Debate: God Exists

[Amarok]

Nope the bible and evolution are 100% in contradiction this was already demonstrated on that very thread so nope

[Drich]

It can't be connected back to the supernatural.

And who says God need only work in the supernatural?
Again if God created the natural universe, why would He create it in such a way that He could only move supernaturally through it?

What definition are you referring to.

The one you just used.. The one that says God must work and leave supernatural evidence.
The only thing your 'rational and logic has proven is no God operates this way. So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?
Why do that when the collective mind assures you this is how all gods work eh?

You don't seem to understand the term evidence. Evidence is anything upto and including personal experience. infact personal tesitmony is what the word evidence is built around.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
[/quote]

Not what I am talking about. You are attempting to define evidence in your favor so it can be applied to subjective religious experiences.

I did not attempt to change anything I simply show you the discrepancy between how you used the word evidence and how it is offically used in the english language.

If anything I'm reclaiming the word, and forcing you to speak honestly so rather than say you seek evidence (because again evidence by its literal definition includes and almost is always dependent on eye witness testimony) You see popularly accepted facts that prove the existence of God. You seek Hive mind approval. Don't pretend you don't. you need the approval of your peers to think positively or even to consider God. That is what you are asking for.

The term your looking for is popularly accepted facts. Not evidence as evidence accepted or not, is still considered evidence.

Nope, evidence as in discoveries of facts in the world through the scientific method and critical thinking. I see you are narrow minded about this. I encourage you to look into the scientific method and rational thinking.

Again not evidence sport you are looking for predigested narrative (Someone/one of your peer's explanation) of said evidence. Otherwise know I have conclusively shown you that your use of the term evidence does not support it's core meaning. Which often includes eye witness testimony.

Again, not what I am talking about. The discoveries from a time period aren't uncontested, it is what the texts say that are widely contested.

But again with no other histroical figure nor book has so much been written, and yet contested. Especially when we all now have a way to yet for ourselves what the bible says.

However, the confirmation of what is said about him is very sketchy and it is also true that Christianity became a large and powerful religion, with many forms of forgeries following.

However, the main accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus are third party narratives that were written years after his death.

Says who? Mat and John were first hand accounts, Mark was peter's scribe (as he could not read or write) and luke wrote Paul's Gospel as He was a disciple of Paul (per what he says in Acts)

The Gospels were compiled because it was becoming evident that Jesus may not come back when first thought, so the same men who have spent a life time in a ORAL SOCIETY (Where the spoken word had great impact and value than written word does/because only about 4% of the population could read) They the oral keepers of the gospels put their experiences down.

Also, it is commonly accepted that Mark was the first gospel and other gospels drew from that one gospel and another unfounded source.

Only by idiots. The time line in the book of acts puts the book of Luke first. Those who say Mark comes first are forinsically looking at or for evolutionary properties in story telling. the problem with that? their finding are not congruent with the actual content and time line built into the gospel and the book of acts which ties them all together. Most mark firsters only look at the gospels and do not consider the book of acts. The book of Acts is a narrative that ties the whole gospel together with the start and evolution of the church If mark's gospel came first Paul would have had time to write his gospel as he would have already been martyred. No luke gospel came first as per his introduction Luke was a slave/doctor to Theoliphus (we don't know much about Him) other than he sent luke to find out about this Christ, So He met up with paul and wrote down what was to be considered the book of Luke. Then sent the letter back Luke is still found with Paul documenting the start of the church. This is known as the book of acts. Luke about 1/3 of the way through goes from second person to first person in describing church milestones or events. Meaning at this point Luke was observing things for himself.. 40 years before Marks gospel is supposedly written.

Now before Luke could be retained in the service of Paul he must have been released or bought from theoplius. The man luke wrote his gospel account to.. do you get it??? Before luke could write of the church he has to be Paul's servant/deciple before he could be that he has to be freed from his master the one he wrote his first gospel to maybe 40 years before mark.

This is what I mean by truth trumping hive mind thinking or rational thought.

