicted scientific facts long before they were discovered by humans!

@OM: LOL! Nice analogy.
@ROgue: Take it easy, man. They are still valid questions. I am a bit annoyed that he claimed he found these in the bible, himself.

@nukleuz: Remember, the bible is a compilation of stories written by MANKIND! God's signature is not on the Author's block. So, people are going to write the story the best as they remember it with what knowledge they had at the time. God never said the Earth was flat, it was the people of that era who wrote that. Seriously, I don't know how much they paid attention to the difference between birds and bats. As for Genesis, well, I personally think people who take that literally word-for-word are a tad loopy. There is NO reference of who originally wrote Genesis, and I consider it a the work of an inspired Legend. Basically, its the writing of an average Joe who tried to make sense of what God had accomplished. Had God approached us nowadays with what he did, we would probably write:
"And God made a fourteen-dimensional singularity of combined force and time. On the second day, he expanded the singularity to breakdown into 3-dimensions of material space, 1 dimension of time, and 10 dimensions of quantum string essence. On the third he packed all the lose matter into fiery balls of plasma and dense balls of planetary material. On the fourth day he realized that he was three days behind in dealing with Earth, so he made a rush job of it. In his rush to complete Man and Woman, he accidentally left one of the ribs out (ever had parts left over after working on your car?). This lead to all kinds of humorous speculations on the part of man!

Anyhow, the little nitpicking of scientific concepts is hardly grounds for disproving the whole concept of the Bible. People wrote as they saw it, and they saw some amazing stuff.

- BombJames Bomb

@ James,

Here say is evidence that more often than not is thrown out of a court by the judicial system. If we are relying on the words of the apostles, it would be interesting to know how much longer after the events was the bible written. I will apoligize to anyone for my next comment, no offence intended but I am sure to will understand the underlying theme.

As I stated in another thread, what if one day a group of people decided to play a joke, and the result of a gathering resulted in writing of The Bible. Maybe after a number of drinks, for example, it started as a joke, and now it has become a believe for the majority of the population around the world.

Faith for God and Jesus seems to be very "blind". Problem is that while I may seem as being nitpicking, I am yet to see hard evidence from the believers, as to clear examples of either God's or Jesus' existence, or examples' of their works.

@ Filbert,

If you are going to post in this thread, then research the statements you make with prove. A theory without evidence is worthless.

@ OM,

Good point

The divine manifestations contained in the book of the law and the bible in whole are just that. To believe men and their science have some grounded information to dispel them is like a donkey telling Seabiscuit how to run. :)

Az

JamesBomb my response to him was in jest. Just want to make that clear. I was just informing you that you're speaking with somebody who is taking somebody elses words and fronting them as his own. This is evidenced by the fact that when he does type his own sentences they are rather absurd and unintelligible.

My friend, this character is also known as Apollo 13 and Guju. Those that play BM are used to his buffoonery. Just letting you know that you're talking to a midget.

Last edited: Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 3:24:36 AM

Uh he did type bhuddist. I'm quite sure that was original. J/k

Seriously Nuke, we have a whole lot of threads here on basically the same thing. Whether you have faith or not to sum it up. Maybe we can try keeping the convo where it already exists. :)

Az

Last edited: Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 3:27:17 AM

Nuk, we don't have the technology to "detect" the presence of God or to see the history of the world like a movie. You demanding proof of God from the believers is quite similar to the demands the royalty made to Columbus that he prove that the Earth was round before he made the monetary loan to go on his trip. Columbus had hints, signs, and a belief. His mathematical calculations based on his theories were so wrong that he thought the world was half the size of what it actually was. Solid proof did not come until later.

So, do we have absolute proof of God? Of course not! Are there some potential inaccuracies in some of our beliefs? You bet! However, I think we are close enough to the truth to put us on our journey (even if the destination isn't quite what we expected). :P

Heh, people expect absolute proof of the nature of God before believing in Him, yet we still don't have absolute PROOF of the Big Bang or Evolution. Just evidence and theories. I believe that both happened with God's guidance, but you understand that you can't reserve your believe for only verified facts, or you will lead a very dry and uncertain life.

- BombJames Bomb

I wish folks would just get on with it and ask God if He exists...

Whew! Actually take some time to work and you get really behind in the forums! I'm going to have to discuss this with my boss. ;)

Anyway, there are some things that need to be said. The Bible is a history of God's interaction with man and a documentary on his plan for our salvation. The Bible is geared toward dealing with our moral shortcomings in the presence of a holy God. To keep bringing up "scientific" issues may give the challenger a feeling of "beating the dealer", but even after every scientific and logic question is answered, there's still a moral issue to be addressed. We all have to realize that this is really a moral issue we all have to confront and resolve on an individual and personal level.

So you can imagine my own skepticism of a person's motives for rejecting the truth of the Bible because they don't think a rabbit chews its cud. That's a molehill made into a mountain in the futile hope of justifying oneself as being more right than God and somehow releasing themselves from the moral judgment that the Bible and God lays against them. The same is true for many of the "errors" presented by Rotton.com and the like. The interesting thing is the people of the time didn't reject the notion that rabbits chewed their cud or that bats were birds. Somehow I don't think they had the scientific classification system that we have today and I'd guess had the Bible said rabbits didn't chew their cud the people would have rejected the Law of Moses as being from God. They would have raised the same questions then as the skeptics are raising now.

But like I said before, its really a moral issue. It took me about 60 seconds to find a link that provides reasonable answers to the "Rotten list" and anyone who was interested in really trying to find out whether or not the Bible was accurate could have done so just as easily. But the thing is, the "skeptic" usually doesn't want to believe (but just in case, here's the link at tektonics.org ).

Now concerning my statement that 80% of the human population believes in God. Notice that I didn't designate which God. Perhaps I should have said a "Supreme Being" or "Fatherly Life-force", but the presumption was made that I meant the Christian God. I just hope that illustrates everyone can have a presupposition. Also, I think belief in God is a bit different than an inaccurate, scientific belief. Id say that many of you here at one time or another held a belief in God that wasnt really learned, but something you knew to be true in your heart. Only later did doubt and disbelief creep in. Id almost say that people are born with a belief in God. Does that equate proof? No, but it shouldnt be so easily dismissed either.

And as James pointed out, the Bible doesnt say The Earth is flat, but thats something the reader erroneously concluded. The skeptic should also allow for a little poetic license and the use of metaphor, especially when the books sited are Psalms and Ecclesiastes.

The Creation. Such a beautiful thing. What youre missing is that God created and was in charge of the process. What youre supposed to see is that God is the source of life, not the sun. And I guess it depends on how you want to look at it when it comes to the moon being a source of light. And consider this; if God made the stars as its recorded, do you think the light had to travel to get here or was the light instantaneously visible? Once Adam was created, did he have to wait for the starlight to arrive?

So the Qu'ran got it right?

And

Well, I guess the Qu'ran got it right since the Earth was already considered round by the time it was written. Most of the books of the OT were written before 425 BC (source ), but keep in mind, it doesn't really say the world is round or flat.

Like I said before, were really dealing with moral issues here. ;)

Last edited: Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 8:11:49 PM

Rabbits don't chew their cud so there is no God.

Wow.