Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists.

Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
What was it like becoming atheist? Did you have to live in the closet for awhile? Were some of your religious friends and family upset when they found out?

You, my very special friends on this board, are the only ones that know. I've hinted around to one person and saw that their reaction was going to be totally absurd, without reason. That convinced me to stay in the closet.
 

WhiteTailEER

New member
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
I said God is the objective standard. That's a far cry from objective morality?

Yes, it's relative ... unless you can explicitly state what God's standard is ... which you can't. You can only point to what men a couple thousand years ago said it was.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
You, my very special friends on this board, are the only ones that know. I've hinted around to one person and saw that their reaction was going to be totally absurd, without reason. That convinced me to stay in the closet.

I hear ya. I'm pretty much the same way. Otherwise reasonable people can get crazy when it comes to the God issue. I'm not happy about being in the closet but when I see how some react to the notion of disbelief I realize that coming out could make things even worse.
 

WVUBRU

New member
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
The people I've known who "used to be" Christian and now are atheists had a change of heart to alleviate guilt.
I find a lot of truth in this statement but it isn't absolute. Rest of everything you say on here, I am not on board. Simply as I stated; you are stating your opinion that is not shared and will not open your mind to another perspective.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
The people I've known who "used to be" Christian and now are atheists had a change of heart to alleviate guilt.

What do you mean? They felt guilty when they were believers and became atheists to relieve their guilt? I don't get it. Why would they feel guilty for believing in God?
 

WhiteTailEER

New member
Jun 17, 2005
11,534
170
0
The people I've known who "used to be" Christian and now are atheists had a change of heart to alleviate guilt.

How many of these kinds of people do you know so well that you're so acutely aware of what their motivations are?
I can tell you that my change of heart came from watching how "Christians" acted towards each other and especially towards others outside their church and not wanting to be associated with it. Then in reading the bible, there is no way for some of it to be true, but no way to know what's supposed to be an accurate historical record of what happened or just a story that you're supposed to learn something from ... or whether what I was reading was even accurate after so many translations ... so basically I couldn't believe any of it.

Then there was also the factor of how important money is to the church ... definitely no motivations there beyond "spreading the Gospel"
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
I find a lot of truth in this statement but it isn't absolute. Rest of everything you say on here, I am not on board. Simply as I stated; you are stating your opinion that is not shared and will not open your mind to another perspective.
In my OP I linked an article which led to a discussion about the existence of God. I don't think a solid counter was made against my arguments for God's existence. I then satirical addressed opie's statement about Christians' claims about the deathbed conversions of atheists, stating atheists have no objective moral standard. This claim is historically concede by atheists. I was asked about my personal views. The nature of a personal view is subjectivity. I have looked at the evidence and drawn conclusions. God is objective. My attempts to understand God will always have an element of subjectivity. Evidence is objective. Conclusions based on evidence will often have an element of subjectivity.
 

WVUBRU

New member
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
In my OP I linked an article which led to a discussion about the existence of God. I don't think a solid counter was made against my arguments for God's existence. I then satirical addressed opie's statement about Christians' claims about the deathbed conversions of atheists, stating atheists have no objective moral standard. This claim is historically concede by atheists. I was asked about my personal views. The nature of a personal view is subjectivity. I have looked at the evidence and drawn conclusions. God is objective. My attempts to understand God will always have an element of subjectivity. Evidence is objective. Conclusions based on evidence will often have an element of subjectivity.
ok. I too believe in God but I don't give him or her the full credit to many things as you do. The evidence I see points to the opposite. I don't take the old testament literal in many instances. I try to believe the Gospel but I have some doubts to some stories. Does that make me a bad Christian? In some people's eyes, it does. But I'm comfortable in my faith.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
How many of these kinds of people do you know so well that you're so acutely aware of what their motivations are?

I can think of five. One friend from college. Two from one job. Two friends I met at the gym and I'm really good friends with one of those two. All of them said something along the lines of feeling free. I always ask "free of what". Guilt. Condemnation. Judgment.

I can tell you that my change of heart came from watching how "Christians" acted towards each other and especially towards others outside their church and not wanting to be associated with it. Then in reading the bible, there is no way for some of it to be true, but no way to know what's supposed to be an accurate historical record of what happened or just a story that you're supposed to learn something from ... or whether what I was reading was even accurate after so many translations ... so basically I couldn't believe any of it.