I have read the articles that put marks gospel first. I see collected and understand all f the evidence. However I also see the limited way evidence was gathered. Again it was done as a forensic deconstruction looking for story evolutionary ques, because someone had a theory and then they set themselves out to be proven right rationally or plausibly.. and all the drones said amen..

I approach things quite differently I want to know the absolute truth no matter where it leads me. If it leads me away from God so be it. however if it leads me to God, then I will be read for that as well. As again I do not hide myself from the truth behind a cloke of what rationally could be. I unlike the mark first-ers did not start out with the theory that the gospels were plagerized or canablized from one another. I simply read them, then as a matter of course read the book of acts which more or less contains enough information to construct a basic church timeline/history. Looking at the evidence left in the book one can conclude Luke had to have written his gospel long before he took up service with Paul which was decades before his or peter's death which most agree is what triggered mark to write down and distribute Peter's account.

There is strong evidence that these other non-canonical sources were derived from previous sources.

No there isn't there is strong unsupported conjecture (histroical evidence wise) that non canonical material was used.. The only problem is no ne can seem to find a valid source.

Truth is. Rational is popularly accepted fact.

Again, that is incorrect. It is true that science and rationality have widely accepted facts, but it gets that way by enormous confirmation and repeating of tests and methods, so it is not that we accept something and call them facts but that we got to these conclusions by means of rationality and methods of confirmation and justification, and then they are widely accepted into scholarship.

Brother I am not asking how the sausage is made I am only point out it is indeed sausage. In other word it does not matter how facts become popularized, the remain popular facts. or more specifically popular interpretations.

But then it was demonstrated that it was false.

EXACTLY!!!! Effectively showing that rational thought may not always represent what is true. It is simply thought to be true.
What kind of hypocrite demands to know the absolute truth of God, before he will believe, and yet "what is thought to be true at the moment' when it comes to the BS science sharts in your mind???

I want reason to believe God exists and Jesus is divine before I accept it. No excuses will put it the other way around.

So did I. How ever I wasn't hypocritical in my search. I did not favor a side. I simply sought the truth, and God litterally had me standing before Christ.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

In that very specific example is because the rules of his very own religion did not allow for what he had experienced.

It certainly did, that is common understanding in Islam today. 

proof citation please


If a person claims to have talked to their God, but a person who belongs to a different religion claims to have experience of their God, which one is actually having experiences or are they both just having subjective brain dependent experiences rather than divine connection?
It depends on God doesn't it?

Again, that is a pure presumption that God even exists in the first place.

How would this be any different than proving or falsifying a theory?

Not at all, I am making an observation, which is part of rational thinking. There are many religions with different claims.

Indeed but it seems you want to lump all those claims together. rather than deal with the unique aspects of each religion and call the jumbalia "rational thinking.'

It doesn't matter because I do know this: In order for there to be truth to any religion, it must already be true. What the gospels say would be meaningless if God didn't even exist and Jesus didn't supernaturally resurrect. So, the question becomes, does God exist and did Jesus supernaturally resurrect? If you think so, then demonstrate that it is true. Instead, you assume it is true and tell me I need to allow God to prove it to me if I want truth.

Asked and answered in the post. that is why you've red herring off in a different direction. Wow what an intellectually dishonest move. What does it say about your position when you have to rest the conversation to try and avoid the point I make?

If your position was indeed strong then why not address what I said line by line?

In essence sin keeps us all from God (this is true across the Abraham religious spectrum; Judaism, Christianity and in Islam) the end two religions do not recognise Jesus, therefore there is no way for man to ever be righteous enough to even come face to face with God let alone speak.

Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, and they don't believe we need a messiah to die for us.

Actually there are several beliefs of Jesus ranging from he did not exist, to prophet status, to Jesus was a Muslim prophet who's teaching were corrupted.

If it is true, then you can surely provide me justifying evidence.

