What does God look like?

[Jeanne dArc]

I agree with your Main Point. There is no real evidence that comes from outside the Church that he actually walked the Earth.

Glad we can agree on that

My own point was originally about the crosses and that they could have been reused. And to counter that they didn't reuse them, because people were left to rot, I posted that Jesus was taken down because the Sabboth was coming on. That was not a supernatural event. It was a cultural event. And the people who wrote the Books of the Bible would have still been living in that same Jewish/Roman culture, and so my reasoning was that they wrote what actually happened regarding crucifixions. The people crucified in those centuries were taken down before the Sabboth. Which would mean they were not left to rot, and thus the crosses could have been reused many times.

That would only have applied to Jews however: a Gentile certainly wouldn't have been removed from his cross by Judaic tradition, as the law did not apply to non-Jews. So perhaps some crosses were reused: many were undoubtedly left to rot however.

Also, it is worthy of mention that the absolute earliest estimates for the age of the earliest gospels are after the Siege of Jerusalem in the First Jewish-Roman War, in 70 CE. Given the authors of the gospels seem not to have had a terribly accurate view of the working of the Sanhedrin court in the Second Temple era, I would draw into question their familiarity with Jewish custom of that period, which suggests, perhaps, that they were not native to that region (and they may not have been Jews, again, they may have been Grecian Romans, or even some other group). Even more troubling is the gospels' account of the very ad hoc and unrealistic Sanhedrin trial: who was there to record it, if it did actually happen? The account tells us of all the men present at the trial, none of which seems a plausible candidate for an author, or source. A similar conundrum exists with the garden of Gethsemane: if Jesus went off by himself to pray, and all the disciples were asleep, then who was there to document what Jesus was doing? It reeks of fiction to me

[Meridian O]

What does God look like? I've always wondered this question. Anyone have any good theories?

(Atheists, I already know what you'll say... I've already heard it billions of times that God doesn't exist. Just don't post it please. Thanks...)

A golden orb of light or Gaius Octavius...

[Emmisal]

I highly doubt it I use science as a source and basis for opinion, for one, because I'm a scientist, and second, because science is based on evidence and reason. So ultimately, reason and evidence are my sources and bases for opinion. Science is just the methodology by which we use reason and evidence to ascertain information about reality.

So you still haven't really answered my question: why do you think that the Bible should be regarded as authoritative and worthy of use as a source?

Personally I can't base my fundamental life's ideologies on science. All that science tell us about nature and reality is imperfect: scientific knowledge is always been improved upon. Scientists are some of the most inconsistent people in history: today they tell you the atom is fundamental particle of nature, few years later they tell you electrons, protons and neutrons are actually the fundamental, years later they tell you it's actually the quarks. We keep seeing new researches refuting claims of previous ones. Scientific knowledge is always been built upon therefore it is basically imperfect. I hope you understand my logic. I'm not trying to discredit science (I'm a science student and a passionate one at that) but I'm saying that as long as scientific knowledge and deductions can be improved upon, they are imperfect hence it is no good foundation for my fundamental life's believes.

As to the reason why I believe in the authority of the bible, I sincerely don't want to start an argument that can not end here because it's quite difficult to convince atheists but I'd like you to visit these sites, they might help (discoveryseries.org/ten-reasons/in-the-bible) (www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223629/k.B9BC/Authority_of_the_Bible__A_Strong_Argument_for_Christianity.htm)

[Jeanne dArc]

Personally I can't base my fundamental life's ideologies on science. All that science tell us about nature and reality is imperfect: scientific knowledge is always been improved upon. Scientists are some of the most inconsistent people in history: today they tell you the atom is fundamental particle of nature, few years later they tell you electrons, protons and neutrons are actually the fundamental, years later they tell you it's actually the quarks. We keep seeing new researches refuting claims of previous ones. Scientific knowledge is always been built upon therefore it is basically imperfect. I hope you understand my logic. I'm not trying to discredit science (I'm a science student and a passionate one at that) but I'm saying that as long as scientific knowledge and deductions can be improved upon, they are imperfect hence it is no good foundation for my fundamental life's believes.

Yes, science is perpetually self-refining, but that is its strength It is wrong to say that science is "no good" for foundational belief: science is based on evidence and reason, which should be truly foundational. Science is merely the method by which we can analyze and ascertain the proper meaning behind evidence and reason; and it constantly polishes this understanding.

