h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"(i.e. "chinese whispers" style history, which was a lot more reliable in those days than it is now)."

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

"An awful lot of the people in the bible can be verified through non-biblical books."

As I said, the basis is of facts, but turned now into fable. Let's take Soloman. Yes, he existed, but there's no evidence whatsoever of his fabulous temple anywhere. I understand a guy named Jesus may have wandered around two thousand years ago, but did he walk on water or perform miracles? Please, just find me one single scrap of irrefutible evidence and I will convert!

"I have heard it said that the bible is one of the most reliable books of its time, if not the most."

Heard from whom? Anyone reliable?

I arrive at the "chinese whispers" conclusion because I have been told by historians that this is an accepted form of passing information at that time. Reliability is an interesting issue - I do not trust most of the historical nature of the bible because of the bible itself or because of preachers - I trust it because historians say it is reliable.

"... but now turned into fable."

If you want to check, I think you'll find that Jews will and Muslims will also disagree with you on this fact. The Old Testament and the Qu'ran have many similarities. The bible has only "changed" through translation since it was written before it was put together in the 4th century AD. If the Old Testament really was fables, the Jews and Muslims would be able to tell you that straight away.

"Solomon existed, but there's no evidence of his temple..." As far as I remember, when Judah (Jerusalem) was taken over by the Babylonians, wasn't Solomon's temple burnt down to the ground by Nebuchadnezzar / Nebuzaradan? (2 Kings chapter 25 and 2 Chronicles chapter 36) So according to the bible there wouldn't be any evidence of it at all.

As regards evidence for Jesus' miracles, I usually take this based on the greatest miracle of all - his dying and rising again, of which there is plenty of evidence (or rather, no real evidence against the fact that it didn't happen - if you want me to go into any more detail on this then I will do). I come to the conclusion that if Jesus can overcome the power of death, then surely he can do all the other miracles mentioned in the gospels as well.

me[Andy]g

Unfortunately, I am still waiting for some incontrovertible proof that the bible is little more than a fairy story with a fact or two hidden deep. And no one yet has provided anything at all.

I can accept, through evidence, that there was a great flood at some point. I can accept that there was probably someone called Jesus. That certain events in the bible did take place.

And if the bible gave us the facts and then stopped we'd all use it sincerely as a reasonably reliable record of the time, much in the same way we use early histories written by people who were not there.

But look at the facts we know about the bible. It was written years after the events it described. Sometimes hundreds of years. It was written most likely without the use of sources other than folk history. And it seems to me that it was written by a group of people who had an agenda.

Do you honestly believe that this the basis by which a truthful history can be written?

And throughout all the debates, Christians tell us the Bible is true and that it is the word of god... and yet *never* offer any reliable, verifiable evidence to support this claim. Instead it appears to me that they hide behind the word "faith".

So, I am waiting for the evidence (or even that rather cryptic "no real evidence" being evidence).

Agonistes

The central message of the bible is that

(1) Jesus died to save sinners from what they deserve because we all disobey what God wants us to do - because we are imperfect.

Of this there seems to be no doubt; sources other than the bible tell of his crucifixion (around 27AD or so?).]

(2) Jesus rose again, overcoming the power of death, and opening the way to heaven for anyone who truly believes in him as the Son of God.

Again, there is little or no evidence against this. Around 50 days after Jesus was crucified, his followers (more than 500 or so of them) were claiming that he had risen from the dead, and there was nothing that the ruling authority - the Romans - could do to shut them up. It was being claimed that the promised Messiah had arrived, died, and opened the way to heaven as prophesied years earlier. So this leaves us with two choices - either

(1) Jesus' followers made the entire story up, and thus are the perpetrators of the biggest practical joke in the history of the world (and the joke is on them too, since most of them were martyred - killed for their "faith")

or (2) it was true and Jesus died and came back to life again....

I prefer to believe (2) as (1) just seems plainly ridiculous.