Not me but God absolutely can

But does it base itself on what happens to be popular belief or actual scientific research? It bases itself on scientific research.
Scientific study today doesn't dispute that there is a climate change cycle, it demonstrates reason to believe that current anthropocentric emissions and CO2 are contributing to the climate change of today, unlike 300 years ago. 

actually sport there isn't one scientific model for global climate change. it varies from region to region. (not going to argue google it) The point being this 'rational idealism/popular thought that can't fully be agreed on has superseded 500+ years of scientific study and research.

That's my point, that is where i get the working definition of 'science' and rational thought from. As things like global warming are for sale. why? because people like you seek to be 'rational'/hive minded rather than seek the truth.

Rational thinking is based on a process that verifies conclusions, nothing to do with current opinion polls.

Then again how do you explain 'global warming' over turning 500 years of Real science, in under a decade?

If you can not answer I will for you. it's money and the programming of our people to be 'rational thinkers' who seek collective approval rather than truth seekers.

We determine truth through rationality and critical thinking.

filtered thinking. fixed that for you.

Rational thinking acts independent of money.

I gave you a list of high profile science being bought to change 'rational thought.'
So no Rational 'thinking' is not immune to being influenced by money.

define presumption then or do you not understand that Though the Holy Spirit I have direct knowledge of God? Direct knowledge is not a presumption sport.
[/quote]

A presumption is an idea taken to be true and certain, especially independent of any justification.

And as I explained... justification came before I presumed anything to be true. I got to meet God before i heard anything about Him. Once I met God once I faced my judgement I began to read the bible. I literally witnessed things from the bible of Heaven and Hell before I knew anything about them. The bible simply became a way to confirm what I had previously witnessed.

Now if you wish to troll on and insist I presumed the bible was true first because you are not smart enough to under stand what has been communicated to you then maybe ask a question first. However if you are just trolling because your back is against the wall and you do not know how to respond then maybe just delete this paragraph and not answer back.

The bible simply outlines what an honest person would ultimately do if they wanted to know God.

 

An unjustified presumption again.

how so?

If I find out it is truth, then I may.

Again, the president does not beg you for an audience or sends flourishes of his power to get your attention. If you wish to speak to Him it is on his terms. He sends you an invite, and you have to meet his dress code, location requirement and must meet the reason he has summoned you.

If the leader of a single nation demands this much respect in a meeting, then why would you think you could get away with anything less than what God has demanded?

Before you cop out with unjustified presumption on God again I would point out the president's invitation comes in the way of a small letter, and not always from the white house. I would say The same presumption is needed to discern the authenticity of the president's invite.

I've been fortunate enough to receive 2 invites from two different sitting presidents. One from W.Bush declining my invite to Him to my wedding but a invite to use to join him at some fancy dinner (that happened a week before we received his response), and two an invite from Trump to one of his inauguration parties. (we were doaners)

The presumption of truth here is not in the president but in the authenticity of the the invite itself.

A mustard seed's worth of faith is all that is needed, or a simple honest determination to find the truth no matter what that means.

I see that you are basically admitting that there is no justification for God's existence.

None that I can provide.

However though a/s/k God Himself has promised to stand before/with/in you. God independently of any biblical knowledge you have will tell you and show you thinks that you can spend the rest of your life discovering in scripture.

---

Nope the bible and evolution are 100% in contradiction this was already demonstrated on that very thread so nope

can you at least provide a link to said "pawning"

[masterofpuppets]

Nope the bible and evolution are 100% in contradiction this was already demonstrated on that very thread so nope

Yes, of course science is in contradiction to bullshit... which is something Drich does not seem to understand...

[Drich]

You still haven't provided evidence for God,

My testimony is by the definition of the word 'evidence' for God. You like the OP seek popularly accepted facts. You guys control the market on popularly accepted facts. Maybe if you could tell me what popularly accepted fact you would consider to be 'evidence' then perhaps I could find it for you.

As of now all I can offer is a map for you and God to meet.

miracles, prayers and all the other ridiculous claims postulated by your religion.

You just need to understand how your generation has changed or 'updated' their meaning. Miracles= Unexplained anomalies. google that and you get a huge list of modern medical 'anomalies' that happen generally after the sick or injured have been prayed over. Prayer= religious wishing ceremony. again, the claim we make are simply reclassified in your little word to meet the strict no God policies you have for yourselves.
But, there all still there just hidden away from plain sight as to not to upset people like you too much.

