what proof is there that god exists? (1 Viewer)

[theism]

it's become clear to us that you possess a serious learning disability

Here's the path of action I reccomend;
-wipe away the various food bits around your mouth and on your bib
-Dispose of your Riddilen/Prosac supplies
-Discontinue the up-late online self-study bible course you are currently enrolled in
-Write down all your thoughts on the topic of religion on a piece of paper
-pick up the paper and walk out to the front of your house
-open the lid of the large bin on your nature strip
-put the paper in the bin
-crawl into the bin (i.e put yourself in the bin)
-close the lid
-wait in silence

now if your hear noises, i.e that of a large truck, do not worry, it is for the best

hey listen.
this isn't getting you anywhere.
you will notice this thread is in 'news, current affairs & politics'.. not in 'non-school'.
take your crap elsewhere.

from this point forward,
i won't dignify your unconstructive posts with a response.

 

[theism]

If we're not condemned, then what happens to us?

Also, where do all the dinosaurs fit in? I've asked this 3 times and noone answered.

what do you mean condemned?

as in condemend to hell because you are gay?

absolutely not.

the only way a person goes to hell is if they reject God.

and what about dinosaurs?

lol
i had this girl ask me that yesterday..

it seems like a common question.

dinosaurs existed about 65 million years ago.
how long have humans been on earth?
modern man = 200 000 years ago.

 

[CecilyMare]

Stop going off-topic, this isn't 'prove that the bible is false or true'.

We shouldn't take such certain bits of the new testament out and bash it just because they sound illogical.

and cmon give the shitty-passing-down-of-the-bible a bit of slack, cos they didn't have copy and paste back in those days. We all know that the bible has hitherto shaped much of our culture and morals, so kudos to it for that.

besides, let's speak about just a simple god. forget the christianity crock, judaism, etc etc.
People believe in either a god, the big bang theory or some other reductionistic thought, or either they accept that human brain is incapable of knowing the truth.

And sure, it may be like the tooth fairy or santa claus, but those are not potential answers to any questions that humans have pondered over for almost our entire existence or anything like. You're just trying to be a smartass and failing in it.

 

[theism]

Stop going off-topic, this isn't 'prove that the bible is false or true'.

We shouldn't take such certain bits of the new testament out and bash it just because they sound illogical.

and cmon give the shitty-passing-down-of-the-bible a bit of slack, cos they didn't have copy and paste back in those days. We all know that the bible has hitherto shaped much of our culture and morals, so kudos to it for that.

besides, let's speak about just a simple god. forget the christianity crock, judaism, etc etc.
People believe in either a god, the big bang theory or some other reductionistic thought, or either they accept that human brain is incapable of knowing the truth.

And sure, it may be like the tooth fairy or santa claus, but those are not potential answers to any questions that humans have pondered over for almost our entire existence or anything like. You're just trying to be a smartass and failing in it.

what language are you speaking?

 

[BradCube]

Elaborate on what you mean by 'inner conviction'. Do you control it? From what you have said it is some external voice/force, this is not normal; and defined as schizophrenia (when you perceive some of your own thoughts as foreign). I'm not joking, you should seek some serious medical help if these 'convictions' keep occurring.

No, I do not control it - although I can quash it if I so desired. And I don't perceive of them as my own thoughts - I regard them as external and not from myself. The reason you have such trouble accepting that this could be a normal state of affairs is because you have a pre-disposition toward naturalism. What I am describing is a pretty standard state of affairs for a christian however.

So Evolution does falsify the bible (hence Christianity) if you take Genesis on face value?
Yes, I agree; if you chose some obscure 'metaphor' interpretation of the bible you can shield it from any disapproval (as you could do with a cook book, etc).

Yeah sure, if evolution is the whole story regarding our origins then a "face value" reading of genesis would be falsified. The question is whether a "face-value" reading is the best method of biblical exegesis - I would argue that it is the poorest method. It doesn't take into account the text's historical background, intended audience, literary type (eg song, apocalyptic, prophetic, historical), language nuances etc.