"But look at the facts we know about the bible. It was written years after the events it described. Sometimes hundreds
of years. It was written most likely without the use of sources other than folk history."

I am not a historian, so any comments I make on reliability at this point are based on what I have heard from historians, or read about what historians say about the bible. As far as I know, these facts do not make the bible unreliable; in fact, I will say again, for its time period, the bible is a very accurate historical book. And what is wrong with folk history as a source? Why should we assume that folk history is inaccurate?

You can apply this thinking to most (if not all) books of the same time period as the bible. In those days, people did not write books anywhere near as often as they do now.

So yes, I do honestly believe that this is the basis on which a truthful history can be written.

me[Andy]g

I've read throught the conversations, and I must say that I'm a little confused. Are we arguing the truth of the Bible? or the truth that God exists?

If we're aguing the fact of biblical truth, I would have to agree that it does tell a decently accurate truth about history. Events that take place in the bible have been scientifically proven, some of them, the parting of the red sea for instance has been scientifically been proven as wind forces forcing the red sea to become a dry land bridge near the area of ancient egypt. I would also say that some of the Biblical history is flawed as well. One thing that always stuck out in my mind is the simple fact of where did Egypt come from? There is no mention (as far as I can recall) of Egypt until it is a full blown civilization, with it's own system of religion.

As to the fact of Gods existance, facts proven by science do /nothing/ more than prove history. Any miracle shown in the new testament can be judged by nothing more than faith alone. It could be a persons own mind playing tricks on them, or it could be true, no one can possibly tell as it's sitting in the dust of history. The great deluge is spoken of in every ancient civilization, most of which supposedly had no contact during the development of said civilizations, a lot of these were polytheists, and existed before the time of the legend of moses. So did God forget to tell everyone that he existed before that time? Who is to judge which civilization had it right? or didn't for that matter? What about the people of the Aztec and Peruvian civilization? They existed in the Americas, as did many other peoples, without contact with the transpiring during the life of Jesus Christ. Do they all eternally burn in hell-fire simply because God never got around to telling them about it all?

I think not, if you're looking for contradictions in the bible, look for them in the massive oversights made by a supposedly all seeeing and all knowing being, and not simply in slips or wording.

Although I'll have to admit, I've found many while reading the bible, and they're pretty funny.

just some food for thought

If me[Andy]g told me he'd won a gold medal in the luge I would probably not believe him. But if he showed it to me then I'd be really impressed and I'd tell all my friends that I'd been arguing with a guy who'd got a gold medal in the luge.

me[Andy]g tells me the Bible is true and I don't believe him. If he can show me some truth then I'll believe him.

Simple, eh? No. Because unfortunately at this point it all breaks down and suddenly everything becomes nebulous. There is no real evidence and curious and verbose explanations are offered which serve primarily to avoid stating the truth.

According to me[Andy]g:

1) We have to believe in the Bible because there's no evidence *against* it (like saying that drinking water makes you more intelligent *because* it doesn't make you dumb).

2) We have to believe in the Bible because parts have been confirmed by other unamed sources; in modern day parlance these are called urban legends. Sources need to be named and verifiable and reliable in themselves; if the modern world and media can be duped, how easy would it have been to dupe a less sophisticated people?

3) We have to believe in the Bible because it is folk history which is reliable. Folk history also includes Roswell, the Angel of Mons, and a thousand other impossible stories.

What I want is simple. Merely a piece of evidence that can be verified by any resonable person (whether Atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc).

Anyone can visit a concentration camp in Germany, see the records and view footage of the inmates to verify that the holocaust happened. Those people who don't believe it are regarded as somewhat unbalanced in fact.

Anyone can pour water down a plughole in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres to verify the fact that it *doesn't* flow one way or the other depending on which hemisphere you're in. Very few people do though.