It seems like you wrote your rebuttal as a vain attempt to distract the discussion from the real issue here.

If you think that.. then it only goes to show you do not understand or can not incorporate the simple truth of biblical based Christianity into your world religious view.

In Short God did not make a world He could only move supernaturally though. God is the God of the natural world. As such it is or was our inablity to comprehend who God was and what he was doing that made him appear supernatural. As we mature and understand how the universe works the better we understand the how and who of God. Only a fool takes a 5000 year old understanding of God and demands God stay in the 5000 year old box while the rest of humanity grows and learns.

To say God is supernatural is to be a fool that demands God fit in a 5000 yearold box.

Also, I was using the term "supernatural" to mean anything that exists beyond the physical Universe (i.e. the natural world). Of course I understand that all phenomena that has some kind of manifestation the Universe is indeed natural. It is the theistic claim that some natural phenomena have some sort of supernatural attribution (e.g. prayer) that I reject.

Prayer is not about Changing the world through natural or supernatural means. According to Christ and the one prayer He gave Prayer is an invitation from us to God inviting Him to change us any way shape or form he needs to make us into who He wants us to be.

He shapes and molds us via very natural trials. AIDS for example, or Cancer, money trouble, relationship problem, problem child, any and all of it He can use to seek change.

I think the biblical word you are looking for is petition. To petition God is to Ask God a favor. God has promised to answer all prayer in the affirmative if two or more make that request in His name.. However petitions do not get the same promise. It is not a sin to ask god for anything, just know if that thing is or will lead you into sin or at the very least lukewarmity I'd be willing to bet that thing you want will never see the light of day!

That said there are those who can petition God and get what they seek everytime. However they seldom do, because they know God has taken them out of His protection and they must deal with the full weight of the consequences of what they ask on their own. Rather than do that we most often times "your will be done" even if we face ruin. Because ultimately we know it is far better to be a Job and have God rebuild the life the Devil smashed than try and desperately hang on to what the devil controls.

---

Nope the bible and evolution are 100% in contradiction this was already demonstrated on that very thread so nope

Yes, of course science is in contradiction to bullshit... which is something Drich does not seem to understand...

So then please explain (if you can) how is it that 'science' has wiggled itself out of my reading of Genesis 1 and 2?

Or do you need me to break it down even further.. (also ask why aren't the old deck hands helping you two noobs on something as simple as creation verse evolution argument)

Rather than make you read that whole big long post let me just sum it up for you.

I in a sentence have found an error in the traditional reading of genesis. An error that allows a literal 7 day creation and still yet all the time needed for evolution no matter how much time 'science' deems nessary.

Not only that my simple observation cleans up all of the paradoxes that were supposedly found in the creation account. (who did adam's children marry, where did the city of nod come from cain fled to ect..)

In short I observe there is no time line mention between the end of the seventh day of creation and the fall of man which happended about 6000 (give or take YEC newest number) years ago.

That one sentence whether you fully understand it or not, just ate, assimilated, incorporated anything evolution/the douche bags of science could possible say to the contary, AND This is done without changing one letter of the bible's account of creation. The only thing that need change is the idea on the 8th day eve sinned and A&E were expelled from the garden. (which was never recorded in the bible anyway!) They in fact they could have been expelled the 100 bazillion years after day 7 of creation that 'evolution' says it needs to have happened.

7 days of creation------->100 bazillion years of evolution-------->6000 years ago----genesis 3 happens, out goes A&E into the world of Homosapeians

[Amarok]

You still haven't provided evidence for God,

My testimony is by the definition of the word 'evidence' for God. You like the OP seek popularly accepted facts. You guys control the market on popularly accepted facts. Maybe if you could tell me what popularly accepted fact you would consider to be 'evidence' then perhaps I could find it for you.

As of now all I can offer is a map for you and God to meet.

miracles, prayers and all the other ridiculous claims postulated by your religion.

