Originally posted by RJHindsNo, that can't be right even within your 6,000 year history. Djoser reigned about 2670 B.C.. This is the third dynasty and the old kingdom, if the Israelite story has any basis in history it's from about a thousand years later. Further Imhotep was the high priest of Ra the Sun God and hardly fits the description of Joseph, the monotheistic patriarch of the Israelites.
JOSEPH was IMHOTEP in EGYPT, 1st after Pharaoh DJOSER
https://theegyptianidentityofjoseph.wordpress.com/joseph-son-of-jacob-israel-was-imhotep-of-egyptian-history/
Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You haven't seen anyone immortal create a universe."
I can "see" the creation (universe). It is self evident that everything in existence was created. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Any other explanation for the existence of everything is not self evident.
Denial of a creator is at its root arrogant in the extreme.[/b]
It is self evident that everything in existence was created.Not to me it isn't. By "created" I assume that you mean in the active sense, created by a creator, rather than just coming into existence due to random collisions. It simply isn't true that everything is created by conscious agency, consider sand dunes created by the action of wind in a desert, there is no requirement to introduce a creator God to explain the proximal cause of their existence. With the universe there may be, but I hardly see that it is self-evident. Since there are other explanations, and therefore no explanation gap for your creator to fill, I think you need to justify your claim with something better than "self-evident".
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe word "create" isn't the same thing as "made". Sand dunes are made. Mountains are made. Ford F150s are made.It is self evident that everything in existence was created.Not to me it isn't. By "created" I assume that you mean in the active sense, created by a creator, rather than just coming into existence due to random collisions. It simply isn't true that everything is created by conscious agency, consider sand dunes created by the action of w ...[text shortened]... eator to fill, I think you need to justify your claim with something better than "self-evident".
"Creation", in the context of the thought of this thread, is the act of an omniscient and omnipotent being whereby all that exists came into existence from nothing.
".., there is no requirement to introduce a creator God to explain the proximal cause of their existence."
I hope you're not losing the thread here DT. This post is only my third in this thread. The first was in reply to the OP, and the second was a reply to another poster replying to my first post. The "proximal cause" of all that exists was introduced by the opening thread where it was suggested that man is more creative than God, which is unimaginative to say the least.
If one seeks to compare the creative powers of man to those of an omniscient and omnipotent creator ("God" ), who is responsible for the existence of all things, then it must be proved that such a being doesn't exist, which can only be done by the use of flawed logic and irrational speculation.
The best rational explanation for the existence of all things is their very existence, that all things were created. Any and all other explanations assumes omniscience on the part of the one that says that everything that exists was not created. It cannot be known that all that exists was not created unless one is omniscient.
And please DT, don't hand me that old argument that one needs to be omniscient to know everything was created. It is self evident and doesn't require omniscience to know and understand that everything was created, but knowing how is another thing altogether, which the one that says there is no creator must provide proof of if they are going to say God doesn't exist.
Originally posted by josephwYour logic is somewhat confused.
Any and all other explanations assumes omniscience on the part of the one that says that everything that exists was not created. It cannot be known that all that exists was not created unless one is omniscient.
You have made two claims and apparently set up a false dichotomy.
1. You claim that all explanations other than creation as you defined require omniscience on the part of the explainer.
2. You claim that knowing creation didn't happen requires omniscience.
You appear to deduce 1. from 2. (bad logic). In addition, 2 is false.
And please DT, don't hand me that old argument that one needs to be omniscient to know everything was created.
I am curious as to whether you have ever actually heard that 'old argument' as I have never heard it.
It is self evident ...
Something being self evident does not excuse explanation. If something is self evident to you then you should be able to give at least some kind of explanation as to why you find it self evident.
Otherwise I could merely announce that it is self evident that you are lying and making this all up. (and I would not have to back up my claim in any way).
Originally posted by sonhouse"You lost the ability for independent thought long ago when you decided the bible was valid."
Getting ideas, that is called thinking for yourself. You lose that ability when you cast your mind over to religion. You no longer get to think for yourself, only parrot the Christian mantra.
As to the creation of the universe and the rising from the dead deal, both of those are just people writing words down, It is words and words only. I don't see peo ...[text shortened]...
You lost the ability for independent thought long ago when you decided the bible was valid.
Not so! In fact the opposite is true. Any and all of your postulating is based in the finite, the limited information you possess, which is man made. You're merely echoing the party line, which is "there is no God", and you do it because that's you want to believe.
On the other hand, my mind, contrary to what you may think, has been opened to the possibilities of the infinite with eternal hope. By contrast, the things you think man will accomplish will never come to pass, and even if they did you'll never live long enough to see it. Man will never have the capacity to create life much less end death. Left unguided by his maker man will eventually destroy himself.