The people who lived in times when the atom was thought to be the fundamental particle were not truly wrong for accepting that: there was simply no evidence of anything more fundamental. It took time for subatomic particles to be uncovered. The people who believed that atoms were fundamental were justified in their beliefs: they would only have become unjustified in their beliefs if they retained them after science had determined that there were subatomic particles. Scientists are hardly inconsistent: their consistency is in the methodology. The methodology being to follow evidence and reason wherever it leads, even if that means challenging or overturning views which were once held.

By definition: believing anything for which there is no credible evidence or reason is simply unjustified. That is why I am an atheist: there is simply no valid evidence or reason to believe that divinity exists. That doesn't mean that someday there couldn't be, hypothetically, but belief prior to reason is not justified.

As to the reason why I believe in the authority of the bible, I sincerely don't want to start an argument that can not end here because it's quite difficult to convince atheists but I'd like you to visit these sites, they might help (discoveryseries.org/ten-reasons/in-the-bible) (www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223629/k.B9BC/Authority_of_the_Bible__A_Strong_Argument_for_Christianity.htm)

Part of the reason it's difficult to convince atheists is because many atheists are like me: formerly religious Ergo, I've heard those apologetic arguments many times, and used to espouse them myself: I find them irrational now, after deep examination.

[mskate]

Why on Earth would you ask such a Question ? your an Atheists ?!

[Jeanne dArc]

Why on Earth would you ask such a Question ? your an Atheists ?!

I'm assuming you were asking the original poster, but just in case you were replying to my last post: yes, I'm an atheist

[Emmisal]

Yes, science is perpetually self-refining, but that is its strength It is wrong to say that science is "no good" for foundational belief: science is based on evidence and reason, which should be truly foundational. Science is merely the method by which we can analyze and ascertain the proper meaning behind evidence and reason; and it constantly polishes this understanding.

The people who lived in times when the atom was thought to be the fundamental particle were not truly wrong for accepting that: there was simply no evidence of anything more fundamental. It took time for subatomic particles to be uncovered. The people who believed that atoms were fundamental were justified in their beliefs: they would only have become unjustified in their beliefs if they retained them after science had determined that there were subatomic particles. Scientists are hardly inconsistent: their consistency is in the methodology. The methodology being to follow evidence and reason wherever it leads, even if that means challenging or overturning views which were once held.

By definition: believing anything for which there is no credible evidence or reason is simply unjustified. That is why I am an atheist: there is simply no valid evidence or reason to believe that divinity exists. That doesn't mean that someday there couldn't be, hypothetically, but belief prior to reason is not justified.

I somewhat disagree with you that "the people who lived in times when the atom was thought to be the fundamental particle were not truly wrong for accepting that". For instance, if I deduce based on limited knowledge that Barack Obama is a white man I'd be wrong even though that's the best I can believe based on the knowledge available, but I'm still wrong because he's black. And so, yes, they weren't wrong 'for accepting' that the atom is fundamental but they accepted the wrong thing. And if my survival were to be dependent on that information I'd be in trouble because I believed the wrong thing. Doesn't sound good enough for me to make scientific deductions my fundamental life philosophy given that I don't have forever to live and wait for them to correct all the flaws of science and I can't even tell the extent to which it is flawed.

Scientific methodologies 'follow evidence and reason', very true. Lawyers also follow evidence and reason, philosophers follow evidence and reason even religious apologists follow evidence and reason, intelligent design theory also follows evidence and reason. Many fields of endeavor follow evidence and reason though their methodologies might slightly differ. Evidence and reason is good to follow.

The point here is that scientific methodologies don't always yield perfect results and so I can't build my life around scientific results. That is not to say science is not part of my life, of course it is. But I can't build my life on them (foundationally speaking) and i won't use scientific deductions as the boundary around my life because I might risk NO RECOVERY if some of them turn out to be wrong. Limiting myself to science only implies that I'm making a 'god' out of science.

"Belief prior to reason is not justified" that's very true indeed but are you really sure there aren't any reasons to believe some of the things you doubt? And who told you that scientific methodologies hold the only authority to give you a reason to believe something? Then i guess you have to doubt your mother's love for you (I want to believe she really loves you) until she's taken to the lab and it is scientifically ascertained that she loves you, then you believe (the point is, you should have no reason to believe in her love for you until scientifically ascertained). Is it not evident from daily life experiences that science is not always the only thing that gives us reasons to believe what we believe?