You just need to understand how your generation has changed or 'updated' their meaning. Miracles= Unexplained anomalies. google that and you get a huge list of modern medical 'anomalies' that happen generally after the sick or injured have been prayed over. Prayer= religious wishing ceremony.  again, the claim we make are simply reclassified in your little word to meet the strict no God policies you have for yourselves.
But, there all still there just hidden away from plain sight as to not to upset people like you too much.

It seems like you wrote your rebuttal as a vain attempt to distract the discussion from the real issue here.

If you think that.. then it only goes to show you do not understand or can not incorporate the simple truth of biblical based Christianity into your world religious view.

In Short God did not make a world He could only move supernaturally though. God is the God of the natural world. As such it is or was our inablity to comprehend who God was and what he was doing that made him appear supernatural. As we mature and understand how the universe works the better we understand the how and who of God. Only a fool takes a 5000 year old understanding of God and demands God stay in the 5000 year old box while the rest of humanity grows and learns.

To say God is supernatural is to be a fool that demands God fit in a 5000 yearold box.

Also, I was using the term "supernatural" to mean anything that exists beyond the physical Universe (i.e. the natural world). Of course I understand that all phenomena that has some kind of manifestation the Universe is indeed natural. It is the theistic claim that some natural phenomena have some sort of supernatural attribution (e.g. prayer) that I reject.

Prayer is not about Changing the world through natural or supernatural means. According to Christ and the one prayer He gave Prayer is an invitation from us to God inviting Him to change us any way shape or form he needs to make us into who He wants us to be.

He shapes and molds us via very natural trials. AIDS for example, or Cancer, money trouble, relationship problem, problem child, any and all of it He can use to seek change.

I think the biblical word you are looking for is petition. To petition God is to Ask God a favor. God has promised to answer all prayer in the affirmative if two or more make that request in His name.. However petitions do not get the same promise. It is not a sin to ask god for anything, just know if that thing is or will lead you into sin or at the very least lukewarmity I'd be willing to bet that thing you want will never see the light of day!

That said there are those who can petition God and get what they seek everytime. However they seldom do, because they know God has taken them out of His protection and they must deal with the full weight of the consequences of what they ask on their own. Rather than do that we most often times "your will be done" even if we face ruin. Because ultimately we know it is far better to be a Job and have God rebuild the life the Devil smashed than try and desperately hang on to what the devil controls.

---

Yes, of course science is in contradiction to bullshit... which is something Drich does not seem to understand...

So then please explain (if you can) how is it that 'science' has wiggled itself out of my reading of Genesis 1 and 2?

Or do you need me to break it down even further.. (also ask why aren't the old deck hands helping you two noobs on something as simple as creation verse evolution argument)

Rather than make you read that whole big long post let me just sum it up for you.

I in a sentence have found an error in the traditional reading of genesis. An error that allows a literal 7 day creation and still yet all the time needed for evolution no matter how much time 'science' deems nessary.

Not only that my simple observation cleans up all of the paradoxes that were supposedly found in the creation account. (who did adam's children marry, where did the city of nod come from cain fled to ect..)

In short I observe there is no time line mention between the end of the seventh day of creation and the fall of man which happended about 6000 (give or take YEC newest number) years ago.

That one sentence whether you fully understand it or not, just ate, assimilated, incorporated anything evolution/the douche bags of science could possible say to the contary, AND This is done without changing one letter of the bible's account of creation. The only thing that need change is the idea on the 8th day eve sinned and A&E were expelled from the garden. (which was never recorded in the bible anyway!) They in fact they could have been expelled the 100 bazillion years after day 7 of creation that 'evolution' says it needs to have happened.

7 days of creation------->100 bazillion years of evolution-------->6000 years ago----genesis 3 happens, out goes A&E into the world of Homosapeians

I have read you and every other fundie who has tried to hijack science to try and hold up the bullshit you call the truth. They have failed and so have you .So stop the mental gymnastics your not fooling anyone

[Fred Hampton]

About 21,000 people(globally) die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often. Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone.   http://www.poverty.com/

ERGO, God does not exist.  Checkmate 2.0, thanks for playing:

[SuperSentient]

And who says God need only work in the supernatural?