In order for a lie to be believed the truth must first be rejected. By rejecting the self evident truth of the creation of all things by an omniscient creator one is left building a false reality on the foundation of a delusion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNonsense. One would have to be omniscient to know that an omniscient God doesn't exist.
Your logic is somewhat confused.
You have made two claims and apparently set up a false dichotomy.
1. You claim that all explanations other than creation as you defined require omniscience on the part of the explainer.
2. You claim that knowing creation didn't happen requires omniscience.
You appear to deduce 1. from 2. (bad logic). In addition, 2 is ...[text shortened]... hat you are lying and making this all up. (and I would not have to back up my claim in any way).
Omniscience isn't necessary in order to know that which is self evident, and there is nothing more self evident than understanding the fact that what exists was created.
To think one can know how else everything came to be would require that that one be omniscient.
Originally posted by sonhouseFairy tales? What makes you think Imhotep, Aristotle were real? Do you have proof?
Sure, for you whom the fairy tales are real. What has your JC done for THIS century, or 20 or 19 or 18? At best you get that warm fuzzy feeling which doesn't help much when your children are starving in a famine.
Originally posted by FMFFalse premise.
Taking the mystery of our origin,..
There is no mystery. We were created. To state that our origin is a mystery means one simply doesn't know, or believe, and it implies confusion and bewilderment of the mind in the perception of reality.
That isn't meant to be perceived as a slight or insult. It is merely saying something in as strong a way possible to drive home the point.
The reality of creation is self evident to the opened and unbiased mind.
1 edit
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors, after all, the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
There are only 49 copies of Aristotle vs 5600 copies of the New Testament.
Originally posted by checkbaiterIt is little understood by most that the scriptures are and were the most published documents of all time in all places. Their veracity is well attested to, and not a single jot or tittle has ever been refuted or proved false.
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, th ...[text shortened]... anuscript-evidence
There are only 49 copies of Aristotle vs 5600 copies of the New Testament.
Originally posted by checkbaiterIsn't it interesting that Jesus only went public for about three years and more is known about Him by more people than any other figure in history? That His gospel has had more effect on this world than any one else's life or beliefs or ideas of all time? And isn't it interesting how it is said of Jesus Christ only that He rose from the grave again and lives eternally? No other can make such a claim.
Fairy tales? What makes you think Imhotep, Aristotle were real? Do you have proof?
And probably the most misunderstood.
Originally posted by josephwThat is because He is both God and human. 😏
Isn't it interesting that Jesus only went public for about three years and more is known about Him by more people than any other figure in history? That His gospel has had more effect on this world than any one else's life or beliefs or ideas of all time? And isn't it interesting how it is said of Jesus Christ only that He rose from the grave again and lives eternally? No other can make such a claim.
And probably the most misunderstood.
HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by josephw
Isn't it interesting that Jesus only went public for about three years and more is known about Him by more people than any other figure in history?
This is very fascinating.
He lived 30 years before He came forward to preach. That is because with no other as much in human history He lived what He taught. There was no difference between His teaching and the way He has just lived for 30 years.
He blended in with society. He made no particular disturbance or commotion. And He did not draw particularly strong attention to Himself. This to me is one of the greatest miracles in the Bible. That is for 30 YEARS the Son of God just blended in with everyone else living all along a perfect human life.
Then at 30 years of age, at the age of a priest, He came forward to speak. What did He speak? He spoke about the way He lived. He spoke about what He had just passed through in the family of Joseph and Mary in a despised town in the Roman Empire called Nazareth.
He prepared a life for 30 years. Then He opened His mouth to the world and spoke of that life.
1 edit
He also spoke of the reason for all the pain and heart ache through out history and how he would save the entire human race!
Sigh, if only men would come to his redeeming sacrifice!
What Jesus Christ offers is so wonderful, it is beyond anything we could have imagined.
But man is so into himself with such unworthy pride, they will not. Their end will be just, if they deny the one who died for them.
Originally posted by sonshipGood post sonship. I had never really looked at it that before. Jesus practiced what He preached. And what a great and high calling it is to be conformed to the image of Christ.Isn't it interesting that Jesus only went public for about three years and more is known about Him by more people than any other figure in history?
This is very fascinating.
He lived 30 years before He came forward to preach. That is because with no other as much in human history He lived what He taught. There was no difference bet ...[text shortened]...
He prepared a life for 30 years. Then He opened His mouth to the world and spoke of that life.
I only hope and wish our unbelieving friends would join us in the fellowship and union we have with each other and with Jesus Christ.