Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Lundy]

Just so you know, I went to a catholic high school so yes, I have read the bible. I think I know enough of the bible to make my own judgement on its legitimacy.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

We obviously cannot go into a laboratory and test for "God residue" on the text, so to ask for scientific proof is impossible. (Likewise, asking for scientific proof that one loves his spouse is absurd. True science is limited to making claims on that which it can disprove through experimentation. Since science does not have any objective standards for measuring "God-ness", it cannot be asked to make a determination on His existence.) This doesn't mean we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the evidence before us, though.

Perhaps love does not exist?

There is no valid reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible were lying or trying to deceive. The New Testament particularly shows that the character of the writers was beyond reproach. Each of them suffered and were executed because they would not recant their position that the teachings of the Bible are true and accurate. If their testimony was made up for gain or folly, surely someone would have renounced his stand to save his life, but it did not happen. All the apostles and the writers believed unwaveringly that the Bible was absolute fact.

It doesn't matter if they were lying or not. Alot of people really DO believe that elvis is alive, they are not lying when they claim they have seen elvis or whatever... but it is not truthful.

The things predicted in the Bible happened. The message of us not being able to save ourselves from God's judgement, but only through Christ can we be saved, is constant through the entire Bible. To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible.

These predictions from all religious texts are just utterly pathetic, do not even attempt to use these please...

Over and over you are using the bible to prove its own legitimacy...

 

[withoutaface]

Just so you know, I went to a catholic high school so yes, I have read the bible. I think I know enough of the bible to make my own judgement on its legitimacy.

As did I, and was a Christian for 18 years.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Response to Riqtay's points

Proper Argument

I believe that those who don't believe in God appear to show wisdom and logic behind their convictions, yet in actuality they use logic only in certain situations to their advantage.

Irrelevant (and not true anyway). Please attack the argument, not the person.

No inconsistency in no-creator belief

They argue that a creation requires a creator, yet dismiss the concept of God. Using logic, a creation (e.g a child) requires a creator (ie the parents). Yet these people claim to use logic, rather they employ the dogma of there being no God, associated with athiesm.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you have already begged the question by assuming that everything was "created". You look around at the universe you call everything a "creation", before going on to say that every creation requires a creator. By doing this you use the loaded term "creation" when there is no evidence to suggest that everything was "created".

Rebuttal: science can't explain everything

They may argue that there is no physical evidence to prove the existence of God, yet they cannot properly answer the question 'who created the universe?'

On the very first page of this thread, I posted a number of rebuttals to common, bad theistic arguments, in particular:

Claim:

Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.

Response:

1. Some questions are harder to answer than others. But although we do not have a full understanding of the origin of the universe, we are not completely in the dark. We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the universe may be zero. Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations (Hawking 2001). For example, it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time. Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle (Steinhardt and Turok 2002) or at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew (Seife 2002).

One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. To reject it because of that, though, would be to retreat into an argument from incredulity (fallacy).

2. Creationists cannot explain origins at all. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility. It does not address questions of "how" and "why," and it raises questions such as "which God?" and "how did God originate?" In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.

Bad analogy

'No one', as an answer to that question, highlights their biased application of logic (ie they believe that a child requires a creator yet they dismiss there being a creator of the universe).

We know that a child was created by people through observation. We do not know that the universe was created by a deity. Thus the analogy is not useful.

"Energy can't create the universe" claim

Energy doesn't have the attributes which are consistent with a being who has created the universe. The keyword here is created. Energy is a non intelligent thing, which doesn't have the capacity to create the universe. Rather energy is the by product of the universe, created by a supreme being - God.

You again beg the question by saying that the universe was created. There is no evidence of this.

Ad hominem

I think that instead of using petty name calling and insults, you guys should try and make an argument agianst my views, rather than the way I write or a spelling mistake which I have made.

These insults are not conducive to a constructive argument. This is a forum where people exchange their views in a positive manner. Otherwise, this debate becomes a war of 'who can come up with the best calls'.

That is true, but you should take your own advice:

[Not-That-Bright,] I am starting to believe that you are living up to your username.

This is an example of an abusive ad hominem fallacy.

Understanding logic

"We have discussed it, many times. The only problem is that you and all others who argue for God are completely blind to logic because they've had beliefs for so long it is unfathomable for them to question them".

Laura and I have put our logic behind the existence of God, and yes we both are firm on our beliefs. You fail to acknowledge though that you also are firm on your beliefs.

I must point out that your reasons have been addressed, over and over. In fact, you fail to address many of the counter-arguments posed by those who have criticised your beliefs.

In our opinion we are using pure logic, and in your opinion you believe that you are using logic.There is no point in trying to impose our views on each other.