Ultimately I think your comparison to a cook book is unhelpful. A cook book is obviously literal in the things contained within (specific quantities of specific ingredients manipulated by various tools in specific ways for specific amounts of time), the bible is not (it contains multiple languages from various periods of time from various authors delivered to a variety of people in a variety of literary styles over a great span of time). You simply cannot approach the bible in the same way you approach a cookbook, it's irresponsible scholarship in my opinion.

...Well, one study I read about was set up with people praying for sick patients in a hospital. It showed that prayers had no effect, well actually, they had a minor negative effect. Here is a link, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html. All other studies I know of come to the same conclusion (that prayers are in no way 'answered'; as the bible states).

But again, they have no empirical way of testing whether a prayer has been answered or not.

For example, consider a sample size of 100 patients who need brain surgery. 50 are rigorously prayed for (sample p) whilst the other 50 are not (sample q) (lets ignore the possibility that people outside of the testing could be praying for sample q).

Let say 50% of both (p) and (q) die due to complications in surgery. What follows from this? That prayers have no effect? No, all that follows is that 50% of both sample groups died. It could be the case that only 25% of sample (p) would have survived without prayer. Conversely it could be the case that 75% of sample (q) would have survived if they had have been prayed for. The conclusion that prayers are of nil effect is invalid because these studies have no way of showing that correlation implies causation (or lack thereof).

You are a Christian. You believe that 'God created man in his image' (this is a core tenant of Christianity). This 'design' or 'creation' is completely contrary to what the theory of evolution posits. You are either a Christian or you take Evolution as truth, they are mutually exclusive.

I don't see why they must be mutually exclusive. Why can't evolution be a mechanism God uses to create man in his image? Theistic Evolution

The logic used in my parody is a perfect mirror of the logic used in 'Kalam's Argument'.

It was hardly perfect - it didn't make sense - its conclusion didn't follow logically from its premises. I think you need to re-read what you wrote.

Furthermore I do not even have to refer to a reductio ad absurdum. Kalam's little word game fails overtly. It doesn't even support the idea of a deist god (let alone a theist god), it simply concludes that the 'universe had a cause'....uh yea, I'm not denying that, Scientists are just currently uncertain about what precursed the big bang (there are many theorys however due to the empircal nature of science and the difficulties of this particular problem, none as yet can be supported by any substanial evidence). Science is unsure....this in no way supports the idea of a god. You are simly equating mysteries.

A parody is not reductio ad absurdum if it's premises follow logically without contradiction and it's certainly not reductio ad absurdum if the parody uses invalid logic. Reductio ad absurdum works within the existing framework of an argument and shows that it leads to contradictory conclusions - thereby reducing it to the absurd.

The reason I mentioned the Kalam Cosmological Argument was to show how I was hoping for "ComingUpForAir" to restate his arguments for the existence of fairies. Nevertheless if you would like to discuss the Kalam Cosmological argument at further length I am happy to do so.

Generally, the real pushing power of the Kalam Cosmological Arguement is not in admitting that that the universe has a cause but looking at what possibly could cause something like a universe to exist. Such a cause must be timeless (since time did not exist until the beginning of the universe) and must be immaterial (since all matter came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang). From here generally one will argue that a "mind" is the only known entity which could posses casual power in a timeless immaterial state.

So if there is free will, God has no power to intervene.He is therefore not all powerful.

He is of course capable of forced intervention under the proposed solution but he doesn't desire it to be so out of a greater desire to allow freewill and moral responsibility.

Why did he create suffering? A baby cannot exercise it's 'free will' to live? Surely God would have known the intentions and future actions of the tortuer ; he could have stopped the torture of the baby before it happens- doesn't he know the future?....
This whole line of thought descends into a big black hole, because it is all absurd.

