Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't some trick question. If God revealed Himself to the entire world, I'm not sure how He would do this, and it doesn't really matter, let's just say He has unquestionably done so. Would you accept that He exists? Would you seek to learn more of Him or to follow Him?
I would accept God's existence and seek to learn more because I'd be very curious. But I would not necessarily "follow."
Of course, God never has physically revealed himself - except in people's wild imaginings throughout history.
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Just because we on this board weren't
around during those times does not mean he did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Colonial Girl
And yet you deny that we ever evolved because you weren't there to see it.
That's a great come-back.
If there were ancient manuscripts of first-hand accounts for evolution like we have for the creation of mankind, it might at least be interesting. Too bad them thar clever single-celled amoebas didn't invent writing till billions of years later.
If God stunningly revealed Himself to all of mankind today and it was all written about in newspapers, I'd be willing to bet that 2000 years from now all the atheists and agnostics would look at those newspapers and just say they were either on drugs or it was all just made up. After all, this is what they are doing with God revealing Himself to Israel and taking them out of Egypt and resurrecting His Son from the dead years later.
If there were ancient manuscripts of first-hand accounts for evolution like we have for the creation of mankind, it might at least be interesting. Too bad them thar clever single-celled amoebas didn't invent writing till billions of years later.
If God stunningly revealed Himself to all of mankind today and it was all written about in newspapers, I'd be willing to bet that 2000 years from now all the atheists and agnostics would look at those newspapers and just say they were either on drugs or it was all just made up. After all, this is what they are doing with God revealing Himself to Israel and taking them out of Egypt and resurrecting His Son from the dead years later.
Your god did not leave any evidence of a visit 2000 years ago, so if the OP's god put in unquestionable appearance then left without a trace, then it would be entirely reasonable for a person in 4013 to disbelieve fantastic accounts.
That is the difference between the gospels and evolution. There is no evidence for the gospels, but there is plenty of evidence for evolution.
Suppose He openly revealed Himself tomorrow and all the newspapers wrote about it. Then 2000 years later all the naysayers would once again say it was all bogus.
At least they'd have a zillion cell phone videos to refer to, along with the obvious fact it was a worldwide shared experience simultaneously recorded by all media outlets, etc. In addition they'll be in a much better place to compare many, many accounts for discrepancies or similarities.
I don't think that 2000 years from now that 2013 AD will seen nearly as remote as 13 AD seems to us.
I have always factored the fragmentary records from two millennia ago into the mix. It's just that even allowing for that, there are a lot of discrepancies and far more plausible alternative explanations than the religious ones.
Aside from all this, why is it a virtue that god spoke once and then shut up (or for a time, and then stopped)? Why wouldn't he speak on an ongoing basis? And why not to everyone, not just a prophet here and there? Why is god conveniently hidden and restricted to times, persons and places? And why is the fulfillment of his promises always conveniently displaced into an afterlife in immaterial realms? And why should anyone be faulted for suspecting that this is part of a shell game?
One reason often given for the cessation of god's active intervention in human affairs is that once it was recorded for posterity, that was no longer necessary. That is, if people won't believe the written word (supposedly aided by the spirit of god's constant entreaties), then their real problem isn't lack of evidence but willful rebellion. But this assumes that most people's resistance to god is a resistance to his benign leadership, and it way overstates the value and persuasiveness of having written "revelation".
Written revelation may have been far more impressive when the Bible was one of a relative handful of books in worldwide circulation, although even then, its benefits were limited to a tiny minority of educated elites and its penetration to the everyday life of the common (and generally illiterate) man was close to nil. But today there are literally millions of books presumably explaining The Meaning of it All, many at odds with the Bible, and despite strenuous claims to the contrary by bibliolaters, there is in fact nothing about the Bible to elevate its claims of Truth above any others -- in fact, it has significant points against that.
If there were ancient manuscripts of first-hand accounts for evolution like we have for the creation of mankind, it might at least be interesting. Too bad them thar clever single-celled amoebas didn't invent writing till billions of years later.
Hey Eusebius. I'm still waiting for you to show me the location of the cherubim and the flaming sword God posted to guard reentry into Eden. Surely if your stories are true, those guardians should still be here, performing their duties, no? And with all of our exploration and satellites and whatnot - no sign of either. So why not show me where they are and I'll give the Bible a second look. Otherwise ... you're just clinging to mythology in the same way that Jupiter worshipers still clung to the "old ways" as Rome turned Christian.
Secondly, there are no "first hand" accounts of creation - God didn't personally pen Genesis which means whoever wrote it wasn't there to see it. Unless, of course, you would have us believe that humans were created before humans so they could see what happened before humans. *boggle* Yeah ... but why not? You ask us to believe in stranger things.
And yes, those little amoeba couldn't write. You know why? Because there is no "magic" in evolution. We don't have to rely on mystical explanations that allow amoebas to write - or snakes to talk or virgins to give birth or seas to part, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
If God stunningly revealed Himself to all of mankind today and it was all written about in newspapers, I'd be willing to bet that 2000 years from now all the atheists and agnostics would look at those newspapers and just say they were either on drugs or it was all just made up. After all, this is what they are doing with God revealing Himself to Israel and taking them out of Egypt and resurrecting His Son from the dead years later.
No, that's not what we're doing. First of all, you're now begging the question (how many fallacies are you going to use?) To claim that we're doing the same thing with the Bible today that our distant grandchildren would do 2,000 years from now if God appeared today is assuming that your premise is true. You can't build an argument on a premise that itself is in question. Yep, that's a fallacy. *sigh*
Secondly, you have yet to offer up any evidence that suggests your creation myth is any more or less credible than any other. Yeah, we could be denying the existence of Zeus even though there are eyewitness accounts of Zeus back in the day. So what does that prove? That Zeus existed?
The fact that an accident of birth placed you in a Christian nation does not mean that Christianity is true by default. I know you think it's true because you believe in it - but there are a billion Hindus who think the same thing about their gods because an accident of birth landed them in a Hindu nation. I tell people like you all the time that your staunch belief in Christianity is mostly due to where you were born and has almost nothing to do with any inherent truth. I can guarantee that if you had been born in Calcutta, stories like Adam and Eve would merely make you giggle politely and nothing more.
There are some that would argue that water isn't wet, I reckon.
Nice comeback. I appreciate the fact that you didn't insult me for daring to disagree--as some do. It's ok to intelligently disagree on a topic. I'm not going to call someone stupid for believing in evolution. On the other hand, I have seen some issues with the theory. I just don't see the evidence to support it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