Another misunderstanding. Miracles cannot be connected back to the supernatural. If I have a vision and claim it is Allah speaking to me about being a prophet of Islam, I cannot verify it since I have no access to the supernatural. People who claim to have subjective experiences are not independently verifiable.

The only thing your 'rational and logic has proven is no God operates this way.

And your God has proven nothing to us. It turns out that he is either silent or doesn't exist (I know you can't comprehend the bold).

So then why not Check the bible to see if that is the only way God works?

The bible is collection of folklore, it doesn't tell us anything about objective reality (nothing accurate anyways). That is like me grabbing a story book and telling you to refer to it to figure out why the earth revolves around the sun, I would be unreasonable to do that.

You don't seem to understand the term evidence. Evidence is anything upto and including personal experience. infact personal tesitmony is what the word evidence is built around.

Again, I am referring to the most accurate and reliable way to gather evidence, scientific method and rational thinking. 

I did not attempt to change anything I simply show you the discrepancy between how you used the word evidence and how it is offically used in the english language.

Well, there is no discrepancy with what I said, you are trying to apply it to subjective religious experiences.

If anything I'm reclaiming the word, and forcing you to speak honestly so rather than say you seek evidence

What I am saying is a path to truth, but you refuse to accept it.

You see popularly accepted facts that prove the existence of God.

You admitted earlier that only God could prove himself and seemed to think it is ridiculous to demand proof for God. Now you are pointing to something I was looking for all along, justification for theism. I have yet to see proof for God.

You seek Hive mind approval. 

If I did, I would be a Christian.

you need the approval of your peers to think positively or even to consider God. That is what you are asking for.

Maybe I have yet to have any good reason to accept God's existence. 

Again not evidence sport you are looking for predigested narrative (Someone/one of your peer's explanation) of said evidence. 

Yes, that is evidence. Science is based on examining of objective reality and testing it for conclusive results, it has proven itself again and again.

But again with no other histroical figure nor book has so much been written, and yet contested.

It is contested, but you refuse to open your eyes to it, since you rely on theologians and apologists to telly you about the bible.

Says who? Mat and John were first hand accounts, Mark was peter's scribe (as he could not read or write) and luke wrote Paul's Gospel as He was a disciple of Paul (per what he says in Acts)

Early oral traditions and accounts are accepted to have preceded the gospels, which were written many years after the death of Jesus. The gospel of Matthew has an unknown author, it is generally accepted that the title "according to Matthew" was added in the 2nd century. The gospel of Matthew drew upon Mark and an unknown source. Little is considered to be historically accurate in the gospels (few events are uncontested). The Gospel of John is considered to be independent of the 3 synoptic gospels (but may be a contestable statement). However, the gospel of John has much theological significance, drawing upon Jewish texts and past traditions, some small parts may be more accurate than the synoptic gospels and John the evangelist is likely not the original author of this gospel. These accounts are not as accurate as you are claiming, much was drawn from folklore and other sources.

The Gospels were compiled because it was becoming evident that Jesus may not come back when first thought, so the same men who have spent a life time in a ORAL SOCIETY (Where the spoken word had great impact and value than written word does/because only about 4% of the population could read) They the oral keepers of the gospels put their experiences down.

True, and the sources are largely unknown, but it is doubted that the compiled gospels are historically accurate (except for some limited parts of it).

Only by idiots.

It is accepted by contemporary new testament scholarship, not a bunch of idiots.

Those who say Mark comes first are forinsically looking at or for evolutionary properties in story telling. the problem with that? their finding are not congruent with the actual content and time line built into the gospel and the book of acts which ties them all together. Most mark firsters only look at the gospels and do not consider the book of acts. The book of Acts is a narrative that ties the whole gospel together with the start and evolution of the church If mark's gospel came first Paul would have had time to write his gospel as he would have already been martyred.