But sadly no one can see *any* verifiable evidence that the Bible is true. We can verify certain events did take place, but there's nothing verifiable out there which tells us miracles do happen; virgins do have children; seas do part (because of the hand of God rather than less prosaic meteorological factors); people can walk on water; and people can rise from the dead (because they are divine rather than the less prosaic cataplectic explanation).

And there's bugger all evidence of God, either.

Agonistes, I have a question for you - do you believe that a guy called Julius Caesar existed who ruled over the Roman empire at the times it is said that he did, i.e. around the first century AD? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you think that the history books that we currently have on the Roman empire are reliable or not? Why?

me[Andy]g

I don't know whether this link is allowed; but if it is, go and check it out

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/jesus/index.htm?terms=jesus

I think that you should at least investigate the writings of Tacitus and Josephus - historians of the time who both talk about the life of Jesus.

me[Andy]g

Yes, I do believe in Julius Ceaser. This is because I was taught this in school, seen a few programs about him and nothing I have seen or read thus far has led me to doubt his existance.

If someone came up with some evidence that he did not exist, then I would re-examine my ideas about him.

In the same way I was taught at school to believe in Jesus and God and the Bible. And then doubts crept in. Certain unverifiable elements which led me to reassess my ideas. Certain inconsistencies and concepts which did not obey the laws of nature and physics.

If you were to tell me that Julius Ceaser was able to perform miracles then it would not fit in with my conviction that each event has a cause and that cause is not supernatural or divine, but logical and sensible and I would doubt this aspect of his life.

Likewise, the parts of the Bible which deal in basic history I can believe until proved otherwise (they're not written in stone). However those parts which don't fit in with eternal truths (such as death, gravity and the creation of matter) I cannot believe.

Agonistes

I can see, and understand to some extent, why you're sceptical.

Thus statements such as:

"Certain inconsistencies and concepts which did not obey the laws of nature and physics."

This is all well and good for a human being. But if God created the laws of nature and physics (which the bible clearly states he did - he created everything we see according to Genesis), then why should he have to obey them? Why could he not choose to change the Earth's acceleration due to gravity in order to walk on water? If he created man, surely he could manage to bring a dead man back to life again? - he would know how to do it because he created it in the first place.

However, if you have a "conviction that each event has a cause and that cause is not supernatural or divine, but logical and sensible" I am afraid that anything I can say about God will not make sense to you.

I would say, however, that death is the ONLY eternal truth. "Gravity" and "the creation of matter" are established THEORIES (some people call established theories "facts") created by man in order for man to try and understand the world he lives in. They are not eternal truths, in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an eternal truth, it's just the best way that man has found of representing a number system on this planet.

me[Andy]g

Andy, you've just stumbled upon one of the largest paradoxes in history (well, at least as I see it)

so if God created everything, then who created god? Also if God created the universal laws, then how can he /not/ be bound by them. If he exists then he must exist within the universe, and also be bound by them. God can't exist because he would cause hiw own non-existence. i.e and god vanishes in a puff of logic.

although input is encouraged here, that's the whole point. You're free to disagree with that statement of course

I was also wondering if you could consider the statement I made earlier, about god leaving people out. I was wondering if there is a defense to that statement, as I've never seen one.

Hi Engels42,

Why, if God created everything, did something need to create God? (I'm trying to think of an analogy but failing...)

I'm afraid I don't really understand the rest of your paragraph either. If you created a mini-world of your own, which you were outside of, you would not be subject to what goes on inside it because it was too small to affect you, but you would also be able to do what you wanted to it. So I don't see what the problem is with saying that God is both outside and inside the universe simultaneously. There's an episode of the Simpsons where Lisa creates her own world around her tooth (I think?) - and, apart from the fact that the people of that world manage to shrink Lisa and bring her into their world, I think that that describes to some extent how God watches over his universe... except that, unlike Lisa, God watches over his universe constantly and without fail.

