Tres Juicy

Jesus didn't lie.

But he speaks of god. You dont believe in god.

Do you believe that he was mistaken then?

I did not ask about his opinion about god, I simply said that if you believe in Jesus but not in god then he must be a liar

The sun is a miasma of incandescent plasma.

The sun's not simply made out of gas: no, no no

The sun is a quagmire, it's not -- made of fire-

Forget what you've been told in the past!

 

Was so happy when I saw they corrected themselves. I didn't even realise they were still putting out albums until someone linked me to the more recent stuff.

Although it's arguably less catchy than the original.

I didn't know that either, I will have to check it out when I'm not at work

[math]9*{21/22}{3}*\sqrt5=Friday![/math]

fractions are \frac{}{} with the top in the first parentheses, and the bottom in the second.

Click on the images of the equations to see the source:

[math] \oint_{s}\left(\iiint\limits_{\mbox{ham}}^{\mbox{fish}^a} \psi^{ \left[\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{a}{b} &\partial_s&\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \pi}\\ 1 &2 &3\\ 4 &5 &6 \end{array}\right]} \; d\mathcal{V}\right) d\mathbf{R}\rightarrow \pm \infty = \sqrt{3}[/math]

[math]6\frac{17}{19}= infinity * \sqrt{3.1}/{9}[/math]

[math]21^a}[/math]

Many of the things from They Might Be Giants

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace...

[math]x^2=y/3[/math]

Cool but how do I use a large operator?

 

But then you have the silly parts that take away any seriousness of the idea, like the sons of God mating with the daughters if men. We'd be more likely to successfully mate with a petunia than ET...

To be fair... These may refer to any kind of genetic experimentation. I would imagine they would just think of the results of these as being down to mating

How can I use this function?

If, on the odd occaision I have posted equations I do them using Outlook and copy and paste them

I already addressed that there is conflicting evidence on both sides, this kind of science based on 'evidence and data'...

There is no other kind of science

...wont get us any closer to the truth,

It's done a really good job so far....

especially when so many here only consider those things important and brush off mysticism, consiousness and anything connected the the new age, spirituality etc. At least the new age can embrace science, where science on its own us stuck.

That's not how science works. Science considers all possibilities based on evidence and data, it brushes off things that do not have supporting evidence and data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

Please note the differences in these fields

considering this isn't going anywhere remotely interesting, il just stop bothering..

If by "interesting" you mean fanciful, then you are correct

Is there evidence for God?

 

Yes, I agree with posters here who maintain that the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.

Circular reasoning

However, since atheists are the ones demanding evidence for the existence of God, I want them to tell us and everyone what they understand by evidence and also what is their concept of God.

 

Give us your definition of what is evidence and examples, and also your concept of God and examples of God.

This is just weak but I'll play along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Please define rabbits.

 

Yrreg

Really?! use google...

-----------------------

 

 

Are you saying that God exists and the Christian God is God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, saying that these two statements are pure assumptions?

 

What is a pure assumption?

 

 

First, by way of illustration:

 

There are assumptions that are not pure assumptions, for example, two men surviving a shipwreck got marooned in an island isolated from the rest of mankind, totally unknown to mankind, they got washed to this island unknown and totally uninhabited by humans when they were in their early teens; twenty years later a ship happened to stray accidentally near this island, and the navigator realized that it is one island not known to mankind; so they sailed toward it and the captain and some sailors disembarked; quietly and in stealth they took careful notice not of two men only but several, however only two are in their thirties while the rest are much younger of various ages and all boys.

 

The captain and his men right away assumed that one of the two much older men must be a woman.

 

That is an example of an assumption that is not a pure assumption.

 

 

A pure assumption is one that is not needed to explain anything at all.

 

An example of a pure assumption would be a teapot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars,* which is not needed to explain anything in need of an explanation.

 

 

 

The existence of God as per concept in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, that is not a pure assumption.

 

It is not a pure assumption because it is needed to explain how everything in the universe that has a beginning came about.

 

 

So, don't be so quick to make of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, namely, as the first cause and thus creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, to be an assumption understanding it as a pure assumption.

 

Time to realize that there are erroneously socalled assumptions that are not pure assumptions but necessary assumptions, and therefore they are not assumptions but fundamental principles of human rational knowledge.

 

 

 

Yrreg

 

*See, http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html

Come on, this is rubbish

I could just as easily "assume" that rabbits created the universe

I'll say it again, either there was no singularity or there was a creator.

 

Do you not feel that you have missed out some possibilities here?

The image from the past is the point in space & time we are gravitationaly attracted to....

Only because gravity cannot propogate faster than light

That does not mean it's in the past

O.K.

"into the past" is everything we observe around us. The Observable Universe is into the past. The Andromeda Galaxy is into the past. The Sun is into the past. Your computer screen is into the past.

 

Backwards in time means turning back the arrow of time. It is a completely different concept.

This is clearly wrong. You are confusing distance with "the past"

Jesus was dyslexic; He was talking about his dog.

This makes more sense.

"I love my dog he loves me"

Replace "salvation" with "salivation" and you might be on to something, I know that my dog regularly offers me salivation

In 9 pages, have we ever gotten the claim for which evidence is desired?

I presume from the title of the thread we are looking for evidence to back up christianity as a whole (any and all claims made by it)

It strikes me that if you believe in Jesus but not in god, then you must believe Jesus lied about god.

 

I mean, Jesus went on and on about god, god this, god that...

Did this get missed?

I think it's a fair point

None are so blind as they who will not see... or something like that....

"There's none so blind as them that won't listen"

9 pages now and still not one shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence so I'm going to help out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

I apologize if I am confusing you and the other members here.

But

If you accept that a galaxy 3 billion years away from us is a galaxy in our past, fully, physically, because of the max speed of all physical interaction, then you must also accept that any object that is distant from you is in your past, even it is a very very close past of not even a nanosecond. Distance means time: you cannot observe anything at a distance without time.

Which means that ONLY THE PAST IS OBSERVABLE.

 

You should also consider that the future is not observable.

So you cannot send anything in the future and observe it.

You cannot observe anything coming from the future, be it a ball or a spaceship. When the ball comes to me , it comes from someone who sent it some time before, in my past.

Similarly:

When we send something away, be it a ball or a spaceship, we always send it to the past. There is no other physical way.

"Observing" and "going to" are two different things entirely

We can only observe the past due to the speed of light but that does not mean that we move into the past as we move away from an observer, only that the light travelling between us has finite speed

John Cuthber is really good at regurgitating atheist propaganda.

I see the flow of propaganda going in both directions

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

Do you not see that is is in fact a dig at both sides?

I would say most religious texts that claim to be prophecy and the word of god are good enough artifacts, as evidence of the case for ancient astronauts

Oh dear... Do you not see the flaw in using the above as evidence?

the story of Jesus a good enough evidence, actual historical evidence that states that a woman from earth bore a child through artificial insemination.

It's just a story, there is no actual historical evidence of this

I agree. I think time is over-analysed...it's just a system that measures magnitude of duration relative to some arbitrary reference that has some desirable feature of inherent cyclicity or of fixed and known durational magnitude; like an hourglass.

I cant help feeling that there is more to it than that...

Could you post this within the thread?

It would help the discussion and I don't like downloading files

God is not a psychological phenomena because the mind itself came from God, its not the other way around where the mind creates the notion of God.

I beg to differ, there is at least some evidence that suggests that the human mind is predisposed to create and believe such things, but no evidence for an actual real god