Hello jbrenner,
Excellent. I choose primarily D. I am an inquiring mind, was raised a Christian, have read the Bible and find the most interesting and inexplicable phenomena to be the massive number of people of faith. While I do not share their enthusiasm, I find no difficulty with believers who are not extremist evangelists, respect others who believe otherwise, and recognize reality as observed in this physical plane of existence as proper basis for action.
Respectfully,
O.A.

If people defined God as just the creator of all things that would be ok. But, no, these God(s) are beyond infinitely more powerful and knowing than that. Those ideas of God I reject.

This is an entirely reasonable response, desimarie23. I recommend that you read my post within this same blog that says "The evidence for the son...." I tried to be as objective as I could in laying out the evidence and readily admit that there are plenty of holes that one can poke into them.

Depends upon your definition of "God" as creator.
Some see that as a superior entity.
I prefer a mathematical concept. In physics it would be called the "Grand Unified Theory" GUT.
I prefer, "Grand Ordering Device".
A mathematic concept has no agenda, or design. It simply is. God (the entity) assumes some power that could intervene in our destiny. Since we have never seen the laws of physics violated, either God is very disciplined and does not intervene (which according to the Bible God has done a lot of intervening in the past), or God (the entity) does not exist.
To reference Star Trek TNG, was Q a god? They couldn't help themselves from intervening in the Universe.
Where did Q come from? Outside our Universe? Yet, he can enter our realm? I would think only a dream state could achieve that. What is the existence and reality of those in our dreams? Are they infinite and immortal?

Are we diverging from the topic?

I am aware that Jesus lived-it is a historical fact. I just don't know that he was who he said he was. Its possible that he had delusions of grandeur and was a persuasive public speaker. I don't claim to know his mental status. I understand that some people have a need to believe in something greater than themselves...to believe that there is something better in the afterlife.

:) Good morning khalling,
Thank you for your support. It means a great deal to me. If it weren't for you and others that encourage me on this board, I would not be so productive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAYGz6I...
Best wishes,
O.A.

“It's a miracle!”
Many have had experiences they can't explain, including me. Many also claim these types of events come from the hand of God. The masses seem to be very conflicted and confused though, when reasoning which are the true God(s) that caused these “miracles.” Nearly all seem to “know” that the other Gods are false and only theirs are true.

Which man could make a reasonable nonprejudicial judgment about all of this?

Randomness does not guarantee the inclusion of all possibilities. An infinite universe in which no star happens to have exactly five planets would not violate the known laws of physics. If a finite number of stars exist, such a state of affairs would be unlikely but not impossible. If an infinite number of stars exist, such a state of affairs would be infinitely unlikely (zero chance of it happening) - but so would any other distribution of planets, including the one that actually exists.

Hi KH... The "infinite" does not truly exist. What we call infinite, is merely a way of saying "it's some big number I can't currently specify." As soon as you can specify it, it becomes finite.

Your term "has always existed" DEPENDS upon the existence of time. Two definitions of time:

"Time keeps everything from happening all at once."

"Time: it's just one damn thing after another."

I don't recall the sources :-)

The evidence for the son of the Biblical god taking human form is a) fulfillment of a nontrivial number of prophecies. b) There were seven signs described by the apostle John in his gospel, including resurrection of someone dead for several days (possibly explained by him being in a coma?), giving sight to the blind (now possible surgically), changing water into wine (probably the easiest to explain away), etc. c) There was human testimony of several hundred witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Most of the witnesses could be written off as prejudicial, as the son of the Biblical god apparently only was reported being seen in resurrected form to believers. A perhaps hallucinogenic Saul/Paul of Tarsus who persecuted Christians was reportedly knocked off of his "high horse" and made blind until healed by someone who really didn't want to heal Saul/Paul. There was also "doubting Thomas", who had to probe Jesus' lanced side and hands. d) There was Jesus' own (albeit, somewhat cloaked) prediction that he would rebuild this temple in three days (misinterpreted at the time as referring to the Jewish temple). e) There is the report that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, despite having been guarded by Roman soldiers. f) Finally there was an historically separate documentation by the non-Christian Josephus in the first century of many of the events that occurred.

You and others are perfectly within reason to doubt much, if not all, of this. The three possible responses to Jesus are as follows. A) He was a liar (inconsistent with other aspects of his character) so effective that he could deceive billions of people over millenia. B) He was a lunatic. This is the typical response of an atheist, and that may well be correct. Or finally, C) he was who he said he was. You are free to choose any of the three responses, based on logic and evidence.