So, a lot of what you are saying here is based on the Acts of the Apostles, which are considered to have been a two part work with the Gospel of Luke, and have the same dating (80-90 AD), while Mark (68-73 AD) and Matthew (80-85 AD) are accepted to have been written earlier or around the same time. Of course, there is sketchy evidence for these dates, so a lot is unknown here. The Acts of the Apostles has evident similarities with the Gospel of Mark, being evidence that some of the gospel of Mark and other source influenced the Acts of the Apostles along with the Gospel of Luke. The death of Paul wouldn't have impact on the writings of the Gospels.

No luke gospel came first as per his introduction Luke was a slave/doctor to Theoliphus (we don't know much about Him) other than he sent luke to find out about this Christ, So He met up with paul and wrote down what was to be considered the book of Luke.

The view that Luke is the author of the Gospel of Luke is problematic because of the contradictions between acts and the authentic letters of Paul (example: Paul's conversion in Acts as compared to Paul's statement in Galatians.

Then sent the letter back Luke is still found with Paul documenting the start of the church. This is known as the book of acts.

Acts was authored with the gospel of Luke, after Paul's death. Paul's viewpoints are not exactly represented accurately by the author.
There isn't support for that view, not even consistent with the two-gospel hypothesis.

The man luke wrote his gospel account to.. do you get it??? Before luke could write of the church he has to be Paul's servant/deciple before he could be that he has to be freed from his master the one he wrote his first gospel to maybe 40 years before mark.

That is Pseudo-History, I am not sure where you get that from. Luke likely didn't even write the Gospel of Luke and was independent of Paul as a personal source.

This is what I mean by truth trumping hive mind thinking or rational thought.

You just got farther from truth.

I have read the articles that put marks gospel first. I see collected and understand all f the evidence. However I also see the limited way evidence was gathered. Again it was done as a forensic deconstruction looking for story evolutionary ques, because someone had a theory and then they set themselves out to be proven right rationally or plausibly.. and all the drones said amen..

It did, and the direct similarities provide strong evidence of similar origins. It is consistent with the accounts of the time and correlation between all the differences and similarities of the texts.

I approach things quite differently I want to know the absolute truth no matter where it leads me. If it leads me away from God so be it.

So do I, but you keep bringing up nonsense that could only be consistent with your personal beliefs, so I have no reason to accept that you are truly trying to reach truth.

As again I do not hide myself from the truth behind a cloke of what rationally could be.

That is how you get to evidence and truth, focusing on the possibilities rather than supposed Dogma. 

Looking at the evidence left in the book one can conclude Luke had to have written his gospel long before he took up service with Paul which was decades before his or peter's death which most agree is what triggered mark to write down and distribute Peter's account.

Again, it is disputed that the author of the Gospel of Luke had direct personal influence by Paul and even was Luke. The gospel of mark provides evidence of drawing upon as a source with other sources.

No there isn't there is strong unsupported conjecture (histroical evidence wise) that non canonical material was used.

That is not what I meant, I meant that the non canonical sources that came were derived from previous sources that could include the canonical Gospels.

Brother I am not asking how the sausage is made I am only point out it is indeed sausage. In other word it does not matter how facts become popularized, the remain popular facts. or more specifically popular interpretations.

It does matter how we get facts, as we need to know that they were verified.

EXACTLY!!!! Effectively showing that rational thought may not always represent what is true.

Part of the scientific method is skepticism, constantly being skeptical because there is always the possibility of being false.
Religion doesn't have that and therefore cannot be trusted at all, it has been shown to be opposed to truth.

What kind of hypocrite demands to know the absolute truth of God, before he will believe, and yet "what is thought to be true at the moment' when it comes to the BS science sharts in your mind???

Science has beaten God every time. No contest. You can't even compare.

So did I.

I don't care how you got where you are, I want reason for me to get somewhere, if you refuse to give me any, I am not justified in accepting it.

proof citation please

I already did, you refuse to look at it. 

If a person claims to have talked to their God, but a person who belongs to a different religion claims to have experience of their God, which one is actually having experiences or are they both just having subjective brain dependent experiences rather than divine connection?