It's hardly absurd - it may be abstract in that it's not the type of thing most consider on a daily basis. Sure God "could" have prevented the baby's death (he is capable), but he could have a greater desire to allow the babys death for some greater over-arching purpose. As long as it is even possible that God may have a morally sufficient reason for allowing the suffering we witness, then your objection will fall over. You have a huge burden of proof in what you are arguing here - you must be able to show that there was a better way God could have acted when considering an events implications throughout all of history - a position I find untenable for any human.

 

[CecilyMare]

what language are you speaking?

what point are you trying to make?

 

[ad infinitum]

No, I do not control it - although I can quash it if I so desired. And I don't perceive of them as my own thoughts - I regard them as external and not from myself. The reason you have such trouble accepting that this could be a normal state of affairs is because you have a pre-disposition toward naturalism. What I am describing is a pretty standard state of affairs for a christian however.

Definitely not normal, if your telling the truth, then go see a psychiatrist/docter.
Can you ask this 'force' questions? Does it give you insightful responses? Does it give you responses that you could not have known? (i.e go into another room and ask this 'force' what time it is on the clock in the other room, etc). If it does not withstand these tests then it is likely you are in the early stages of schizophrenia.

Yeah sure, if evolution is the whole story regarding our origins then a "face value" reading of genesis would be falsified. The question is whether a "face-value" reading is the best method of biblical exegesis - I would argue that it is the poorest method. It doesn't take into account the text's historical background, intended audience, literary type (eg song, apocalyptic, prophetic, historical), language nuances etc.

Face-value was the only way of reading the bible for hundreds of years (and still is by millions upon millions of people). Furthermore the 'intended audience' was humanity for all time, obviously, this book has nothing divine in it or about it.

You are clearly indoctrinated, and hence it is difficult for me to press this point. Why don't you believe the truth claims in the Koran? They can be taken as metaphors,etc.

Ultimately I think your comparison to a cook book is unhelpful. A cook book is obviously literal in the things contained within (specific quantities of specific ingredients manipulated by various tools in specific ways for specific amounts of time), the bible is not (it contains multiple languages from various periods of time from various authors delivered to a variety of people in a variety of literary styles over a great span of time). You simply cannot approach the bible in the same way you approach a cookbook, it's irresponsible scholarship in my opinion.

Everyone who is not an indoctrinated Christian views its bible as obviously literal as well. A cook book is a perfect analogy. A compilation of instructions. For example, in an old cook book it might say use 2 cups of diarrhea to make the perfect chocolate cake. Now people reading this, will say 'well that's clearly absurd, this cook book is no good', however the Cookbookists will say 'Nay! Lo, it is but a metaphor for the the love and effort that one puts over the toilet for one to put into his own cooking! It's not literal, but poetic, it is obviously not mean to be read literally', etc, etc.

But again, they have no empirical way of testing whether a prayer has been answered or not.

For example, consider a sample size of 100 patients who need brain surgery. 50 are rigorously prayed for (sample p) whilst the other 50 are not (sample q) (lets ignore the possibility that people outside of the testing could be praying for sample q).

Let say 50% of both (p) and (q) die due to complications in surgery. What follows from this? That prayers have no effect? No, all that follows is that 50% of both sample groups died. It could be the case that only 25% of sample (p) would have survived without prayer. Conversely it could be the case that 75% of sample (q) would have survived if they had have been prayed for. The conclusion that prayers are of nil effect is invalid because these studies have no way of showing that correlation implies causation (or lack thereof).

Huh? Not emprical? LOL?
Wow, you have no idea about statistics. Law of large numbers. Sampling sizes. Etc. Etc. You really need to apologize for such a stupid comment. So dumb. Pleae don't make me further respond to similar points.

I don't see why they must be mutually exclusive. Why can't evolution be a mechanism God uses to create man in his image? Theistic Evolution

Becauses if you understood evolution you would realise it has no 'intellegent' direction, no conscious impetus. Nothing was aiming to 'create' humans. We are a byproduct.