"Pure logic"? I don't think you quite understand what logic is. You keep using the term as if you are a master of it. I will be blunt here, you are not. This is not any slight on your character, it is just evident fact. For example, do you know what deductive reasoning is? Deductive reasoning is one of the most basic and important forms of logic, yet you do not even understand it.

God requires a creator

"This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end".

By arguing that a creator (ie God) requires a creator, you are immediately taking away the atrributes of God. A God is a being, which is all powerful, all wise and is self sufficient. He doesn't require a creator, as he is one and only.

No, this is circular reasoning. This is your argument:

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. The universe exists, therefore the universe must have been caused.
C. That cause is God, hence God exists.

The flaw in this argument is that you argue that everything that exists has a cause. But by that same logic, so does God. Hence God needs a cause. You have attempted to counter this claim by saying that God does not have a cause. Your argument now becomes:

1. Everything that exists has a cause, except God.
2. The universe exists, therefore the universe must have been caused.
C. That cause is God, hence God exists.

Now you can see very clearly that the first premise assumes the truth of the conclusion. That is, "Everything that exists has a cause, except God" assumes that God exists. Is this not a fallacy of begging the question?

God "beyond comprehension"

By applying your sort of logic you are ignoring the attributes of a God, rather you are introducing the physics being something which is independant of the universe. You are looking at the figure of God from the perspective of science. God, put simply beyond comprehension.

The first point you raise is that we should not ignore the fact that God does not have a creator. But for the reasons in the previous comment, you cannot use that premise in your argument because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Your next point is that God is beyond comprehension. I do not know what you base that proposition on, it is an extremely convenient claim with no justification. Even assuming that your claim is true, and God is beyond comprehension, how can we possibly know anything about it? It does not really help your case.

 

[Riqtay]

People who don't believe in God, should provide reasoning as to why God doesn't exist.

I never claimed that science can prove the existence of God. The simple argument for his existence in my belief is this (as I've stated earlier). Non believers in God claim to use logic for God's non-existence. I think everyone knows that the creator of a child is his/her parents.

So my question is, why should your logic stop, when I ask 'who created the universe?' By answering that no one created the universe, you are actually going against your previous logic which claims that a child's parents is his/her creator.

If you are hung up on the argument stating that a creator requires a creator and the cycle continues . . . then this means that you do believe that creation requires a creator. Thus you believe in God, yet believe that the series in which he exists is infinite (ie God has a creator and its creator has a creator and so on. . . ).

So ultimately everyone who has logic believes in God.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think everyone knows that the creator of a child is his/her parents.

So my question is, why should your logic stop, when I ask 'who created the universe?' By answering that no one created the universe, you are actually going against your previous logic which claims that a child's parents is his/her creator.

That has now been addressed in the comment above, immediately precedings yours.

If you are hung up on the argument stating that a creator requires a creator and the cycle continues . . . then this means that you do believe that creation requires a creator. Thus you believe in God, yet believe that the series in which he exists is infinite (ie God has a creator and its creator has a creator and so on. . . ).

So ultimately everyone who has logic believes in God.

No, it is circular reasoning: see the rebuttal above.

 

[Riqtay]

I apologise to Not that bright for my insulting comment. I actually didn't realise that I was implementing what I was speaking against.

Again, I am sorry Not that bright.

 

[insert-username]

So ultimately everyone who has logic believes in God.

I see. That's why all scientists are Christians.


I_F

 

[laura_beth]

People who don't believe in God, should provide reasoning as to why God doesn't exist.

I never claimed that science can prove the existence of God. The simple argument for his existence in my belief is this (as I've stated earlier). Non believers in God claim to use logic for God's non-existence. I think everyone knows that the creator of a child is his/her parents.

So my question is, why should your logic stop, when I ask 'who created the universe?' By answering that no one created the universe, you are actually going against your previous logic which claims that a child's parents is his/her creator.

If you are hung up on the argument stating that a creator requires a creator and the cycle continues . . . then this means that you do believe that creation requires a creator. Thus you believe in God, yet believe that the series in which he exists is infinite (ie God has a creator and its creator has a creator and so on. . . ).

So ultimately everyone who has logic believes in God.

Just to add to what Riqtay was saying about a creator needing a creator, we believe that the God of the universe is outside of the universe, and outside of time. For God to be outside of time, His beginning is the same as His middle and His end, so God must be infinite. He also must be better than His creation, which requires intelligence, which leads us to understand that we were created by a God.

 

[Salima]

I see. That's why all scientists are Christians.


I_F

Really they are! (sarcasm) most science goes against christianity i've found. That's why if you want to go logical and religion all in one, (definately not scientology) then go for islam.

