And he only convinces other Christians. He does not come close to
proving Christianity or even the existence of a god.

In news:u8piovklcrbjl4tg5j7v3nu2op75kdup6q@4ax.com,
John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:52:07 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:

In news:7hvgov871vp8iqcc3rtj5q924v9pfqhcjo@4ax.com,
John <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com> slavered, and posted this:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 05:02:37 -0400, "Doug Semler"
<doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote:

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: If an acceptable, objectively verifiable *fact* is
presented which shows the existence of god, I will accept as fact that
a powerful being exists. To me, an acceptable, objectively verifiable
fact would be a face showing up in the moon observed by the entire
world's populace (including the blind) with a booming voice audible to
the entire world's populace (including the deaf) would be evidence of
such a powerful being. Maybe not god (maybe some alien trickster), but
at least it would be a start. Or if all of a sudden I awoke to a
world free of war, famine, pestilience, and harsh winters. Or if all
the dead bodies currently buried in the world arose and started
Armageddon...you know, things like that.

You truly have boxed yourself in. You now state that you're smarter
than all Christians who have ever lived before you, because the
BRILLIANT Dr. C S Lewis decided that there WAS enough evidence to
believe Christianity.

What are you talking about? You asked if there was evidence which could
be provided which would convince me of the existence of a god. I
answered it.

Absurdly, but I suppose you could call your nonsense "an answer" of
sorts. You play kindergarten games with God. And God isn't a game.

Sorry, but you have yet to prove the assumption you make.

Besides, you are appealing to authority.

Correct. Yhwh, the Creator is the absolute Authority.

Sorry, buddy, but first off, you weren't appealing to God, you were
applealing to C.S. Lewis. And second, you make the assumption that God
exists, which has yet to be proven.

The BRILLIANT Ghandi decided

that there WAS enough evidence to believe Hinduism.

I wouldn't call Ghandi "brilliant" since he missed/rejected the
Christian God.

So, you are saying that noone is "brilliant" unless they accept the
Christian mythos? That whooooooooosh was the point flying right over your
head. I am just as justified in my statement as you are in yours. In fact,
I think I hold Ghandi higher intellectually than Lewis.

You don't understand the

point.

Says whom? You? Your POV is irrelevant.

The point is that PERSONAL evidence is not sufficient.

To you.

Personal evidence is not sufficient to prove anything. It must be objective
and verifiable by others. Otherwise, I would be perfectly justified in
claiming that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuhh) is dancing on my bed, and
that she is telling me to masturbate daily.

Go ahead, it's my personal evidence. You say personal evidence is
sufficient. You must now beleive in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuhh).

As others

succinctly put it, God knows *exactly* what it would take for me to
believe.

As others have succinctly put it, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Christians
down the past 2,000 years have found sufficient reason to believe.
That you refuse to is NOT an intellectual problem; it's a moral
problem. You CHOOSE to not believe.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims over the past 1400 years have found it
sufficient reason to believe. Argumentum ad numerum. Your argument is
irrelevant and dismissed as fallacious.

The PROOF? IF you BOTHERED (you don't because, as I have said, you
simply are not interested), to look up a few books on prophesy, and
track the prophesies fulfilled thus far in Old Testament and New
Testament and then check the end times prophesies being fulfilled the
past 50 years, including at least one fulfilled prophesy during the
Gulf War. If you saw the prophesies, you would believe. But you have
to do some hunting. That's how God set it up. You want PROOF! You want
Jesus to levitate in front of your front door.

God isn't into parlor tricks. And He told Thomas, "you have believed,
Thomas, because you have seen (my scars); blessed are they who have
NOT seen, and yet still believe.

Oh, but god is definitely into parlor tricks. All the supposed miracles of
Jesus are easily accomplished by magicians. Even ones without the
technological advances we have today.

Your statement is an irrelevant appeal to emotion.

You will not be blessed for refusing to accept the many proofs He has
left. If you were not cold of heart and stone of mind, you would
believe.

Like I said, your god is malevolent and unworthy of my worship. The clues
should be left in plain view. You know, like maybe a big old sign at the
moon landing site in Aramic which said "God was here."

If he exists, and condemns me for not believing because he didn't provide
this evidence, then he is not worthy of worship to begin with.

Have it your way. And where does it get you? Not to heaven! You are
arrogant. You wish for God to take you 10 million Atheists and spend
His next 200 years making like a monkey on your strings, doing
heavenly cartwheels. IF you were interested, you'd have sufficient
proof.

You have no more proof

Rather than looking for God, (which is how you find Him), you look for
proof only that there IS NO god. In other words, each "Problem" you've
resolved is merely a rebuff of choices/insights made by brighter folk
than you or me.

Yet again, you misread my words.

No. YOu think if I get it, I'll agree. Your point is absurd.

There should be no REASON to look for god.

Says whom? God says OTHERWISE. So your silly POV doesn't matter, does
it?

You are arrogant to presome to know what god thinks.

A god should not have to be FOUND. That is the sign of a malevolent god,
one not worthy of worship.