Your possible responses are A) to reject Jesus out of hand if he was a liar, as Gulch citizens are expected to be honest, B) to dismiss Jesus as a lunatic (albeit a powerful and influential one), C) follow Him and what he preached, or D) investigate the question further.

I will readily admit that the evidence for Jesus being the son of a very powerful god is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, it is perfectly reasonable for those in the Gulch to reject Jesus' claims.

Let's be clear. The philosophy of Objectivism is incompatible with religion for reasons well presented above and elsewhere. Faith-based "knowledge" is not knowledge at all; it is acceptance of something without evidence. What you call "evidence" DEPENDS on faith. So we go round and round.

To "debate" something two people must have a common basis for understanding. This is clearly missing, so a "debate" is not possible on this subject.

I do know crusaders burned numerous books (and people) not in line with their faith. Many other surviving books of earthly science, ideas, exploration, plays, poetry and such were altered, rewritten to be more in line with a common faith.

I do believe much but not all of the Bible is true. That so many had to be murdered and so much had to be destroyed to protect the faithful from different opinions worries me a lot.

I've learned something new, thank you. Hopefully you get that invitation-I'm interested in what you have to say.

I am definitely a little different, so that doesn't surprise me.

So you would disclaim the hundreds of people who over the ages have testified as to the truth of something you can not disprove? If I were a judge sitting in court and I had a hundred people testify to something, I think I'd be more than a little inclined to pay attention. That whole preponderance of evidence thing.

I know your objection is "well, it didn't happen to ME so it can't be true". I think in my mind I would be asking "WHY hasn't it happened to me? If it happened to all those others, why NOT me?"

And the search for the true nature of God has been the subject of philosophy since time immortal. It is the struggle to find our place in the universe and what (if any) relationship we share - both to others of the human kind but to nature itself and to any potential "god".

Yes, there are many theories which seem absurd. I do not, however, fault one for posing a hypothesis. And if one can neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis in one's lifetime, it must needs remain unresolved until another comes along to take up our mantle.

Many of your examples illustrate the theories of men at one time that could not be disproved - the peoples of those times lacked the knowledge or technology to do so. To laugh at them is arrogant, however - if you were in the same position, you too could have verily come to the same conclusions they did. You use condescension as a means of guilt by association - a logical fallacy. Each hypothesis must stand or fall on its own.

You are actually the first one here that has put forth that answer,

I remember learning a long time ago that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Given that it's almost redundant to say matter and energy are finite and have always existed.

Here's another possibility that satisfies BOTH: Existence always has existed, but time has not. If something exists outside of the dimension of time, it is by very definition "eternal" is it not? If something existed that was not subject to the fourth dimension, it would have no "beginning" or "end" as far as time is concerned because it would not be subject to it. I refer to probably one of the seminal pieces of mathematical philosophy: "Flatland". If it were possible to transcend dimensions in that manner, it opens up a whole realm of possibilities. That is one of the limitations of human reasoning: we can not imagine or comprehend something that has no beginning or end - we are geared with both of those in mind.

That said, "creation" as it is used in Hebrew is never the act of something from nothing. It is the organization of the existing. In Genesis, when it reads that "God created the heavens and the earth", the more proper translation is organized: nebulae => galaxies, solar systems, etc. Such as with man - we always existed, but not in this form. The spirit or "soul" of man as it were is the core of existence and has no beginning or end, but the form of that existence may change like an element subject to heat may melt or vaporize. The physical body of man was "organized" and the spirit or soul then inhabited said body.

Any more than that and you are getting into the very basis for religion, which while I am happy to go into, I'll wait for the invitation.

Have you ever studied the historical and literary accuracy of the Bible? It's unmatched by any book in history, even the most well-known and accepted books of history.

Suggest you read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell

There's a book about this...

It's called the Bible.

It answers all your questions, and all the pieces fit together better than the most intricate puzzle you've ever seen.

That is, if you're not being a stiff-necked hard-headed knucklehead going into it.

It is also possible that both theories are correct. One of the claims from the Book of Revelation is "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." If the Biblical God conception is accurate, and I cannot prove that it is or isn't, then that is consistent with "Existence exists, always has existed, and always will exist."