It was hardly perfect - it didn't make sense - its conclusion didn't follow logically from its premises. I think you need to re-read what you wrote.



A parody is not reductio ad absurdum if it's premises follow logically without contradiction and it's certainly not reductio ad absurdum if the parody uses invalid logic. Reductio ad absurdum works within the existing framework of an argument and shows that it leads to contradictory conclusions - thereby reducing it to the absurd.

The reason I mentioned the Kalam Cosmological Argument was to show how I was hoping for "ComingUpForAir" to restate his arguments for the existence of fairies. Nevertheless if you would like to discuss the Kalam Cosmological argument at further length I am happy to do so.

Generally, the real pushing power of the Kalam Cosmological Arguement is not in admitting that that the universe has a cause but looking at what possibly could cause something like a universe to exist. Such a cause must be timeless (since time did not exist until the beginning of the universe) and must be immaterial (since all matter came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang). From here generally one will argue that a "mind" is the only known entity which could posses casual power in a timeless immaterial state.

Stop. No. Such an arguement makes me want to throw up. Such poor reasoning would be better described as non-reasoning. You don't know anything about the Physics. You don't know anything about what a 'mind' is. Just say you don't know. Don't insult others with such stupidity.

He is of course capable of forced intervention under the proposed solution but he doesn't desire it to be so out of a greater desire to allow freewill and moral responsibility.


It's hardly absurd - it may be abstract in that it's not the type of thing most consider on a daily basis. Sure God "could" have prevented the baby's death (he is capable), but he could have a greater desire to allow the babys death for some greater over-arching purpose.

What a disgusting, revolting thing to say. You say that to the parents of a baby that has died a slow, cruel and surely horrifying death stapped to a boiling seat in a carpark. Was this to punish the sins of the parent? Why punish the baby then?
I pressume you a normal person Bradcube, but this truly reinforces the notion that it takes religion for Good people to say/do wicked things. Disgusting.

As long as it is even possible that God may have a morally sufficient reason for allowing the suffering we witness, then your objection will fall over. You have a huge burden of proof in what you are arguing here - you must be able to show that there was a better way God could have acted when considering an events implications throughout all of history - a position I find untenable for any human.

lol? Thats easy. God could have made the earthquake miss the primary school in China- sparing the lives of hundreds of innocent children......You really haven't thought about this very hard, have you?

 

[Planck]

There isn't any

[/thread]

 

[Cazic]

There isn't any

[/thread]

Aye.

Interesting scenario: If there were any proof at all, atheists would probably be considered as crazy as young-earth creationists are now.

 

[Cazic]

If there was absolute proof that a god exists, there wouldn't be athiests.

Because every human is perfectly rational, right? (see: young-earth creationist remark above)

 

[theism]

I've quoted this like a hundreds times already: ''If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads" leviticus 20:13

Or are you saying that we're allowed to be gay, but in no way are we allowed to engage in homosexual acts?

well the book of Leviticus is in the old testament. Judaism, Islam, as well as Christianity, are all 'abrahamic' religions, thus following similar themes.. ie adam and eve, Abraham, etc.

all three of those religions have the old testament to a degree... Judaism, and christiantiy, is very much similar, up until the new testament.

when you read and study the new testament, you'll see that Jesus Christ radically changed the old laws of Moses.

for instance, we read in John the eighth chapter.

John 8

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


Now, Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality. But take from the above what you will. You are not condemmed because you are gay.

Paul in the new testament, and Jesus in the new testament clearly talks about the sinful nature.. and we all have it.
every single one of us has a sinful nature. and if you don't believe me,
and if you don't believe christ, you're obviously not a parent yet.
little kids have a very sinful nature.. One instance is where you put a glass of orange juice up on their table.. you tell him 'don't knock the cup on to the floor!'.. and with a smile, he backhands the glass, spilling the juice all over the floor..


we are all born with a sinful nature.