I think those are all legitimate concerns. I started studying the Bible thinking much of it couldn't be true. I got a bachelors in theology to help me understand what I was reading. I realized I couldn't really understand without understanding the original languages of the Bible. So I got a masters degree in biblical languages. I focused on the ancient manuscripts of the Bible, a field called textual criticism. I realized to fully understand these ancient scriptures I would need to understand the historical cultures out of which the these writings arose. So I got a second masters in archaeology. Because I found a lot of unfinished work in the backgrounds of the Old Testament I began a PhD to better understand some of the Old Testament issues and find answers. My wife had a major auto accident causing my withdrawal from the program. I have been invited back to finish the PhD which I will do this fall. So when you say people who claim to be Christians don't act like it. I agree. I myself don't always act as I should. I need grace--and that's the Gospel. I am also still working on living what in my head I believe to be true. But when you say the Bible says things that can't be true, and it's impossible to separate fact from fiction, and problems with translation accuracy are too big to overcome, now I disagree.

Then there was also the factor of how important money is to the church ... definitely no motivations there beyond "spreading the Gospel"

There are people who preach for profit. The apostle Paul complained about prophets for profit. There will always be tares among the wheat--until harvest time.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
ok. I too believe in God but I don't give him or her the full credit to many things as you do. The evidence I see points to the opposite. I don't take the old testament literal in many instances. I try to believe the Gospel but I have some doubts to some stories. Does that make me a bad Christian? In some people's eyes, it does. But I'm comfortable in my faith.

Here's what I think distinguishes a good (real) Christian from a bad (false) one:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Like James says, "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?"
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
What do you mean? They felt guilty when they were believers and became atheists to relieve their guilt? I don't get it. Why would they feel guilty for believing in God?
The guilt of condemnation. They felt they were displeasing to God. They felt rejected by God. So they rejected Him back.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
I can think of five. One friend from college. Two from one job. Two friends I met at the gym and I'm really good friends with one of those two. All of them said something along the lines of feeling free. I always ask "free of what". Guilt. Condemnation. Judgment.



I think those are all legitimate concerns. I started studying the Bible thinking much of it couldn't be true. I got a bachelors in theology to help me understand what I was reading. I realized I couldn't really understand without understanding the original languages of the Bible. So I got a masters degree in biblical languages. I focused on the ancient manuscripts of the Bible, a field called textual criticism. I realized to fully understand these ancient scriptures I would need to understand the historical cultures out of which the these writings arose. So I got a second masters in archaeology. Because I found a lot of unfinished work in the backgrounds of the Old Testament I began a PhD to better understand some of the Old Testament issues and find answers. My wife had a major auto accident causing my withdrawal from the program. I have been invited back to finish the PhD which I will do this fall. So when you say people who claim to be Christians don't act like it. I agree. I myself don't always act as I should. I need grace--and that's the Gospel. I am also still working on living what in my head I believe to be true. But when you say the Bible says things that can't be true, and it's impossible to separate fact from fiction, and problems with translation accuracy are too big to overcome, now I disagree.



There are people who preach for profit. The apostle Paul complained about prophets for profit. There will always be tares among the wheat--until harvest time.

Isn't there two different orders of creation in Genesis? One is man, then woman, then the animals and the other is man, then the animals, then woman. Both can't be true.
 

old buzzard

Active member
Dec 30, 2005
6,236
528
83
One thing that religion and science both agree on is this - "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thee return."
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
One thing that religion and science both agree on is this - "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thee return."

I think that is in the Book of Kansas 1978 3-4: "Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind."

ETA: Actually, I think the sentiment was better expressed several years earlier by The Beach Boys in their song "Til I Die."
 

old buzzard

Active member
Dec 30, 2005
6,236
528
83
I think that is in the Book of Kansas 1978 3-4: "Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind."

ETA: Actually, I think the sentiment was better expressed several years earlier by The Beach Boys in their song "Til I Die."


Actually it's a Bible verse........Genesis 3:19
 

WVUBRU

New member
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
Here's what I think distinguishes a good (real) Christian from a bad (false) one:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Like James says, "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?"
Interesting. I believe it isn't right for any mortal to judge a person's faith or belief. I would never say someone is a good christian or bad christian.
 

old buzzard

Active member
Dec 30, 2005
6,236
528
83
Was that before or after Peter Gabriel left the group?

I appreciate your sense of humor. My stand is this - Believe in science if you choose, believe in God if you choose. Life is too short to waste all our time trying to convince one another. All of our questions will be answered when they turn out the lights for the last time.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
I appreciate your sense of humor. My stand is this - Believe in science if you choose, believe in God if you choose. Life is too short to waste all our time trying to convince one another. All of our questions will be answered when they turn out the lights for the last time.