It depends on God doesn't it?

Then you just admitted we can't know, just give a presumed and unjustified God as holding the burden.

How would this be any different than proving or falsifying a theory?

Science confirms with tests and conclusion (scientific method), you haven't once justified God's existence to me. You just said that it is up to God. You would never see a scientist telling someone it is up to the universe itself to prove to them Dark matter exists to a person.

Indeed but it seems you want to lump all those claims together. rather than deal with the unique aspects of each religion and call the jumbalia "rational thinking.'

I do, it is you that dismisses all the other claims of the different religions and stays on Christianity.

Asked and answered in the post. that is why you've red herring off in a different direction. Wow what an intellectually dishonest move.

It never was, stop lying.

If your position was indeed strong then why not address what I said line by line?

I do, and I haven't found any reason to accept your religious views.

Not me but God absolutely can

Why not? You just said it is just like rationality.

actually sport there isn't one scientific model for global climate change.

Uh, yes there is. Wow, your ignorance is very apparent here. Unless you mean that there is more than one scientific model, but it sounds like you are saying that there isn't one.

The point being this 'rational idealism/popular thought that can't fully be agreed on has superseded 500+ years of scientific study and research.

It doesn't contradict it.

Then again how do you explain 'global warming' over turning 500 years of Real science, in under a decade?

Its not, you are attacking a straw man here, there is nothing up to what you are implying.

I gave you a list of high profile science being bought to change 'rational thought.'

So no Rational 'thinking' is not immune to being influenced by money.

I said that the acts of rational thinking and the scientific method are something that work independently of something with money labels. 

And as I explained... justification came before I presumed anything to be true. I got to meet God before i heard anything about Him. Once I met God once I faced my judgement I began to read the bible. I literally witnessed things from the bible of Heaven and Hell before I knew anything about them. The bible simply became a way to confirm what I had previously witnessed.

God randomly appeared to you one day?

Now if you wish to troll on and insist I presumed the bible was true first because you are not smart enough to under stand what has been communicated to you then maybe ask a question first. However if you are just trolling because your back is against the wall and you do not know how to respond then maybe just delete this paragraph and not answer back.

I am not trolling, and I am pointing out that you presume the bible is true and God exists without justifying it, nothing to do with your previous experience that happened years ago. This is an example of your dishonesty here, I am a bit concerned with this kind of thinking existing in our 21st century.

Again, the president does not beg you for an audience or sends flourishes of his power to get your attention.

False analogy.

Before you cop out with unjustified presumption on God again

Please stop trying to turn this around on me, it is you that is presuming God, not me.

The presumption of truth here is not in the president but in the authenticity of the the invite itself. 

But in this case, your are assuming the being in question exists, and I want you to demonstrate that this being (God) exists.

None that I can provide.

However though a/s/k God Himself has promised to stand before/with/in you. God independently of any biblical knowledge you have will tell you and show you thinks that you can spend the rest of your life discovering in scripture.

How can I get him to tell me right away and before accepting his existence? The answer is that I can't, God has to exist before he can reveal himself to me, and as far as I know, God doesn't even exist, you can't have God talk to you if he doesn't even exist, that is nonsense.

[masterofpuppets]

For a theist to go to such lengths to suppress science in the name of their religion, one must really wonder about the severity of their conviction.

I cannot believe Christians can pick up a 2000 year old mythological collection, and then ensure that all subsequent views on reality pertain to the contents of that book. Science has provided us with invaluable tools for discovering the truth about the world, and science shows us that Christianity is most likely false. When asked for evidence that Christianity is true, all Drich has been able to do is force us to accept his fairytale book first. It's extremely silly.

[Fred Hampton]

WOW!  It must have taken a month for TheAtheologian to compose post #307!

---

Aleppo exists, God doesn't exist(slightly graphic):

---

---

[Fred Hampton]

Don't "reply" to post #307, for the love of gawd, NOOOOOO!

(p.s., Jesus was no God, but he WAS a revolutionary.)