 

[withoutaface]

Just to add to what Riqtay was saying about a creator needing a creator, we believe that the God of the universe is outside of the universe, and outside of time. For God to be outside of time, His beginning is the same as His middle and His end, so God must be infinite. He also must be better than His creation, which requires intelligence, which leads us to understand that we were created by a God.

But I've already demonstrated the universe doesn't have a beginning, middle or end, and as such by your reasoning requires no creator and God is superfluous.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Just to add to what Riqtay was saying about a creator needing a creator, we believe that the God of the universe is outside of the universe, and outside of time. For God to be outside of time, His beginning is the same as His middle and His end, so God must be infinite. He also must be better than His creation, which requires intelligence, which leads us to understand that we were created by a God.

laura_beth i've already covered every point you made in that paragraph, you simply continue to ignore my posts.

That's why if you want to go logical and religion all in one, (definately not scientology) then go for islam.

Well I would say the reason there are alot of muslim scholars is due to the nature of many predominately muslim societies...

 

[Salima]

But I've already demonstrated the universe doesn't have a beginning, middle or end, and as such by your reasoning requires no creator and God is superfluous.

When did you this i see no evidence of such a thing!

 

[withoutaface]

When did you this i see no evidence of such a thing!

1. The universe is expanding, accepted as fact by most of the scientfic community.
2. The universe is either accelerating or decelerating:
a) in the former case it will lead to a big rip, where all matter will become disjoined of itself. However in this situation the laws of probability dictate that in zillions of years in the future all matter will drift in to form singularity and recreate the big bang.
b) in the latter case the universe will decelerate until it begins contracting, causing a big crunch from which a big bang follows.
This leads to the idea that the universe is an infinite cycle of big bangs and crunches and as such it does not require a creator.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Response to laura_beth's points, Part I

"The Bible is unique, etc"

Many times people will raise an objection to a Christian's belief in the Bible as being the infallible word of God. They claim that using the Bible to support the Bible is "circular reasoning".

We must first remember in discussing the claims of the Bible with anyone, that the Bible is not a single, autonomous work. Rather, it is a collection of 66 different books written over a vast time span in three languages on three continents with authors from every station in life. These ancient works cover every major topic dealing with the human condition including: love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. Although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency.

Not very impressive -

Claim:

The Bible's internal harmony around a central theme testifies to its divine authorship. It is sixty-six books written over sixteen centuries by some forty different writers of diverse backgrounds, but every part follows the same theme.

Response:

1. The Bible's harmony can also be attributed to the fact that its contents were selected and edited, by people, to make it harmonious (Friedman 1987).

2. The Bible is not harmonious on some very important points, for example:

• Many people have noticed the difference between the Old Testament God, who is vengeful and bloodthirsty (e.g., Gen. 6-8; Exod. 7-11) and commands and aids the slaughter of one's enemies (e.g., Exod. 32:27-28; Deut. 3:6; Num. 31:1-18), versus the New Testament God, who preaches peace and commands people to love their enemies.
• Some parts of the Bible say the sins of the father are inherited by future generations (e.g., Exod. 20:5, Deut. 5:9). Other parts (Ezek. 18) says they are not.
• Much of the Bible emphasizes the unity of God. Genesis 1, for example, stresses that all of creation came from the same God, not different gods as other contemporary religions taught. However, the New Testament, particularly Revelation, introduces a good/evil dualism akin to Zoroastrianism, which has become particularly common in Christian tradition.

talk-origins.org​

Impossible to prove

We obviously cannot go into a laboratory and test for "God residue" on the text, so to ask for scientific proof is impossible.

If it is impossible to prove, then we should refrain from saying that there is or is not a God. You cannot know either way.

(Likewise, asking for scientific proof that one loves his spouse is absurd.

Not true, as there are observable facts upon which inferences may be drawn.

True science is limited to making claims on that which it can disprove through experimentation. Since science does not have any objective standards for measuring "God-ness", it cannot be asked to make a determination on His existence.) This doesn't mean we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the evidence before us, though.

But there is no credible evidence to suppor the existence of a deity. Let alone all the extremely far-fetched claims in religious texts.

Did the Bible come from God?

What we are really interested in, then, is to determine if the Bible is a book that is the true words of God given to men, or is it merely the words of men written about God? If it is the latter, then it should display characteristics like those of other books written by men about God. It really shouldn't be all that different from many other works we possess. However, if it did come from God... well it should be astoundingly different. It should be a very one of a kind collection. It should be unique.

First of all, we have nothing to compare a book written by God with, since we have no pre-existing knowledge of such a book. So there is no point in trying to guess what a book about God would be like.

Secondly, just because it is different to other books does not mean it is the inspired word of God. There is nothing about uniqueness that gives proof that a God wrote it. So it is a one-of a kind book, what does that show? Nothing than the fact that a lot of people worked on it and believed it.