Saying that all our questions will be answered at the end is a form of assuming you know the answer. If after you die nothing happens and you're just dead then you'll never know it because you'll be dead.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
Isn't there two different orders of creation in Genesis? One is man, then woman, then the animals and the other is man, then the animals, then woman. Both can't be true.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem of the first seven days. It is a broad overview of creation. Chapter 2:4 begins the narrative of the relationship between God and humanity. The style, language, and purpose of chapter 1 is different than chapter 2. Chapter 1 presents God in His transcendency decreeing each element of creation, recorded in a memorable form. Chapter 2 presents God as imminent and intimate with His creation. Chapter one talks about what Elohim did. This is the general name for God, morphologically related to Allah, and akin to saying "man". Chapter two introduces God as Yahweh Elohim. This is God's personal name. It means (in answer to your question) "I am". It's like saying, "You were created, but I just am." So, the differences in one and two have to do with style, language, and intent.

But going back to the name of God for a minute, the Hebrew language has no vowels. It's a completely consonantal language. The name Yahweh is actually just four letters: YHWH. The oldest copy of this name we have was found by Gabriel Barkay at the Temple Mount dig. It's a small silver scroll which dates back to 600BC. It's a copy of the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6 ("May YWHW bless you and keep you...") so we have that from at least 600 years before Christ.

As language developed it began as completely pictorial. A picture of an ox represented an ox. A picture of a camel represented a camel. Over time these pictures became codified so that the picture of the ox was drawn the same way every time. As more time passed the pictures became letters representing sounds, but the letters kept the meaning they originally had.

For instance, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is alef, meaning ox. Then comes beth (house), gimel (camel), dalet (door), and so on.

So the intimate name of God is YHWH. In the minds of ancient Hebrews the letters that were used to make up a word had significance. So let's look at the letters the make up God's personal name. Y is yod. Yod means hand. Next is H. H is he (pronounced "hey"), which originally meant window. Over time the word meaning changed to Behold!, like an exclamation. It's not to hard to see the correlation between window and Behold!, and still we use H that same way ("Hey! Come here!"). So Y is hand, and H is Behold! But what about W? W means nail. When we read the ancient name of God the way the ancients would have you get "Behold the hand! Behold the nail!"
 
Last edited:

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem of the first seven days. It is a broad overview of creation. Chapter 2:4 begins the narrative of the relationship between God and humanity. The style, language, and purpose of chapter 1 is different than chapter 2. Chapter 1 presents God in His transcendency decreeing each element of creation, recorded in a memorable form. Chapter 2 presents God as imminent and intimate with His creation. Chapter one talks about what Elohim did. This is the general name for God, morphologically related to Allah, and akin to saying "man". Chapter two introduces God as Yahweh Elohim. This is God's personal name. It means (in answer to your question) "I am". It's like saying, "You were created, but I just am." So, the differences in one and two have to do with style, language, and intent.

But going back to the name of God for a minute, the Hebrew language has no vowels. It's a completely consonantal language. The name Yahweh is actually just four letters: YHWH. The oldest copy of this name we have was found by Gabriel Barkay at the Temple Mount dig. It's a small silver scroll which dates back to 600BC. It's a copy of the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6 ("May YWHW bless you and keep you...") so we have that from at least 600 years before Christ.

As language developed it began as completely pictorial. A picture of an ox represented an ox. A picture of a camel represented a camel. Over time these pictures became codified so that the picture of the ox was drawn the same way every time. As more time passed the pictures became letters representing sounds, but the letters kept the meaning they originally had.

For instance, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet is alef, meaning ox. Then comes beth (house), gimel (camel), dalet (door), and so on.

So the intimate name of God is YHWH. In the minds of ancient Hebrews the letter that were used to make up a word had significance. So let's look at the letters the make up God's personal name. Y is yod. Yod means hand. Next is H. H is he (pronounced "hey"), which originally meant window. Over time the word meaning changed to Behold!, like an exclamation. It's not to hard to see the correlation between window and Behold!, and still we use H that same way ("Hey! Come here!"). So Y is hand, and H is Behold! But what about W? W means nail. When read the ancient name of God the way the ancients would have you get "Behold the hand! Behold the nail!"

That is all very interesting in historical terms. But that said, to me it implies the human origin of it. I mean, you have study the history and understand the time and place where it came into being, which tells me that it's a product of a certain people, time and place.

Well, maybe the origin of the Hebrew word for "God" should have a human origin, but how about things that are supposedly dictated or inspired by God, like books in the Bible or whatever. They too look like products of a place and time. Could God not have figured out a way to make them more universal and less a product of their time and place?