As regards God "leaving people out", it's a difficult question, and one that is not particularly answered well by any religion. I can't give you a full answer; neither, I suspect, can most people. I don't know whether God manifested himself to the Aztecs or Peruvians - I have never seen or heard any evidence for or against it, so for me there is no proof either way. We really have no idea at all. You could say that Christianity as we know it didn't reach that part of the world until long after Jesus' death, but that doesn't exclude God from working within that civilisation in a different way.

I guess what it boils down to in my opinion is this: if the ancient people had respect and awe for the God who created them, then surely God would look with mercy on them and call them his children? After all, he did that with the Israelites, so why could he not do it also with other races who truly believed in a creator God who had created human beings in his own image?

I don't claim that this is the answer; far from it - this is just my rambling thoughts on a Monday morning. I hope that something I've said will at least make you think and come to your own decision, as at the end of the day, the way that you live your life is entirely your own decision - that was the way that God intended it to be, and that's the way it is.

me[Andy]g

So really, what is the difference between you saying God created the universe and populated it with laws and suchlike, and me saying *I* created the universe and populated it with laws and suchlike.

Why do you believe that God created everything and not me? (Disregarding the symantic argument that if I created the universe then I would be God.)

Your belief that is was God who created it all relies soley upon your faith without any proof. So, why God and not me? I can offer no proof that I created the universe, so why not believe in me instead.

Agonistes (who could get to like this idea)

Okay.

I can't believe that you (Agonistes) created the universe because you are human and you are going to die, i.e. cease to function on the Earth. Fact. For the same reason, there's no way that any other human being could have created the Earth.

I can't see how you can apply the same human logic to God. God is not human, so why should he be limited to what humans can understand or prove?

But anyway. The main reason why I believe God created the universe is that no-one has ever created something from nothing - it is impossible - it cannot be done, and will never be done. So that means that someone or something must have existed to bring the universe as we know it into existence. What brought whatever created the universe into existence in the first place does not matter to my belief in this case. So that's why I believe that God created the universe. If you try to claim that the Earth / universe has been around forever - then I'd ask you to check out scientific theories on the subject - I don't think you'll find that that's a viable viewpoint held by anybody (not even Creationists!).

The difference between God and you creating the universe is that you definitely didn't create the universe. You say you have no proof either way that God created the universe. I say God created the universe... no-one can say ("prove") that God definitely didn't create the universe.

me[Andy]g

"I can't believe that you (Agonistes) created the universe because you are human and you are going to die, i.e. cease to function on the Earth. Fact."

But you say that Jesus rose from the dead so death isn't a fact.

You also say that God created the universe and so he isn't bound by its laws. How do you know that I didn't create the universe and therefore *I* am not bound by its laws?

"I can't see how you can apply the same human logic to God. God is not human, so why should he be limited to what humans can understand or prove?"

Exactly! You have no proof of this, just as you have no proof that I am not God and therefore not human. It is merely that you choose to believe God's story and not mine. There's no shred of evidence for either of us creating the universes, so why does God have your devotion?

"The difference between God and you creating the universe is that you definitely didn't create the universe."

How do you know that? You have as much proof of me NOT creating the universe as you do of God creating it!

Agonistes

"Exactly! You have no proof of this, just as you have no proof that I am not God and therefore not human. It is merely that you choose to believe God's story and not mine. There's no shred of evidence for either of us creating the universes, so why does God have your devotion?"

Universes? There is no evidence for more than one universe...

But anyway. Why does God have my devotion? I guess it's down to the created world around me. A human being did not create this. And something must have created it. The universe, I believe, did not arise from "nothing", matter cannot be created from no matter. Something or someone highly complicated created it. The nature of the universe is such that humans will never completely understand it, so it is therefore highly unlikely that it was created by a human. I'm sure I said this last time; so please say why you don't understand what I've just said.

I have no "absolute" proof that you are not God, I agree. However, I can be very sure that you are not by what you say and do. No-one else would believe that you created the universe because you did not create the universe - how could you possibly have created the universe if you were born after it was made and have no recollection of your life beforehand?