Says whom? So you will chuck your chance at eternal life because God
didn't do a silly little dance for you? He and his Atoning sacrifice
can just get out of your face, eh?

Hiding behind Pascal's Wager, are we?

You know what? If god condemns me to hell for having a higher moral
standard than he, I am perfectly fine with it.

What you have proved merely is that you aren't interested. If Jesus
Christ knocked on your door tomorrow, and you opened it, and He
levitated 2 feet off the ground, then pointed at you and YOU levitated
2 feet off the ground, you'd slam the door in His face. "Not
interested!"

Personal evidence is not sufficient.

Says whom? About whom? To whom? You must decide for yourself, not
continue to quote your high school philosophy teacher, who is ALSO
going to hell for HIS indifference.

Believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn yet? If not, your point has NO merit.

Does that mean that if I knocked on your door and levitated, and
pointed to my friend and *he* also levitated you would believe I am
Jesus Christ reincarnated? I would hope not, as

David Blaine (the street magician) levitates *all* the time. For
evidence to be believed, it would have to be independently and
objectively verifiable.

I am talking about the real thing. You crawl on your belly to compare
Jesus to a street magician?

We are done.

Unacceptable "facts":
The Bible is not acceptable. It has no more weight than the
contradictory writings of other religions.

There is no contradiction.

I thought you said you were done? Liar.

There are contradictions in the writings of other religions. Hindus have a
pantheon of Gods, while Christians have one. Contradiction right there.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. You speak from a VERY shallow
reading, looking ONLY for "inconsistencies", rather than Truth.

I'm sorry, you actually know me?

I know your POV of scripture is infantile.

That's because I have taken the time to read the words actually written. I
have also taken the time to learn about other religions as well. I have the
point of view of an outsider to your religion, as well as others. It makes
things more objective.

I studied the Bible in my formative years, and have read it
cover-to-cover more than once. I had a Roman Catholic

upbringing, and had two years intensive study of the book, along with the
Catholic education K-12.

You may have skimmed it, more than once. You were not taught to read
and understand by the Roman Catholics, and your OBVIOUS lack of
knowledge of the Bible proves my point. The Roman Catholics are not
known for teaching the Bible. They are not literalists, and they
emphasize Rome and the Catechism as preeminent.

Sorry. You weren't taught to read period. Where did I say that the two
years intensive study was coincident with the RC upbringing?

Idiot.

It is very arrogant of you to presume both my background and my
education on which I speak.

YOu are the arrogant one, wish for Jesus to perform like a trained
monkey.

No. I want ONE IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

Unlike you, I'm willing to change my mind.

And if you seek "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" in 66 books
written by some 40 authors, you will find them.

Nothing of any consequence, and I've studied the "contradictions",
which mostly don't exist if you do more than a surface reading. IOW,
YOU read until you find a "problem". A serious Bible student will
continue reading until the "Knotty problem" unties.

Everything is of consequence if the book is supposed to be inerrent and
divinely inspired.

You don't quite get it, do you? The point is that a divinely inspired
book (collection)
SHOULD NOT HAVE inconsitencies OR contradictions. The fact that it does
shows that it is not divinely inspired.

You don't get it at all. You IMAGINE "inconsistencies" and
"contradictions" that aren't there.

I didn't say that, I addressed specific inconsistencies later. What I
addressed was your point that there will be inconsistencies in the Bible,
because of the number of authors and number of books. My point is simply: A
book which is divinely inspired SHOULD NOT HAVE *ANY* inconsistencies.
Period.

IF you are looking for Truth, you will find truth. Such as Daniel
accurately prophesying the future 3 World Kingdoms AFTER Babylon
(his).

Oh, please. You've heard of self-fulfilling prophesies, haven't you?

EXCUSE ME? Don't insult me. What control did Daniel have of the 3
coming emperors? AFTER his death?

You truly do NOT think before you type, do you?

You truly do not think at all. And, by the way, do you actually THINK that
Daniel was written by Daniel? He *died* in the book! If you knew anything,
you'd know that the book was written 400 years after Daniel's death. Even
the RC church admits that!

The ONLY "explanation" other than truth is that the passage was
"written AFTERWARDS." That is not proof, since the Jews have evidence
of DAniel being written CENTURIES before Christ.

However, you are wrong. A couple of the stories in Daniel almost
certainly date to as late as the third century BCE.

And obviously, you are such a revisionist that you have changed the
ancient dating symbol from BC to BCE.

That's your argument? That I use BCE instead of BC, and therefore I am a
revisionist historian??? Oh, by the way, BC is *not* an ancient dating
symbol. How can it possibly be an ancient dating symbol?

We are done. You are not interested, and you have wasted enough of my
time. There is AMPLE evidence of when Daniel was written. The only
reason you MUST REDATE it is to cancel a VERY important prophesy.

Daniel was written circa 167-164 BCE. Historians say so. The RC Church
says so.

That's cheating!

Nebuchadnezzer's music is played

on instruments with GREEK, not HEBREW names (including the first known
use of the word symphonia, source of our symphony). The marriage of
irion and clay in the king's dream-immage almost certainly

("almost certainly") IOW, you will believe ANY effort to discredit
the Bible!