You seem to be comfortable in the limitations of science and there's not much I can do to make you change your mind, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

[JGirl]

get a hand mirror andhold it in front of your face

there ya go

[DeWitz]

A prototypical Zen koan (focus of meditation) is, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" A comparable theist mystery to ponder is, "What does God look like?"--and for similar reasons.

[Jeanne dArc]

I somewhat disagree with you that "the people who lived in times when the atom was thought to be the fundamental particle were not truly wrong for accepting that". For instance, if I deduce based on limited knowledge that Barack Obama is a white man I'd be wrong even though that's the best I can believe based on the knowledge available, but I'm still wrong because he's black. And so, yes, they weren't wrong 'for accepting' that the atom is fundamental but they accepted the wrong thing. And if my survival were to be dependent on that information I'd be in trouble because I believed the wrong thing. Doesn't sound good enough for me to make scientific deductions my fundamental life philosophy given that I don't have forever to live and wait for them to correct all the flaws of science and I can't even tell the extent to which it is flawed.

You also realize that not all things in science change, right? I mean, there is no future discovery that would demonstrate that atoms don't exist, or that the Earth is flat. There are some things in science that have been proven effectively beyond doubt: though they may still be refined (i.e., learn new things about the structure of the atom, learn more precisely the spheroid shape of the Earth, etc.).

If all the available evidence suggested that Obama were a white man, then you would be justified believing it. Because here's the thing: evidence (unless it's fabricated somehow) tends to be a reasonable artifact of reality. (Even fabricated evidence can be found to be false, by comparing it to other observable evidence.) If all the evidence suggested that Obama were white, then it would be reasonable to reach the conclusion that it was true, since a preponderance of evidence like that would tend to reflect reality fairly closely.

All you're doing now is rhetorically trying to devalue evidence as a whole: which basically means that you shouldn't be able to accept anything as true, since evidence of some sort or another is the only means by which we can learn about the world. That's just how it works. And science is the best method we have for evaluating evidence, and ascertaining the most accurate view of reality we can.

Scientific methodologies 'follow evidence and reason', very true. Lawyers also follow evidence and reason, philosophers follow evidence and reason

Yes, they do (though philosophers are iffy; their "evidence" is usually different than a scientist's or lawyer's evidence).

even religious apologists follow evidence and reason, intelligent design theory also follows evidence and reason.

No, they most certainly do not. Particularly in the case of "intelligent design hypothesis" (it isn't a theory), they couldn't be farther from following evidence and reason. All they do is misrepresent and misinterpret evidence which has already been evaluated by science; their "reason" is broken, and filtered through the bias of religion.

Many fields of endeavor follow evidence and reason though their methodologies might slightly differ. Evidence and reason is good to follow.

More or less I agree. Yes, evidence and reason are how we learn Of course they're good to follow.

The point here is that scientific methodologies don't always yield perfect results and so I can't build my life around scientific results. That is not to say science is not part of my life, of course it is. But I can't build my life on them (foundationally speaking) and i won't use scientific deductions as the boundary around my life because I might risk NO RECOVERY if some of them turn out to be wrong. Limiting myself to science only implies that I'm making a 'god' out of science.

There is no other reliable means of learning and ascertaining reality than through science. There is always the risk that we may believe something now that may prove inaccurate later on: all one has to do is correct one's view when there is evidence that it is mistaken. Simple. To say that science as a method is unreliable to inform one's life and decisions is extremely foolish: it isn't an absolutely perfect method, but I defy you to come up with a better one

"Belief prior to reason is not justified" that's very true indeed but are you really sure there aren't any reasons to believe some of the things you doubt? And who told you that scientific methodologies hold the only authority to give you a reason to believe something? Then i guess you have to doubt your mother's love for you (I want to believe she really loves you) until she's taken to the lab and it is scientifically ascertained that she loves you, then you believe (the point is, you should have no reason to believe in her love for you until scientifically ascertained). Is it not evident from daily life experiences that science is not always the only thing that gives us reasons to believe what we believe?

The reason I believe my mother loves me is because she demonstrates that she does: conversely, my father says that he loves me, but his behavior makes me doubt that he loves me in the sense of love that I'd like him to. We don't need lab results as our sole means of evidence, you know I still have evidence and reason to believe that my mother loves me, without seeing the exact chemical makeup of her brain, haha.

You seem to be comfortable in the limitations of science and there's not much I can do to make you change your mind, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

What "limitations" of science? If by "limitations" you mean only believing in things for which I have good reason to believe in, then yeah, that's about all I can be justified to believe in I could choose to believe in unicorns without evidence, but that would be rather silly, don't you think?