"But you say that Jesus rose from the dead so death isn't a fact."

I said that death is a fact for human beings. Jesus was human, but also divine at the same time, hence had the power to overcome death.

If you did create the universe and can go outside of its laws, please show me. I believe that in Jesus, God showed us glimpses of the fact that he can go outside of its laws i.e. walking on water, rising from the dead etc. and I believe that there is good evidence that these things happened.

me[Andy]g

There is also a case to be answered, namely - if Christianity really is wrong, then it is the biggest practical joke in the history of humankind, and I don't believe that any human or God is that callous.

Also, if there is no God, what is the point in existing? Some people would say we just exist "to live and then to die". I'm sorry, but I just can't believe such a statement - it just doesn't wash with me. I believe that the very nature of my current existence should lead me to ask the question "what happens when I die?" and to come to a logical conclusion. And the Bible, Christianity and the life of Jesus Christ all answer that question for me. If they are wrong, so be it. But I don't believe that they are.

People search for meaning in their existence all the time. They look for it in alcohol, drugs, sex, friendship, family, the right job, lots of money, music... ultimately all such things fail to answer what the meaning of life is. The fact that everyone is searching for meaning in life is what draws me to the Bible and what I find there answers enough of the questions that I have about life to satisfy me that it is correct.

If you're looking for hard physical evidence, none of this is, I guess, particularly helpful - it's very "feeling-orientated", if you like - but if you are just looking for hard physical evidence, you need to stop and ask yourself why you are doing so.

me[Andy]g

"Universes? There is no evidence for more than one universe..."

Actually that's a typo. I guess that means if I make mistakes then I can't be God?

-------

You state that the world around you had to be created, therefore there has to be a creator. This is a self-defeating argument because by stating this, then you have to admit that if something exists, it must be have been created so the creator had a creator and so on ad infinitum.

How about a radical thought? Maybe the universe was not created - it just "is". This would simply negate the necessity for a creator and would solve the whole problem of who created whom.

But back to the main problem - why you don't think I'm God. Well, you simply state that "how could you possibly have created the universe if you were born after it was made and have no recollection of your life beforehand?"

There's a simple answer to this. It's the same argument that you used to assert the existence of God, i.e. "God is outside the realm of physical laws and is therefore not subject to them." It's a simple get-out clause. As God, I am outside these laws so although it appears I was born after the universe was made, in actual fact I was not.

Of course this is all rubbish. The point about all this is that using your arguments I can claim an equal right to be God and no one can disprove me.

"If you did create the universe and can go outside of its laws, please show me."

Isn't this where we came in? Me asking you to show me proof of God's existence? You were unable to do that and now you're asking me to do the same. I think this kind of prooves my point that there IS not proof of God. You believe in him for no logical reason, purely "faith".

But why do people have "faith"? I guess the majority of the world's population believe in God. I don't think this is the result of a practical joke, nor a clever ruse or conspiracy, merely a reflection on the sad fact that most people can't hack the world on their own and require some help. No one wants to be alone and by believing there's a parent-like figure standing over protecting everyone it helps people out.

Most people live dull, seemingly unimportant lives and require a meaning to their existence. If everyone realised that they are not important, that their life had no meaning and that they are equivalent to ants, then most people would just give up.

A belief in God supplies that need. In my opinion it's a way of letting all the non-atheists put meaning into their life. It's been said before, but I'll say it again, people invented God because they needed him.

So why do you bother carrying on then? Surely if there is no God and no meaning to life on Earth then there's no point living?

"You state that the world around you had to be created, therefore there has to be a creator. This is a self-defeating argument because by stating this, then you have to admit that if something exists, it must be have been created so the creator had a creator and so on ad infinitum."

Why? Why can I not stop at the chain above me? I don't understand why you think this is illogical.

