Prove that God exists

[Final-Fan]

padib said:

Thanks for your reply. Yeah lots of misunderstandings in general :).

I just wanted to mention that AiG and CMI are two very different groups and have very different scientific focus. I go with CMI because it has the stronger focus on science, all their staff are academics. I mean, you could see their rigor in the link I sent you, at least if it could change your mind on their claims being unfounded, at least for CMI.

I'll check out the link thanks! It looks pretty honest from what I've read so far.

For the Wise King account by Mara bar Sarapion, I don't understand how it appears garbled. The text is a translation granted, and being a philosopher he is speaking somewhat in metaphors (Socrates is not dead), but it's up to the reader to understand what he's trying to say. Take the time to understand it, that's what the passage was meant for. You're not supposed to understand it upon first glance. Hopefully that'll encourage you to look back at it and then consider all the others. In terms of his "new laws", given that non-believers didn't really get a proper grasp of what Christ was teaching, he was probably referring to this: http://bible.cc/john/13-34.htm . Keep in mind, the 10 commandments are called the "Law of Moses". This supports it: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:12-13&version=NIV

It's quite fascinating what people had to say about Christ back then. It's a little discouraging when you think there's only 1 person on this forum actually listening to what you have to say, especially after all the labelling and having to be called "irrational" by some, that even the only one listening didn't take the time to read some of my best evidence. As for which biblical prophecies these texts support, take a look at my prior post @ http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4219267. I linked to the one where Runa brushes it off just to show you how things are like sometimes and having some of your strongest points simply brushed off lazily by the back of the hand. Also, why did you sift through, you should have just asked me? The links ere here: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_Pagan_sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jewish_sources

The rest wasn't needed. Go back to them, even if just out of curiosity I promise it won't be wasted. You get to hear what Romans think of this quite important historical character (Jesus). He affected the Roman empire to a certain extent, and largely affected the Jewish nation (no Jews in Judea just 40 some years after his crucifiction, a razed temple, as prophecized)

For the genetics and genomic loss trend, I'll look into it more. I read the whole link I gave you but it's even hard for me to understand. Did you have a chance to read it? It should at least show you a certain level of commitment to working with current-day data and creating models that fit a time-frame and event-frame.

As for Ligers and other hybrids, I was just trying to make a point that evolution in my eyes has a serious challenge when it comes to speciation and the sexual compatibilities of two specimens of varying species. In our world, two specimens of varying species cannot sustainably reproduce. In other words, evolution would have to produce a pair of specimens in a new species so as to ensure offspring. However, in the creationist models, the devolutions don't speciate the specimens, they simply raciate them (e.g. drosophiles with yellow eyes instead of black).

CMI and AIG only became separate entities 6 years ago.  All prior claims are shared unless one of them since recanted.  Anyway a brief session with Google does indicate that AIG-USA does seem more beholden to pushers of debunked claims, so I'll leave it there unless you want to pursue the subject. 
--------------------
What I mean by garbled is that "Wise King enacting laws" doesn't fit the picture of Jesus that we get in the Bible.  Your best explanation is ONE law, so I would have expected him to use the singular in that case.  Unless the language of the author made singular/plural indistinguishable or interchangeable in that usage? 

Your biblegateway quote did not illuminate this further IMO. 
--------------------
I kind of expected you to give me the best links you had at the time.  If these were better I wonder why you didn't provide them in the other post, but you don't have to answer. 

As for Socrates not being dead, that is clearly the common idea that someone "lives on" in their legacy; I don't know what that has to do with anything, it's not the same thing as veiled meanings or speaking in riddles. 

But while we're on the subject of those sources, again I ask you:  how do you reconcile claiming the Talmud (one of, if not the most strong sources of possible evidence) as supporting that the Biblical Jesus is in fact historically accurate, when (unless I'm completely misunderstanding Wikipedia) the person described in the Talmud is so different from the one in the Bible?  Hung instead of crucified; 5 diciples instead of 12; only one of their names even remotely similar; and they were all killed at the same time as he was.  That sounds like the Bible is not accurate in the least if the person is the same, and if it's not then you can't claim the Talmud has any evidence of Jesus at all. 

The Josephus documents are on the one hand very probably compromised by later editing, and on the other hand give hardly any reliable information beyond Jesus' bare existence. 
--------------------
I don't think your objection about speciation holds up.  As I understand it, you are saying that since ligers aren't sustainable, then evolution doesn't work.  But speciation doesn't happen like that; lions and tigers are already very different.  I'm sure Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers could reproduce and have tiger cubs that were just fine.  Similarly, some tigers in the past could easily have started out as a single type and some went to Bengal and some went to Siberia (or w/e) and the environment affected which offspring were successful until that pressure resulted in different directions of evolution (different coats and I think size).  The longer this process goes on, the more animals can get changed, until we have horses like Clydesdales that have ancestors more like the size of a German Shepherd.  Also, some environments exert more pressure to change.  Humans do this on purpose with selective breeding. 

tl;dr Lions and tigers do not sustainably reproduce, but that is irrelevant.  Speciation doesn't "jump" like a lion having a baby tiger.  It's much more gradual than that, which is why the objection is irrelevant.  (So if one lion is just a little teensy bit more tiger-like than other lions, and that's a successful change, it can pass on its genes to offspring just fine because it can still mate perfectly well with another, standard-type lion.)