I can understand why many homosexuals, and even you are offended by when i say 'homosexuality is a sin'.. i understand that homosexuality is part of your identity. that you were born that way,, that's the way you were hard wired.

now let me ask you a few questions.
now as i mentioned before, i am not a homosexual. i am heterosexual.
but i have a question for you.. and for all homosexuals.

do you think that my heterosexual sex drive motivates me to have sex with just one women?

now just because i am born with a heterosexual sex drive, my physical, sinful nature telling me to have sex with as many good looking women as i can... does not make it right.

why?
because i am born with a sinful nature,.

and so the question becomes what is the purpose through which God gave me my sexuality.. and in genesis 2:24 we read for this reason a man should leave his father and mother, be united to his wife and the two should become one flesh.

which means i through my heterosexual lust and my homosexual friends through their practice of homosexual sex, have both twisted the gift of human sexuality that God has given us.

now the great news of Christ is, he bled and died on the cross to forgive us of our own twisting ; the good gifts he gave us, and doing evil.

now the simple question is, am i going to turn to Christ for forgiveness, put my faith in him, or am i going to continue to play God... to be in control and to say 'i couldnt give a rip about what God says' i wanna do the sex thing my way..

well let's be real honest with each other. that's the only reason why people go to hell. the only reason why people go to hell is not because God doesn't love them, God loves all of us... but God respects our free will. and if we basically tell God to take a hike, and to live to do our own thing our own way, Gods going to say 'fine, you do your own thing your own way for eternity.. im stepping away'..
and that would be hell

you are not condemned to hell, just because you are a homosexual, as was the women in John 8 who committed adultery.. a sin who also meant she must of been stoned to death.. she was not condemned. , as weren't all the various other people.. real people who were radically changed by Jesus Christ forever.. these are all written in the historically accurate, eye-witness accounts of the gospels.

 

[Cazic]

So much wrong

these are all written in the historically accurate, eye-witness accounts of the gospels.^{[Citation needed]}

 

[theism]

So much wrong

you're refuting the historical accuracy of the gospels?

on what grounds?

 

[Cazic]

you're refuting the historical accuracy of the gospels?

on what grounds?

Actually I do.

But I'm ready to be convinced otherwise, so please, provide me with some quality sources that establish that the gospels are historically accurate eye witness accounts. If that isn't possible, then I don't see I have any reason to believe they are.

 

[theism]

What about non-believers i.e. athiests? Or those of other religions/faiths e.g. buddhism) Are they condemned to hell?

Noone is condemned to hell. it is only when they reject God,.. that is the consequence of going to hell.

Hell is not a place where God goes 'OI YOU DIDNT BELIEVE IN ME YOU GO TO HELL!'
instead, it is a place where, God ; having seen your rejection, in this life time says, fine.. i love you and i respect your decision. but you have chosen to reject me, i love you and i respect you, so i will put you in a place where you can reject me for eternity.

The only way a person can go to hell, is if they reject God.

Jesus Christ is very explicit when he says in john 14:6
John 14:6 (New International Version)


6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]If all religions point to the same God, one would imagine that they would say basically the same things about him, at least in their essential teachings.But if we examine these religions, we find that they in fact disagree over fundamental points. The Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and other holy books of Eastern mysticism teach that God is one. Everything is God. You are god. I am god. The tree is god. The dirt is god. The insect is god. Good is god.Evil is god. They also teach that God is impersonal, that God is an it.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the other hand teach that God is the Creator and that we are not part of him. Rather we were made by Him. They also teach that God is holy and just. He has defined the difference between good and evil. God is seen as a personal being who has a special relationship to humanity.