[Paranomaly]

God is a woman.

[Emmisal]

And science is the best method we have for evaluating evidence, More or less I agree. Yes, evidence and reason are how we learn and ascertaining the most accurate view of reality we can.

There is no other reliable means of learning and ascertaining reality than through science. There is always the risk that we may believe something now that may prove inaccurate later on: all one has to do is correct one's view when there is evidence that it is mistaken. Simple. To say that science as a method is unreliable to inform one's life and decisions is extremely foolish: it isn't an absolutely perfect method, but I defy you to come up with a better one

The better one I could have suggested does not fit into your 'god' (science), so there's no point suggesting it. Premonition (as we discussed in the other post) and other supernatural phenomenon (which I experience a lot almost on a daily basis that's why I don't limit myself to science) points to a better method, unfortunately science would not give it a fair chance (at least as long as it doesn't fit into its methods). That's why science has/can never attributed anything to magic (your observation in the other post) simply because, it does not believe in magic. One of the things that make us come to logical conclusion is the consistency of a phenomenon and consistency of its results. The consistency of my daily experiences are reasons enough for me not to limit myself to science.

No, they most certainly do not. Particularly in the case of "intelligent design hypothesis" (it isn't a theory), they couldn't be farther from following evidence and reason. All they do is misrepresent and misinterpret evidence which has already been evaluated by science; their "reason" is broken, and filtered through the bias of religion.

I really disagree with you here. What about the research that suggests the universe is at best a 'computer simulation'? Was it also filtered through religious bias ? Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence (not religion) though it points to the possibility of deity. Do not confuse what it's 'based on' with what it 'points to'. I think the biased ones are those who won't judge it from a neutral standpoint.

The reason I believe my mother loves me is because she demonstrates that she does: conversely, my father says that he loves me, but his behavior makes me doubt that he loves me in the sense of love that I'd like him to. We don't need lab results as our sole means of evidence, you know: I still have evidence and reason to believe that my mother loves me, without seeing the exact chemical makeup of her brain, haha.

That still does not make science have the sole authority to give me a reason to believe something.

What "limitations" of science? If by "limitations" you mean only believing in things for which I have good reason to believe in, then yeah, that's about all I can be justified to believe in I could choose to believe in unicorns without evidence, but that would be rather silly, don't you think?

As I said there's not much I can do to change your mind. I really want to STOP the argument here. It was nice arguing with you and I must confess, you gave me some things to ponder upon. Good luck with your beliefs.

[Jeanne dArc]

The better one I could have suggested does not fit into your 'god' (science), so there's no point suggesting it. Premonition (as we discussed in the other post) and other supernatural phenomenon (which I experience a lot almost on a daily basis that's why I don't limit myself to science) points to a better method, unfortunately science would not give it a fair chance (at least as long as it doesn't fit into its methods). That's why science has/can never attributed anything to magic (your observation in the other post) simply because, it does not believe in magic. One of the things that make us come to logical conclusion is the consistency of a phenomenon and consistency of its results. The consistency of my daily experiences are reasons enough for me not to limit myself to science.

Science has given more than a fair chance to "supernatural" phenomena, and they have all turned out to be less than magical. Science doesn't believe in magic because it has never found anything magical: even things claimed to be magical have turned out to have very meager evidence. Premonition could not possibly replace the scientific method, as there would be no means of verifying whose premonition was right: basing your worldview off of psychics is silly, there's no way to determine accurately whether they're right or not. Except through science... And so far science has yet to find a psychic who has stood up to scrutiny.

I really disagree with you here. What about the research that suggests the universe is at best a 'computer simulation'? Was it also filtered through religious bias ? Intelligent design is based on scientific evidence (not religion) though it points to the possibility of deity. Do not confuse what it's 'based on' with what it 'points to'. I think the biased ones are those who won't judge it from a neutral standpoint.

Whether or not the universe we experience is a computer simulation (we don't know), there is presumably a non-virtual reality that exists somewhere outside, where the hypothetical "computer" resides. That is not intelligent design. Intelligent design is a movement dedicated to misrepresenting science and claiming that such well-studied fields as evolution and cosmology secretly bear evidence of a deific intervention of some sort. Intelligent design is not based on evidence, it is based on biased misrepresentation and obfuscation of evidence.

That still does not make science have the sole authority to give me a reason to believe something.

