There was one that was written that's pretty accurate. That the Gentiles; non Jewish people would adopt and embrace this messiah.
We have manuscripts of the Old Testament dating hundreds of years before Jesus, the book of Isaiah alone is filled with prophecies about the coming Messiah that Jesus fulfilled in His lifetime. To assume that there was this big elaborate plan to purposely deceive people over centuries is just a silly conspiracy theory. The Bible was written over the course of 1,600 years in three different languages on three different continents by 40 author, most of whom never met or even lived during the same time as each other. There is more widespread manuscript evidence of the Bible than the 10 next best documents in all of ancient history combined! If you take time to actually study and read the Bible you will see one consistent message from start to finish with literally thousands of fulfilled prophecies along the way. Tell me nonbelievers who was the master craftsman behind this deception?
I am already working on changing aspects of my life that I'm not happy with. But in real life I am a very nice, helpful, thoughtful, hard working person. I am sure that if I became a father I would make some adjustments, but I really don't think I would really change how I live my life. I have found wonderful women, and I am the same with them as I am without them. I'm not saying that I would make no changes if I found out there were a god, but aside from accepting god into my heart, and going to church, I would be the same person I am today. I volunteer, I have a job that is meaningful and helps people. I only lie if it's funny. I just really am pleased with who i am from a moral perspective and don't think that finding out there is a god would affect me greatly. I have failings, but they are not moral failings.
Considered "important" by me. But moral/aesthetic questions aside, I'm curious how you consider untestable questions like "is there a god" at all scientific. Sure, you can reform it into empirical sub-questions ("Has God written anything in fire on my wall today?"), but of course this can't be considered evidence of nonexistence. As we both know, there is no experiment for testing for God, and there likely never will be. Doesn't this make the question unscientific?
That is actually not the prophecy brother. And it talked about a religion that didn't even exist at the time. It talked about him being crucified and rejected by the Jews. It also went from zero to the most dominant belief today. It blew up only a couple hundred years after.
I still fail to see how any of those predictions are extraordinary. And truth isn't some kind of popularity contest.
what do you mean by god? the origin and evolution of belief in yahweh or other traditional human gods can be traced in mythology of different cultures. the specific claims of empirical effects cause by the gods of different religions can be tested, the cultural and physiological origin of specific belief can be tested etc. there are unlimited scientific tests of this type that can be used to judge probability if the definition of terms in hypothesis are specific enough. 'god' is only untestable when the concept itself is left vague/subjective.
I'm not talking about the various supernatural stories in religious texts (although even those are often not falsifiable in a strict sense), I'm talking about the simple question that distinguishes theism from atheism: "Was the universe created by a sentient being?" Generate a test for that, please. The results, if robust and reproducible, should be good enough for Nature, I'd wager.
i am. they are the basis for religious belief, which is what is important to most people. nothing is falsifiable in a strict sense. science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. that only distinguishes deism from atheism, and thus is not an important question. also it's potentially testable in principal if not currently in practice (for example we may at some point in the future determine the universe is eternal and doesn't require creation).
...according to his followers, who were desperate -- DESPERATE -- for their belief to be true. It wasn't an elaborate plan. It was a gigantic game of Telephone played by people who all wanted the same final outcome. Belief is a powerful thing. It can make someone ignore contradictory evidence and fixate on supporting evidence, and it can become even stronger when that supporting evidence is bolstered by tellings and retellings within a likeminded group. I've witnessed hearsay quickly growing into "fact" even within groups that didn't have a strong reason to believe one way or the other. How much more can stories grow when they are passed around for years (or even decades) within a group that has an incredibly strong vested interest in a particular interpretation?
I am well versed in science, and everyone knows that only a Sith deals in absolutes. That said, what the devil do mean "nothing is falsifiable"? If you tell me that "all apples are red", and I produce a green apple, I have falsified your statement. No probabilities involved. a) I'm not interested in belief system semantics. Please explain to me why it is not an important question, and why this should preclude it from being scientific. Can science only address "important" questions? b) Even if we could somehow prove that the universe doesn't "require creation", this would be far from proof that it was not created.
This question just got me thinking, does the universe being created by a sentient being (if that's the case) necessisarily resolve theism v atheism? Lets look at the fact that right now people are creating tiny little black holes. Is it that far fetched to believe that through further research and learning that people won't be able to replicate tiny little big bangs making tiny little universes? The universes would not be designed by a god or created with ongoing intent, but just little afterthoughts of an experiment being performed by sentient beings. I have not thought this out, I might wish I didn't post it. Oh well.
how do i know you aren't working a miracle to distort my senses? it's not semantics. you didn't specify a god that intended or cares about humans or humanity or intervenes in/controls their affairs. if you had you would have introduced the possibility of more specific tests. i meant it would have no effect whatsoever on humans. true or false there would be no difference to us. i didn't say that. all specific questions are scientific no matter how you evaluate their importance. obviously an eternal universe would be pretty strong evidence it wasn't created.
i'm personally using universe to mean all that physically exists, not just one component of a multiverse.
Yes, and how do we know we aren't actually in the Matrix? Should we ask Descartes to logic his way out of the box? I really don't think we need to go that deep. Can we agree that science is built on the testable and measurable? And that that which is neither is unscientific? Doesn't the answer to the first question potentially lead to the second? If there WAS empirical evidence that the universe was purposefully created, the next question would be WHY, would it not? But I'm happy to jump ahead to your revised theist/atheist distinction: "Is there an all-powerful, sentient being observing and judging humanity?" Test away. Sorry -- I missed the "eternal" part of your quote, and just saw the "doesn't require creation". Regardless, the simple fact remains that, as a question, it is not testable NOW, and therefore it isn't a scientific question NOW. Whether or not it becomes a scientific question at some point down the road is immaterial.