But there is a sense in which Christianity is different from every other religion. All the other major world religions teach that you must get yourself together. You must pray five times a day, give alms, fast, take a pilgrimage,use a Tibetan prayer wheel, not eat certain foods, observe the sabbath, go to church or live a decent life or one of innumerable other possibilities.If you do these things, then maybe you will work your way to Nirvana or heaven or God.

Christianity is different. God tells us we will never earn heaven ordeserve a right relationship with him. We simply cannot live up to God's standards. Instead, God has taken the initiative. Because of His great love for us, he came to earth as a man to rescue us from the penalty of death that our wrongdoing deserves. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross to take the punishment you and I have earned.

He did something for us that we could not do for ourselves. He lived a perfect life. He did not deserve to die. He died as a sacrifice for you and me.He rose from the dead, is alive today and is offering us a gift- forgiveness and eternal life. No other religion can point to a moment in history and say, this is what God has done for you. No other religion tells how God has taken the initiative to save us. Religion is our attempt at finding God. Christianity is God's attempt at finding us. [/FONT]

 

[Unsatisfied]

you're refuting the historical accuracy of the gospels?

on what grounds?

i refute them on the grounds that theyre written by a few spacktard shepherds who probably couldnt add two and two together if their life depended on it

 

[theism]

Actually I do.

But I'm ready to be convinced otherwise, so please, provide me with some quality sources that establish that the gospels are historically accurate eye witness accounts. If that isn't possible, then I don't see I have any reason to believe they are.

I applaud your intuition, and your intellectual honesty.

you'll see that Christianity, does not demand blind faith.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which is where we read about Jesus ; about his birth life death and resurrection.

The question for me as a thinking person is can i trust these gospels to give me accurate historical information so i can make an educated decision about Jesus Christ.

I have tests, and i would encourage you to come up with your own tests, and if you dont like mine i certainly wouldn't hold it against you. come up with your own tests that you use to determine historical reliability, and apply them to all documents.

my tests are four.

internal consistency.. meaning by that, are there contradictions within this supposedly accurate historical book.
if there are contradictions, im going to say 'whoops'.. problem.

second test. literary style. is the literary style of the document 'once upon a time in the land of narg winkin dinkin',, well that's fairy tale.
or is the literary style.. at this particular time, in this place, with these people around to watch.. Jesus said this, he said that.
that's the literary style of the gospels.

3rd test.. archaeology. is the document talking about the island of atlantis.. well if it is.. im sorry ,there is no archaeological evidence to suggest
the island of Atlantis exists. we're not talking history.. we're talking fairy tale mythology.

4th test. the gospels are almost 2000 years old, what gives you any degree of certainty that what you really have, is what the eye-witness wrote?

today the new testament in English is based on over 5200, greek manuscripts, or pieces of greek manuscript, found around the mediteranian, from rome italy, down to and around alexandria egypt. dated from the first through to the tenth century AD all agreeing to an incontestable degree. the manscriptal evidence for the gospels is embarrasingly wealthy.
so that's why i would encourage you to read the gospels.. not as the word of God.. simply as history. then ask yourself.. does the historical evidence of the way he lived, taught, died, and rose again point to christ being a quack.. if it does reject him. or does it lead to him being the truth, put your faith in him.

 

[theism]

What do you mean by reject god?

as in, not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

as in where you decide to live life your own way.

when you tell God to 'take a hike'

 

[ComingUpForAir]

as in, not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

as in where you decide to live life your own way.

when you tell God to 'take a hike'

give it a rest pal, we get enough of this from unkempt homeless men on public transport

 

[theism]

I have no relationship with god or jesus christ or with any other god.

I live my life morally with conviction (i.e. i say thanks to the bus driver, i donate to charity). I don't break the law and I don't harm my fellow men.

I do not tell god to take a hike.

what then?

I don't know what to tell you buddy.

I mean, God could be speaking to you through me right now.
he could be knocking on your door ' let me in'

do you open the door, or do you ignore it?

what do you do?

do you ignore the door, hoping for another knock?