Thirdly, many other religions have similar religious texts.

"The Bible is unique, so it must be the word of a deity" -- I hope that this isn't your whole argument.

Wrong approach

Let's examine what we do know about the Bible and see if it aligns with what we'd expect from a message whose source is God.

There is your first mistake: we have no divine source to compare it to. There is no indication whatsoever what to expect from a book inspired by God.

Still circular reasoning

We'll accept the premises that God exists and He created humanity with a desire to know Him. Anyone questioning these ideas is arguing another point; one which must be addressed separately.

No, that is the whole point of this thread. I get the impression that by putting that aside you are avoiding the criticism that it is circular reasoning to use the Bible as proof.

Authors of the Bible

There is no valid reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible were lying or trying to deceive. The New Testament particularly shows that the character of the writers was beyond reproach.

First of all, that is quite irrelevant -- all it shows is that they believed something. It says nothing about whether that belief is true or not.

Secondly, your only source of their character is the Bible itself!

Authors' beliefs not relevant

Each of them suffered and were executed because they would not recant their position that the teachings of the Bible are true and accurate. If their testimony was made up for gain or folly, surely someone would have renounced his stand to save his life, but it did not happen. All the apostles and the writers believed unwaveringly that the Bible was absolute fact.

Again, all that shows is that people believed something. It in no way means that it is true. A long time ago most people apparently thought the world was flat.

Prophecies

The things predicted in the Bible happened.

That point was addressed in the first page of this thread:

Claim:

The religious text contains many prophecies that have accurately been fulfilled, proving it is a divine source.

Response:

1. There are several mundane ways in which a prediction of the future can be fulfilled:

• Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
• Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
• Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
• Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
• Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

There are no prophecies in religious texts that cannot easily fit into one or more of those categories.

2. In biblical times, prophecies were not simply predictions. They were warnings of what could or would happen if things did not change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people did not heed the warning.

3. Specifically, the Bible contains failed prophecies, in the sense that things God said would happen did not (Skeptic's Annotated Bible n.d.). For example:

• Joshua said that God would, without fail, drive out the Jebusites and Canaanites, among others (Josh. 3:9-10). But those tribes were not driven out (Josh. 15:63, 17:12-13).
• Isaiah 17:1-3 says that Damascus will cease to be a city and be deserted forever, yet it is inhabited still.
• Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (29:10-14), and Nebuchadrezzar would plunder it (29:19-20). Neither happened.

4. Other religions claim many fulfilled prophecies, too.

5. For Christians, divinity is not shown by miracles. The Bible itself says true prophecies may come elsewhere than from God (Deut. 13:1-3), as may other miracles (Exod. 7:22, Matt. 4:8).

talk-origins.org​

Consistency claim

The message of us not being able to save ourselves from God's judgement, but only through Christ can we be saved, is constant through the entire Bible.

Firstly, that a message is constant throughout does not mean that it is true. All it shows is that people believed it.

Secondly, referring to a previous rebuttal above, "The Bible's harmony can also be attributed to the fact that its contents were selected and edited, by people, to make it harmonious."

Bible written by humans

To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible.

Um, why not?

More prophecy arguments

The coming of the Jewish Messiah is the focus of the Old Testament. There are over 300 separate prophecies about the "Holy One of Israel" found there. They are so specific as to predict the city of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2), His nature (Isaiah 7:14), His works of healing and miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13), His suffering (Isaiah 53), His style of execution (Psalm 22) and His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:35) amongst other things. These prophecies were written anywhere from 400 to 1000 years before Jesus' birth, yet they describe His life with the accuracy of an eyewitness. The odds against a living person meeting even a few of these predictions is so astronomical it is considered an impossibility.

In Isaiah 44:27, there is an example of a prophesy. This prophecy was written around 690 BC. History tells us that in 538 BC a Persian general named Cyrus had devised a plan to overtake the impregnable city of Babylon. He dammed up the river running through the city and sent soldiers under the gates. When he got to the front gates, however, he found them unlocked and took the entire city without a problem. In one night the most secure empire in the world of that time was overthrown. It was described by God to Cyrus, and addressed to him by name, 150 years before he had even been born!

One other prophecy we can examine is one that has been fulfilled in modern times. Israel is an amazement sociologically. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been overthrown and obliterated for 1900 years and then come back into existence. Yet, this is exactly what has happened to the nation of Israel, and they reside in the same geographic area as they previously possessed. This is found in Isiah chapter 11.

All this is not remarkable. Refer to the rebuttal of the prophecies argument, above.

"More evidence"

There is so much more evidence! I've written enough for now, but you can find books filled with evidence of the Bible everywhere. Read one and keep finding out.

