Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[moseley]

mate seriuosly i cant be bothered to read all of that but the bits that i did were just crap. all you have are numbers from pages in a book which basically fiction, there is no real proof.

 

[superbird]

mate seriuosly i cant be bothered to read all of that but the bits that i did were just crap. all you have are numbers from pages in a book which basically fiction, there is no real proof.

if u arent bothered to listen then dont bother putting forth ur own argument

 

[Monkey Butler]

You're saying that the Bible proves that these miracles occurred. But the Bible is the ONLY source that mentions these miracles, and conveniently the miracles further the claims of Jesus' divinity. See what I'm getting at? Find OTHER evidence, not from the Bible.

And evolution has been, for all intents and purposes, been proven. How else do you explain neanderthals and stuff?

 

[moseley]

for starters superbird i cant b bothered to read it, if i wanted to read a big collection of crap i go and read the bible.

 

[Kwayera]

You're saying that the Bible proves that these miracles occurred. But the Bible is the ONLY source that mentions these miracles, and conveniently the miracles further the claims of Jesus' divinity. See what I'm getting at? Find OTHER evidence, not from the Bible.

And evolution has been, for all intents and purposes, been proven. How else do you explain neanderthals and stuff?

That's what I'd like to hear. You can't keep on quoting the Bible as proof; it ISN'T. Proof is statements (or the like, you get my drift) from many, RELIABLE sources that agree on the same thing. The Bible is NOT proof.

 

[superbird]

Monkey Butler: clearly the Bible is the sole evidence for all Christians hence why we take it seriously and use it for debates such as this. We believe the Bible is true and believe it has been verified by numerous historians over the time. Its a shame people dont accept the Bible as sufficient evidence for this debate.

As for evolution it is quite often accepted within Christianity, except with evangelicals. Thus if I and many other Christians accept evolution then why is it important for disprooving the existence of God?

 

[superbird]

That's what I'd like to hear. You can't keep on quoting the Bible as proof; it ISN'T. Proof is statements (or the like, you get my drift) from many, RELIABLE sources that agree on the same thing. The Bible is NOT proof.

Can you for once try to see it from our point of view instead of being so selfish.
I could just as easily say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not proof either even though there is scientific data within it.
In the Bible, the parables and stories is in a way our "scientific data".
Besides, you dont know yourself whether the Bible is true or not. When you have built a time machine or you lived during the time of Christ and the writing of the Bible then do please let me know

 

[MoonlightSonata]

1. Explain the existence of the universe without God to create it. What reasonable explanation is there?

Claim:
Every event has a cause. The universe itself had a beginning, so it must have had a First Cause, which must have been a creator God.

Response:
1. The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe which allow a universe without a first cause.

2. By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" doesn't even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused.


3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God doesn't need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

------------------------------------------------------------

2. Disprove the accuracy of the Bible. Skeptics have tried this for centuries without success.

It is not necessary to disprove the accuracy. You haven't actually proved the accuracy in the first place. It's YOUR job to prove that it is accurate. The onus is on you to show why it is accurate, which you can't do.

------------------------------------------------------------

3. Disprove the unity of the Bible. Again, this has been tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully.

Actually the Bible contains some contradictions:

- Genesis 1 has Adam created after other animals; Genesis 2 has him appearing before animals.
- Matt. 1:16 and Luke 3:23 differ over Jesus' lineage.
- Mark 14:72 differs from Matt. 26:74-75, Luke 22:60-61, and John 18:27 about how many time the cock crowed.
- 2 Sam. 24:1 and 1 Chr. 21:1 differ over who incited David to take a census.
- 1 Sam. 17:23,50 and 2 Sam. 21:19 disagree about who killed Goliath.
- 1 Sam. 31:4-5 and 2 Sam. 1:5-10 differ over Saul's death.
- The four gospels differ about many details of Christ's death and resurrection [Barker 1990]. For example, Matt. 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 have different inscriptions on the cross.
- Matt. 27:5-8 differs with Acts 1:18-19 about Judas' death.
- Gen. 9:3 and Lev. 11:4 differ about what is proper to eat.
- Rom. 3:20-28 and James 2:24 differ over faith vs. deeds.
- Exodus 20:5, Num. 14:18, and Deut. 5:9 disagree with Ezekiel 18:4,19-20 and John 9:3 about sins being inherited.

and while we're here, some errors too:

- Lev. 11:4 states that rabbits chew their cud.
- Lev. 11:20-23 speaks of four-legged insects, including grasshoppers.
- 1 Chron. 16:30 and Ps. 93:1 state that the Earth is immobile, yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun, but it is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

------------------------------------------------------------

4. Explain the fulfilled prophecies. What explanation can there be, other than the inspiration of God?

Claim:
The Bible contains many prophecies which 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 hasn't, just say that, according to prophecy, it will.
- Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they haven't. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.

There are no prophecies in the Bible 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 didn't change. They were meant to influence people's behavior. If the people heeded the prophecy, the events would not come to pass; Jonah 3 gives an example. A fulfilled prophecy was a failed prophecy, because it meant people didn't heed the warning.