I still don't understand your difficulty with the scientific method. That methodology is simply how humanity learns new things and perpetually refines its understanding: any other method can be shown to be greatly inferior. That how fundamental the scientific method is: if you wished to prove that science were an inferior methodology, you'd have to use science to demonstrate that effectively It's just that intrinsic. That's how discovery and learning happens.

As I said there's not much I can do to change your mind. I really want to STOP the argument here. It was nice arguing with you and I must confess, you gave me some things to ponder upon. Good luck with your beliefs.

Fair enough. If I can't even convince you why science is useful, then I clearly can't change your mind either

[MyOtherAccount]

I understand he looks like Graucho Marks (bow tie and all) but wearing hiking boots rather than loafers.

[hellig heilige]

The biggest problem with basing one's beliefs on certain "holy" books is the lack of "otherworldly" awareness to judge their integrity and worthiness.

That's revolutionary. Excellent way of looking at it..........................................................................................

[029b10]

The biggest problem with basing one's beliefs on certain "holy" books is the lack of "otherworldly" awareness to judge their integrity and worthiness.

That's revolutionary. Excellent way of looking at it..........................................................................................

Could be the reason that, It is written, "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4

Edited July 28, 2014 by 029b10

[hellig heilige]

Could be the reason that, It is written, "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4

That's the problem. We have no way of knowing unless we actually see God and hear Him. The verse is interesting to me now because NBP dumbed it down for me. First hand account is important. I'm trying out gnostic meditation to get in touch with Jesus Christ because he's the middleman to God..............................................

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

Could be the reason that, It is written, "man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" Matthew 4:4

The verse is still part of the Bible; therefore, there is still that other way of interpreting it, especially for those who read the Bible as the living word of God. For them, the Bible is the concrete proof of God on Earth, and their faith tells them that no one should question it...nor add to it (with a warning attached at the end of the Book).

[Jeanne dArc]

The verse is still part of the Bible; therefore, there is still that other way of interpreting it, especially for those who read the Bible as the living word of God.

Pretty sure there's only one clear way to interpret it... that people should devote similar effort and time to studying the Tanakh as they would sustaining themselves, as an essential practice. More or less.

For them, the Bible is the concrete proof of God on Earth, and their faith tells them that no one should question it...nor add to it (with a warning attached at the end of the Book).

You realize that Revelation wasn't originally part of the Bible, right? The Book of Revelation warns against adding to or subtracting from the Book of Revelation, not the Bible as a whole, since it wasn't part of it to begin with.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

You realize that Revelation wasn't originally part of the Bible, right? The Book of Revelation warns against adding to or subtracting from the Book of Revelation, not the Bible as a whole, since it wasn't part of it to begin with.

Yes, and my particular Christian path doesn't include the Book of Revelation, but I've read it thoroughly and studied various books and videos regarding its dumbfounding claims. I'm very grateful, mind you, that I have the chance to do my research -- it's meant to be, so friends tell me. Many Christians, however, believe that it's the "glorious" climax of their faith, the beginning of a new existence. On the other hand, many Christians will, undoubtly, think of my path as heretical. At any rate, there is no such thing as one-and-only Christian path -- since the day one.

[Jeanne dArc]

Yes, and my particular Christian path doesn't include the Book of Revelation, but I've read it thoroughly and studied various books and videos regarding its dumbfounding claims. I'm very grateful, mind you, that I have the chance to do my research -- it's meant to be, so friends tell me. Many Christians, however, believe that it's the "glorious" climax of their faith, the beginning of a new existence. On the other hand, many Christians will, undoubtly, think of my path as heretical. At any rate, there is no such thing as one-and-only Christian path -- since the day one.

Interesting. Not much I can add to that, haha At least we agree that Revelation is nonsense, haha

[NuttyKaks]

Holy crap who knew that this question would become such a popular thread.

[NuttyKaks]

Why on Earth would you ask such a Question ? your an Atheists ?!

If you read what I said you would know that I used to be one! I'm not anymore. O_o

[_Only]

Holy crap who knew that this question would become such a popular thread.

This is nothing for the religious board.

1. Pick any string of words presented as a thread title

2. Place it in the religion boards

3. Let us vs. them go on for 572 pages

[NuttyKaks]

This is nothing for the religious board.

1. Pick any string of words presented as a thread title

2. Place it in the religion boards

3. Let us vs. them go on for 572 pages

I had no idea. I haven't been here long to know that... until now.