Well with respect, such 'evidence', when held to the light of critical thought and scrutiny, usually falls to pieces quite easily. (For example, your foregoing arguments.) If you have any more arguments or evidence I am happy to hear them though.

No inescapable conclusion

When the evidence is studied, it leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Bible must come from a source other than that of natural man.

No it does not, for the reasons mentioned.

"The Bible is historically accurate" claim

It is a reliable document that faithfully records history and in that record it documents God intervening in the lives of men.

This claim was addressed in the first page of this thread:

Claim:

My religious text’s accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy.


Response:

1. The accuracy of the text is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures.

2. Accuracy on individual points does not indicate overall accuracy. Just about every thesis that is wrong overall still has some accurate points in it.

3. Claims about accuracy assume that the purpose of the religious text is to document scientific data. There is not the slightest indication that the text was ever intended as a scientific textbook. It is intended to teach people about God; even those who claim scientific accuracy for it use it with that intent.

4. Specifically, the Bible is not entirely accurate. If its value is made to depend on scientific accuracy, it becomes valueless when people find errors in it, as some people invariably will.

5. If occasional scientific accuracy shows overall accuracy of the text, then the same conclusion must be granted to the Bible, Qur'an, Zend Avesta, and several other works from other religions, all of which can make the same claims to scientific accuracy.

talk-origins.org​

​

Using the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible

The New Testament verifies that the Old Testament is the word of God, and Peter verifies that the writings of Paul are Scriptural; that is from God(2 Peter 3:16). Peter also states, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.(2 Peter 1:21)"

Again, circular reasoning:

"The Bible is true."
How do we know the Bible is true?
"It is the inspired word of God."
How do we know?
"The Bible says so."
How do we know the Bible is true?
"It is the inspired word of God."
How do we know?
"The Bible says so."

...etc.

Consistency claim, again

This is a consistent message throughout the Bible.

Already addressed in this post, above.

 

[Lundy]

Your question is a good one. Many times people will raise an objection to a Christian's belief in the Bible as being the infallible word of God. They claim that using the Bible to support the Bible is "circular reasoning".
We must first remember in discussing the claims of the Bible with anyone, that the Bible is not a single, autonomous work. Rather, it is a collection of 66 different books written over a vast time span in three languages on three continents with authors from every station in life. These ancient works cover every major topic dealing with the human condition including: love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. Although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency.
Before I go on, please don't argue so critically with me about the bible unless you have read it yourself.

We obviously cannot go into a laboratory and test for "God residue" on the text, so to ask for scientific proof is impossible. (Likewise, asking for scientific proof that one loves his spouse is absurd. True science is limited to making claims on that which it can disprove through experimentation. Since science does not have any objective standards for measuring "God-ness", it cannot be asked to make a determination on His existence.) This doesn't mean we cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion based on the evidence before us, though.

What we are really interested in, then, is to determine if the Bible is a book that is the true words of God given to men, or is it merely the words of men written about God? If it is the latter, then it should display characteristics like those of other books written by men about God. It really shouldn't be all that different from many other works we possess. However, if it did come from God... well it should be astoundingly different. It should be a very one of a kind collection. It should be unique.

Let's examine what we do know about the Bible and see if it aligns with what we'd expect from a message whose source is God. We'll accept the premises that God exists and He created humanity with a desire to know Him. Anyone questioning these ideas is arguing another point; one which must be addressed separately.

There is no valid reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible were lying or trying to deceive. The New Testament particularly shows that the character of the writers was beyond reproach. Each of them suffered and were executed because they would not recant their position that the teachings of the Bible are true and accurate. If their testimony was made up for gain or folly, surely someone would have renounced his stand to save his life, but it did not happen. All the apostles and the writers believed unwaveringly that the Bible was absolute fact.

The things predicted in the Bible happened. The message of us not being able to save ourselves from God's judgement, but only through Christ can we be saved, is constant through the entire Bible. To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible.

The coming of the Jewish Messiah is the focus of the Old Testament. There are over 300 separate prophecies about the "Holy One of Israel" found there. They are so specific as to predict the city of Jesus' birth (Micah 5:2), His nature (Isaiah 7:14), His works of healing and miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6), His betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13), His suffering (Isaiah 53), His style of execution (Psalm 22) and His resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 13:35) amongst other things. These prophecies were written anywhere from 400 to 1000 years before Jesus' birth, yet they describe His life with the accuracy of an eyewitness. The odds against a living person meeting even a few of these predictions is so astronomical it is considered an impossibility.