"How about a radical thought? Maybe the universe was not created - it just "is". This would simply negate the necessity for a creator and would solve the whole problem of who created whom."

I have said this previously, so I will say it again. There is no evidence for this statement whatsoever. If you can prove it any other way then show me.

"Of course this is all rubbish. The point about all this is that using your arguments I can claim an equal right to be God and no one can disprove me."

Yes. But. You can also use any of mine or your arguments to "prove" that you are anyone and no-one can dis-"prove" that. Using any of your arguments you can claim ("prove") to be anyone you want to and believe it for all you care, but you'll still be wrong.

There is conflicting evidence that Julius Caesar existed and was Roman emperor. This could mean that I could say that such a person never existed. You're using exactly the same arguments about Jesus. Yet Jesus' birth gave rise to a whole new calendar system that most of the world today uses... why??

There is conflicting evidence that William Shakespeare wrote some of the plays accredited to him. I could use this to say that he in fact wrote none of the plays accredited to him. You're using exactly the same argument about the Bible.

There are historical arguments about all sorts of things - how various kings of England died, who was on who's side in the first world war, how the first world war started, etc... does this mean that they did not happen one of those ways? No!

"Isn't this where we came in? Me asking you to show me proof of God's existence? You were unable to do that and now you're asking me to do the same. I think this kind of prooves my point that there IS not proof of God. You believe in him for no logical reason, purely "faith"."

Rubbish. I am not asking you to prove God's existence. I am asking you to prove that you are God. You have no proof. When I ask the questions of this guy called Jesus whose birth split time in half, he shows me the answers. Not incontrovertibly though, which leads me on to a challenge...

If you can prove anything to me incontrovertibly, go ahead and do so. I would suggest that you think about it properly before you do so.

If proof of God was incontrovertible, there would be no need for any religion or faith, as everyone would believe in God. God did not create the world that way - he gave us a choice to recognise him as creator or to ignore him and go our own way, and so incontrovertible proof does not exist. As to why God created the world that way - well, I could go on for another hundred pages or so but I probably won't give you a satisfactory answer. It's something you have to ask yourself and come to your own conclusion. But I reckon that God created you with a choice - to choose to remain with God, or to choose to go your own way.

I would also ask you to explain why our society has such a great distinction between what is "right" and what is "wrong". Where does what is "right and wrong" come from?

me[Andy]g

To answer the question of how do we define right and wrong, and why we carry over many christian customs into governmental policies and everything else. From my point of view, of what I've read of history and the spread of religion, you have to ask yourself who won the stuggle over the last couple thousand years?

quite simply it is christians. You can see it in the trail of blood that has followed the spread. From the crusades, to the inquisition, to the colonization of the new world and many other places. We are very fotunate to live in the time when converting to christianity is a choice. In the early years of it's existance it was a choice, but you really had only one good option. Many people were left with beleive in 'my' god or die. It's pure logic that people would choose to live, and beleive something that they didn't really understand, than to die. There were many good religions before the time when christianity, or even judaism came about, so who's to say that they weren't right, and the people who were wrong killed off those who were right? We just dont really know.

I've seen many theories in physics that get disproved because there is no proof that they can actually occur. It's pure speculation, until you can actually see it first hand. So what would make the theory of god existing, or even even agonistas creating the universe any different. There is no first hand evidence of either happening.

as to the meaning of life, I (and i think most of the athiests that I know) have given up on this question. There is no point to it. Why should life have a meaning? We are alive, and the only thing that we attempt to explain (as scientists) is how the mechanism works. I could be wrong in this view, but so could the christians. There are as many holes in each, and neither is more beleivable thatn the other. It really is a question of faith, which is something that is not really definable, it is simply a feeling, different for each individual human.

oh and my paragraph above, I think I was trying to get at the same point that agonistas came to later on, that you would need a series of creators, ad infinitum. I wasn't feeling well, flu and all, but I hope I can add something to the discussion now that my brain is fully functional.