I believe historians over you. Oh, and why don't you address the point I
made about the instruments? The reason it is a valid point is because the
Hebrews circa 550 BCE did not HAVE any Greek influence or words, and would
not call the musical instruments by the Greek names. If the book had been
written circa 550 BCE as you seem to claim, the instrument names would be
Hebrew.

refers to a notorious

marriage in the 240s BCE between the kings of Egypt and Syria who were
successors of Alexander the Great.
(Source: Robin Lane Fox _The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in
the Bible_ p 332)

How about quoting some PRO-Christian sources? I bet you haven't read
ANY !

Sure. Here's a quote, from my copy of the Bible (NAB), in the prologue to
the Book of Daniel (p 917).

<quote>
The Book takes its name, not from the author, who is actually unknown, but
from its hero, a young Jew taken early to Babylon, where he lived at least
to 538 B.C.
...
This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus
IV Epiphanes (167-164) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish
people in their ordeal.
</quote>

However, you will cling to the plea "it was written AFTERWARDS,
OBVIOUSLY, because we KNOW men can't see the future." Men, maybe not;
God CAN see the future.

Hey idiot,

And if you want to talk to me, granite brain, can the name-calling.

<sarcasm>
You started it.
</sarcasm>

presume nothing. I don't cling to that plea for that reason. I

cling to that plea because the writings themselves are shown to have been
written later.

In the opinions of the unqualified.

Sorry. Qualified opinions of an historian (Fox is an Oxford Fellow in
ancient history) and the RC church. I beleive that over you.

And there is PLENTY of evidence for God inspiring the prophets of the
Old Testament, as well as Him inspiring the apostles of the New
Testament.

Just because they SAY they were inspired? That's a laugh! They are no
more inspired than John Edward (the guy who talks to the dead).

You just have to open your little mind. THAT's what is not going to
happen! (you opening your mind).

Resorting to ad hominem attacks, are we? Here's something for you. You
talk about open mindedness. Read the book to which I made reference
above. Then come back and talk to me.

Your battle is NOT intellectual; your battle is spiritual;moral. You
do not wish to obey/submit/worship.

Oh, there is an ad hominem in disguise. Along with a threat. You don't
even know me. How could you POSSIBLY state that I have a moral battle?

Besides which, the Bible is also
self-contradictory.

Not so.

Genesis 1 and 2. You can't even get out of the first two chapters of the
first book of the Bible without a contradiction.

And contradicts known verifiable scientific research.

Not so. In fact, if you take the overview of Genesis, creation occurs
in the same order as does evolution.

Which order stated in Genesis?? There are TWO *CONTRADICTORY* ORDERS.
Which order was it, oh great biblical scholar?
Genesis 1:
Formless Earth and the abyss (what is referred to as chaos)
Day 1: Light
Day 2: Dome to separate the water of the sky with the water of the earth
Day 3: Dry land and vegetation
Day 4: Lights of day (sun) and lights of night (stars & moon)
Day 5: Fish and birds
Day 6: Animals of the earth, man and woman

Genesis 2:
The land already exists. Note that my bible says that there had yet
been no rain, so no vegetation exists. A stream wells up (formation of
oceans). Man is created. Trees and vegetation are created to form a
garden in Eden. Animals are then created to keep man company, at the
same time as birds as well. Woman is created because man is still lonely.

Don't give me that "story two is expanding on story one" bull. Look at
the order. The order is specifically different. Man is created LAST in
the first story, while created FIRST in the second story.

The "humans show design with purpose" is not acceptable, because it
assumes the existence of that which is to be proven (namely, it assumes
a designer by stating "design" in the premise).

You miss the point in your rush to disqualify. Your remark is like
saying "we know there can't be flashlights, even though you are
holding one, since we know science cannot build flashlights."

What?! You don't even understand the point. By saying that humans are
designed, you are introducing what you are attempting to prove, by
automatically implying a designer!

<snip another ad hominem "you don't believe so you don't understand">

The "all complex things are created" argument is not acceptable,
because it implies infinite regression of creators (namely, god is, by
definition infinitely complex, therefore, by using the premise that
all complex things are created, god must have been created).

You violate "first cause." Science admits "it all started SOMEWHERE!"
Why not with God? You call your "first cause" evolution. Where did the
elements come from?

Oh pish posh. You don't even address the point. Why do you insist on
*introducing* a first cause. Why can't it just be the big bang?

For your "evolution" we substitute the word/name "God", and we then
can collapse the BILLIONS of years YOUR god requires with a few
thousand our God required (for the earth in its current
configuration).

Sorry. Scientific research shows that it DID take billions of years.

The "nature has laws, there must be a lawgiver" argument is not
acceptable, for 2 reasons. The first is that the term "law" is misused
in this sense, as natural laws are actually descriptions of
observations. And the second is the inherent question: Why this
particular set? What I mean is why did god specifically choose
~300,000 km/s as the speed of light? Why not any of the other
infinite number of possibilities?

Because He created the laws, He knows/knew what works.

Nonanswer.

Not a single response the the points above. I can see why you gave up.
It's too much an intellectual challenge for you.