In Isaiah 44:27, there is an example of a prophesy. This prophecy was written around 690 BC. History tells us that in 538 BC a Persian general named Cyrus had devised a plan to overtake the impregnable city of Babylon. He dammed up the river running through the city and sent soldiers under the gates. When he got to the front gates, however, he found them unlocked and took the entire city without a problem. In one night the most secure empire in the world of that time was overthrown. It was described by God to Cyrus, and addressed to him by name, 150 years before he had even been born!

One other prophecy we can examine is one that has been fulfilled in modern times. Israel is an amazement sociologically. Never in the history of mankind has a nation been overthrown and obliterated for 1900 years and then come back into existence. Yet, this is exactly what has happened to the nation of Israel, and they reside in the same geographic area as they previously possessed. This is found in Isiah chapter 11.

There is so much more evidence! I've written enough for now, but you can find books filled with evidence of the Bible everywhere. Read one and keep finding out.

When the evidence is studied, it leads to an inescapable conclusion: the Bible must come from a source other than that of natural man. It is a reliable document that faithfully records history and in that record it documents God intervening in the lives of men. The New Testament verifies that the Old Testament is the word of God, and Peter verifies that the writings of Paul are Scriptural; that is from God(2 Peter 3:16). Peter also states, "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.(2 Peter 1:21)" This is a consistent message throughout the Bible.

Look, I am aware that the bible includes many references to actual people, places and events. I am aware that there may have even existed a man named Jesus as described in the bible. These things I don't necessarily deny, because much of it is backed by archaeological evidence.

There are many false prophecies in the bible as well.

You still don't answer why why god would allow contradictions and inconsistencies to be made, especially if indeed he "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). God is supposedly perfect, yet the bible is imperfect, simple as that.

 

[get_born]

1. Who is to say that the Creator is still around? Valid possibilities include:
* The Creator created the universe, and then simply left it alone. He neither knows nor cares about any life in it (this is a form of Deism).
* The Creator ceased to exist at the moment of creation. He converted himself into the physical universe, and effectively died at that instant.
* He died of boredom waiting for anything interesting to happen.

One important point we need to understand in the first place is that the existence of God cannot be proved in the same way you prove the existence of a physical object. This is simply because God is not a physical object. Any physical object is subject to your five senses. In simple terms, you can see, hear, smell, touch or taste a physical object. This is not possible in the case of God, as He (swt) is a Transcendental Being [existing on a level beyond our sensual perception].

There are people who argue that the only form of knowledge available to humans is experiential knowledge or experimental knowledge, gained primarily by the use of outer senses. This led to the belief that human beings are constituted in such a way that the knowledge of reality is always unavailable to them; and so it resulted in a renewal of attention to the everyday world of appearances. The knowledge of here and now became the only object of human knowledge and concern. Thus from this point of view, the project of seeking knowledge of reality behind appearances must be abandoned, because it is beyond the scope of human understanding.

Now think: Can’t there be a way of “being” [existing], that is not susceptible of being perceived by the limited capabilities of humans through their defective senses?

I hope that the implications of the two expressions I used above [‘limited capabilities’ and ‘defective senses’] are evident to any thinking person. The claim that something does not exist, because you haven’t seen or heard it, etc. is untenable. When we consider the limitations of our sensual perception and of our reasoning powers, it is not necessary that we understand everything. We can speak meaningfully about everything simply on the basis of our perception. So to speak of “proof” with regard to a Transcendental Being becomes irrelevant.

What we can do is to point out facts which lead to a constant and inescapable awareness of the presence of God. It is clear that logically we cannot rule out the possibility of more things existing than can be perceived by our senses or can be arrived at by our reasoning. As for Man, there are two dimensions to his existence: One of matter and the other of spirit.

Reduced merely to the level of material existence, Man becomes a machine, or a mere animal at best. But think of a machine that rebels against being a machine; or of an animal that refuses to be an animal. That is what man is! What is it that makes him rebellious, angry, disappointed, frightened or hopeful? What is his dimension that gives him his imagination, his artistic genius, his creative urge? Why does he have nightmares and sweet dreams?

It is not matter that does it; evidently it is his spirit that makes him so different from animals. So to base our knowledge of the world and our philosophy of life simply on the material side of our existence to the complete exclusion of the spiritual dimension, is undoubtedly faulty. The strength of Islam as a philosophy and as a way of life is that it does not separate man’s material life from spiritual life, and that it seeks a balance between the two dimensions of human existence.

We should understand that human spirit is a reality incommensurable with material realities, and that it owes its existence only to God. Thus dear brother, if we ponder over the phenomena of the world around us and over the complexities of our own existence, we are bound to conclude that God is the Reality behind all appearances. The Holy Qur’an says in Surah 2, verse 164, the meaning of the following:

*{Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- [Here] indeed are signs for a people that are wise.}*

That is to say the external signs we see in the universe should necessarily lead a wise person to the Ultimate Reality behind it all. And that is how we arrive at the realization that Allah Almighty is the Moving Power behind all life and all existence.