By the way, I learned recently that the origin of the word "Goodbye" is the Middle Ages when it developed as an abbreviation of "God be with ye." Never knew that before.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
That is all very interesting in historical terms. But that said, to me it implies the human origin of it. I mean, you have study the history and understand the time and place where it came into being, which tells me that it's a product of a certain people, time and place.

That's because you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Bible.

Well, maybe the origin of the Hebrew word for "God" should have a human origin, but how about things that are supposedly dictated or inspired by God, like books in the Bible or whatever. They too look like products of a place and time. Could God not have figured out a way to make them more universal and less a product of their time and place?

I just gave it to you and you rejected it.

By the way, I learned recently that the origin of the word "Goodbye" is the Middle Ages when it developed as an abbreviation of "God be with ye." Never knew that before.

Yes. It's from the German roots of English.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
That's because you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the Bible.



I just gave it to you and you rejected it.



Yes. It's from the German roots of English.

How is it that a perfect God can dictate or inspire a book and yet educated people can't understand it? Doesn't that sound a little odd?
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
How is it that a perfect God can dictate or inspire a book and yet educated people can't understand it? Doesn't that sound a little odd?
Educated people can understand. Uneducated people can understand it. How one goes about seeking makes all the difference. Jeremiah 29:13.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
Educated people can understand. Uneducated people can understand it. How one goes about seeking makes all the difference. Jeremiah 29:13.

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

That defines those finding God as having seeked God with all their heart and those not finding God as having not seeked God with all their heart. It's self-fulfilling.

It still seems odd that God would require His creatures to seek Him though. Why doesn't God simply communicate clearly to His creatures? Yes, the receivers of the communication, the humans, are imperfect and infallible when it comes to receiving a message, but considering that God is perfect I figure God could overcome that obstacle.
 

WVUBRU

New member
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
I am. I quoted Jesus. That's what he said. I'm going with.
hmmmm. I don't quote the bible much as I am way out of my league but this is what I'm going with.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

That defines those finding God as having seeked God with all their heart and those not finding God as having not seeked God with all their heart. It's self-fulfilling.

It still seems odd that God would require His creatures to seek Him though. Why doesn't God simply communicate clearly to His creatures? Yes, the receivers of the communication, the humans, are imperfect and infallible when it comes to receiving a message, but considering that God is perfect I figure God could overcome that obstacle.
How would He do this? Have it all written down. He did it. You rejected. Could He come as a human Himself, show you the way? He did. You rejected it. When one comes to the end of himself and seek God with all his heart God is there.
 

op2

Active member
Mar 16, 2014
10,860
152
53
How would He do this? Have it all written down. He did it. You rejected. Could He come as a human Himself, show you the way? He did. You rejected it. When one comes to the end of himself and seek God with all his heart God is there.

I don't know how He would do this, that's why He's God and I'm not.

I would think God could make a document that a Frenchman would see as French and that made perfect sense and an American would see as English and that made perfect sense and that a Chinese person would see as Chinese and that made perfect sense, etc. I don't know HOW it would be done, but considering we're talking about God here nothing is impossible and that seems like a pretty good approach.

And on top of conveying the words themselves, the very fact that every person saw it in their own language would be an ongoing miracle that would inspire people to believe.

Instead we end up with these scriptures, from whatever religion it is we're talking about, that seem like such a product of a certain time and place and to understand them better we have to study the time and place in which they were produced.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
hmmmm. I don't quote the bible much as I am way out of my league but this is what I'm going with.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
I'm not doing the judging. Jesus said that. He said that concerning the very topic we were addressing. So to be clear its not my words. It's Jesus' words. I won't be doing the judging. Jesus will be. I'm just quoting Jesus about how He said He would judge between real and false believers.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

New member
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
I don't know how He would do this, that's why He's God and I'm not.

I would think God could make a document that a Frenchman would see as French and that made perfect sense and an American would see as English and that made perfect sense and that a Chinese person would see as Chinese and that made perfect sense, etc. I don't know HOW it would be done, but considering we're talking about God here nothing is impossible and that seems like a pretty good approach.

And on top of conveying the words themselves, the very fact that every person saw it in their own language would be an ongoing miracle that would inspire people to believe.

Instead we end up with these scriptures, from whatever religion it is we're talking about, that seem like such a product of a certain time and place and to understand them better we have to study the time and place in which they were produced.
We have free will. And belief may be investigated through the intellect but the intellect isn't the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the will. If a person does not will to believe he will not believe even if he heard the truth from someone who came back from the dead.