Why just one Creator? Why not two, or a dozen, or a million? If you are going to invoke the supernatural, then the idea that there is an individual creator for each and every sub-atomic particle is just as plausible as there being one big one that made everything. Many religions have numerous gods, each being responsible for a different part of the universe. What makes a single creator a better explanation than multiple creators? It is also possible that one Creator made the universe, which was then taken over by another omnipotent critter - a caretaker deity.

For God to be more than one, you imply that he is weak. Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power, or race. However, our human minds are often in search of understanding God concept in materialistic ways, although we are not capable to comprehend ultimate God. When the Prophet Muhammad’s contemporaries asked him about God, Allah revealed Surat’ul Ikhlas (Chapter Ihlas) which is considered as the motto of tawhid, as follows:

“In the name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate.
Say (O Muhammad): He is God, the One, Unique. God is the Self-Sufficient (Who needs no one and Whom everyone else needs). He has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and there is none equal to Him.”

The Creator must be a different nature from the things created, because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. If the maker is not temporal, He must be eternal. But if He is eternal, He cannot be caused. If nothing apart from Him causes Him to continue to exist, He must be Self Sufficient and Self-Subsistent. If He does not depend upon anything for the continuance of His own existence, this existence can have no end. The creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: “He is the First and the Last”.

The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing things into being, in other words, He is not only a Starter, He also preserves everything, takes them out of the existence, and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art19621.asp

What reason is there to think that a Creator is even remotely interested in human beings, or any other specific form of life? There are, for instance, far more beetles and bacteria that humans, and they have also been around much longer. It could be that humans (and elephants and starfish) are a mere side-effect of a great beetle-breeding experiment!

Beetles and bacteria don't know right from wrong, they dont have what we humans call choice. Humans know how to control themselves, animals dont - I thought you would know that. The fact that we have the power to make decisions already proves that we are more special than animals. Plus we eat them.

What reason is there to suppose that life was intended to exist? Living things obviously do exist, but life could merely be an unintended or unimportant side-effect. It may be that a Creator was only interested in making stars, and everything else is just an emergent property caused by the way the universe is set up. Alternatively, the Creator could be some sort of hobbyist who creates universes, lets them run their course to see how they develop, and then starts again with a slightly different configuration. Humans, apart from being the most important part of Creation might merely be a tick on his checklist.

Now why would we just be a side effect? If we were so unimportant, how come prophets, books and such were sent down to warn us about heaven and hell? Its propsterous to just think we are here for no reason. Everyone has a purpose. If the Creator was only interested in making stars, he must have made many mistakes in the process. Like seriously, that's a massive mistake...and if we were 'unintended' wouldn't God have just erased us? So that leave's us with the logical conclusion that we at least have a purpose and that we were no side effect of some wacko experiment.

Should it be demonstrated that a Creator does exist, and is interested in us, it still does not follow that we are required to bow down and worship it. Would it even want us to? Why create the enormity of the universe merely to have a single solitary planet briefly inhabited by cringing sycophants?

Let us say God does exist and He is the Creator. Do you find it appropriate for the creation to just become ignorant. God will be the one to take us to heaven or hell, and when someone does something wrong they seek forgiveness. Now picture a mum and a child. Good children will apologise after doing something wrong and be rewarded for doing something good. A mum feels proud when her child apologises learning not to make the same mistake again. But now God unlike a mum will never get tired of us seeking forgiveness, on the contrary He will always forgive us...that is we dont repeat the mistake on purpose over and over again. God has created the universe and many others, I dont know why? If we had the answers to everything, what would be left to discover?

Life existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved, and the amount of time we have been around is utterly insignificant relative to the age of the universe. Were we to exist for a hundred million years ourselves, life will still go on afterwards without us, and the universe itself has many billions of years left in it. It seems bizarre (and considerably arrogant) to suggest that it is all here just for our benefit, or purely to ensure that humans came about.

Maybe there were creatures living on Earth before us and even others before them (dinosaurs etc). God knows why they were around. Life will come to an end, just as the life of a plant or a human, but the question is what will you have to show by the end of it. We dont know when we will die, but you would want to be prepared. The world may seem as though it has bllions of years in it, but whose to say it will live that long. A 25 year old man might appear to live till about 70, but dies at twety six in a speeding car. No one knows. Nothing is here for your benefit. All materialistic possesions that exist in this world are merely a distraction to test us. Your not going to die and take your house with you.

If life has been "designed" from the start, that would suggest that there is some sort of guiding hand behind the processes that form life - evolution. However, evolution generally progresses by the bloody, violent and painful deaths of living things. Carnivores kill and eat herbivores, parasites inject their eggs into living creatures so that they can hatch out and eat the host alive from the inside, disease organisms inflict untold agony on many living things. Also, in order to ensure the eventual formation of specific creatures (e.g. humans), certain events had to happen - mass extinctions caused by meteor strikes, wiping out 90% of life, for example. Either not a good example of intelligent design, or the Designer just like inflicting asteroids, volcanoes, tidal waves and plagues on his dearly loved creations to ensure they evolved in the right direction. In short, the "designer" could not have found a more hideous way to go about creating life forms. Maybe he enjoys seeing pain and suffering? That would appear to be the case, judging from the evidence of life.

"pain and suffering" are a part of life and are emotions you obviously feel. I wonder where did your feelings come from? Our brains a limited, you've probably heard that line before but its true, if our brains were infinite, we would know everything, but that wouldn't be possible, because then there would be no questions to ask. God knows why there are all these events that occur, but there there so deal with it. If nothing bad ever happens, how would you know what is good? There is a reason for everything, just because you don't understand them now, doesn't mean there not there.

This brings us to the concept of a "Powerful Deceiver" - instead of this Creator being an all-powerful, kind, loving entity, what reason is there to think that it is not, in fact, an all-powerful, evil, hateful entity that sees life on Earth much as a child with a magnifying glass sees ants on a sunny day? Being all-powerful, it would be perfectly easy to convince people that he was benevolent, and being mere mortals there is no way we could tell otherwise (convincing ourselves that fires and earthquakes are all part of his mysterious, but no doubt good, Plan for us all). Certainly, judging by the historical (and present day) atrocities committed by followers of an alleged Creator, this is all too easy to suspect (and, of course, just as impossible to disprove as is the idea of a benevolent deity, and therefore no less valid).

Good and bad happens all the time. It's a test. If you think God is evil...and enjoys watching us go through pain and suffering would God be more excited roasting me in hell straight away. I think I'd be in most pain there.

It is even possible to postulate a more mundane Creator - an experimental physicist from a civilisation so advanced that even its most basic children's toy would appear miraculous to us, still in the infancy of science. Perhaps our entire universe was generated in an Acme Big Bang machine on her workbench, parameters carefully adjusted to allow for the formation of stars, planets and self-replicating molecules that may one day become alive. Contrived and far-fetched though this may sound, it is (again) equally as valid as anything dreamt up by the founders of any religion. It does though beg the question of the creation of our physicists own universe, but then so does the idea of a Creator beg the question "Who Created the Creator?"

Although God created the universe, God is still absolutely separate from creation—to postulate that God was part of the changeable world would be to contradict the unity, singularity, and unchangeableness of God. Transcendentalism, however, postulates more than just an absolute separation. It also describes a relationship between the creator god and creation. In a transcendental relationship, the transcendent term (God) is absolutely independent of the non-transcendent term (creation); however, the non-transcendent term (creation) only has existence, meaning, or value in relationship to the transcendent term (God). To say that God is transcendent in Islam is to say that God is separate, distinct, and independent from the created universe, but that the created universe, though entirely separate from God, is nonetheless dependent on God for its existence and value.

These examples are not intended to show that a Creator cannot exist, but that ID theorists are quite unjustified in going from "We see design in the universe" to "The God of the Bible exists, and Christianity is the One True Religion"

Majority of religions are based on the singularity and unity of God. I find it quite impossible to believe that such a great number of people hallucinated the existence of God.

Essentially all that you are left with is:

"An unknown, unknowable entity did it in an unknown manner for unknown reasons."

Bow down in wonder.

I pray to God five times a day - and am always amazed.

 

[hiphophooray123]

waste of time

 

[sly fly]

Why just one Creator? Why not two, or a dozen, or a million? If you are going to invoke the supernatural, then the idea that there is an individual creator for each and every sub-atomic particle is just as plausible as there being one big one that made everything. Many religions have numerous gods, each being responsible for a different part of the universe. What makes a single creator a better explanation than multiple creators? It is also possible that one Creator made the universe, which was then taken over by another omnipotent critter - a caretaker deity.

Can I just point out that in Islam, God isn't actually one God in the numerical sense. God is outside any frame of reference. When we say one God, it's simply because we humans have no other way to understand it, we only understand numbers. So God is not one, and he is not more than one. When God describes himself as one, it's because of the limitations of us human beings to be able to comprehend and understand a being which is outside the scope of numbers. I can't really explain it properly, because I can never properly comprehend this concept.

Also, if there were lots of Gods then those Gods would fight amongst one another, like the way it occured in ancient Greek mythology.

 

[sparkl3z]

according to everyone there is lots of ones, a christian one , a jewish one, a muslim one, a anglo one omg. what a place of gods........