3. The Bible also 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 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. [Prophecy n.d.]

5. 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 [Ex. 7:22, Matt. 4:8]. Some people say that to focus on proofs is to miss the whole point of faith [John 20:29].

------------------------------------------------------------

5. Disprove the miracles. But even Jesus' enemies in the first century could not do this!

PROVE the miracles first, then we'll worry about disproving them.

And again, 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 [Ex. 7:22, Matt. 4:8]. Some people say that to focus on proofs is to miss the whole point of faith [John 20:29].

------------------------------------------------------------

6. Disprove the resurrection. What explanation can you give?

Once again, you haven't proven the resurrection, therefore there is no need to disprove it.

 

[moseley]

superbird could not just as easily say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has no proof, there is so much evidence backing the thoery up such as fossils, tools etc. to compare darwins theory with the bible is just crazy.

 

[Monkey Butler]

What I'm saying is that your "evidence of miracles" isn't evidence at all, because it's unverified (and unverifiable) and heavily biased. I understand that you believe it, but you're not going to convince anyone by arguing solely with the Bible.

And I didn't say that evolution disproved the Bible (although I don't really understand how it doesn't, but we can debate that later), just that it's pretty well accepted.

 

[Kwayera]

Can you for once try to see it from our point of view instead of being so selfish.
I could just as easily say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not proof either even though there is scientific data within it.
In the Bible, the parables and stories is in a way our "scientific data".
Besides, you dont know yourself whether the Bible is true or not. When you have built a time machine or you lived during the time of Christ and the writing of the Bible then do please let me know

But while Darwin's Theory of Evolution was put forward by one man, Darwin, it is supported by the work of thousands of scientists worldwide, PROVING INDEPENDANTLY that the theory is true.

The Bible, however, cannot be proved. For all we know, it could be the greatest work of fiction the world has ever known. The people that are contained within it, the events, may have happened or they may never have existed - and until you build a time machine, go back in time to the 'time of Jesus' and take pictures, you can't prove that any of it really happened.

 

[superbird]

superbird could not just as easily say that Darwin's Theory of Evolution has no proof, there is so much evidence backing the thoery up such as fossils, tools etc. to compare darwins theory with the bible is just crazy.

likewise there is so much evidence to proove the integrity of the bible

 

[superbird]

I still dont think many of you have made the effort to visit the site yet. Anyways here's another extract for ur viewing pleasure

Witness #2: The Accuracy of the Bible

Although the Bible is a textbook on religion, it often touches on other subjects such as history, geography, or science. When it does, we can check it out by comparing it to archeology, etc. If the Bible is written by the all-knowing Creator, we would expect accuracy.

Further, the Bible was written 2000-3500 years ago, when scientific error abounded. Skeptics have searched it mercilessly to find error in it. But if, in spite of this, we find that it contains none of the common errors of its day -- if it actually speaks truths that were unknown to scientists till centuries later -- then this would greatly strengthen our confidence that it is not from men but from God.

Consider the following examples in which the Bible has been proved to be accurate, even when "scholars" disagreed with it.

A. History and Geography

1. The Hittite nation

The Bible frequently mentions this ancient nation (2 Sam. 11:3ff; Gen. 15:19-21; Num. 13:29; Josh. 3:10), but for years skeptics said the Bible was wrong. Then in 1906, Hugo Winckler excavated Hattusa, the Hittite capital. We now know that, at its height, the Hittite civilization rivaled Egypt and Assyria in glory! (See Biblical World, pp. 290ff.)

2. Pithom and Raamses

The Bible says that Israelite slaves built these Egyptian cities using bricks of clay mixed with straw, then clay and stubble, then clay alone (Ex. 1:11; 5:10-21). In 1883, Naville examined the ruins of Pithom and found all three types of brick. (See Biblical World, pp. 458,459.)

3. The Book of Acts

Sir William Ramsay was a skeptic who sought to disprove Acts by tracing Paul's journeys. Instead, his examination made him a firm believer in the accuracy of the book! The turning point came when he proved that, contrary to accepted scholarship, the Bible was right when it implied Iconium was in a different region from Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:6). (See Archaeology and Bible History, Free, p. 317.)

Consider these quotations from prominent archeologists:

"...it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries." -- Dr. Nelson Glueck (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31)

"...archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts ... Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges ... are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy ... We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong." -- Dr. Joseph P. Free (Archaeology and Bible History, pp. 1,2,134)

B. Science

>>>Read ISAIAH 40:22. <<<

*9* What is the shape of the earth? (a) circle, (b) flat, (c) cylinder.

Isaiah wrote this when men thought the earth was flat ("circle" = "a circle, sphere" -- Gesenius). Today we have pictures taken from space to show the earth's shape, but how did Isaiah know?

>>>Read JOB 26:7. <<<

*10* How is the earth held up? (a) by 4 huge pillars, (b) on the back of Atlas, (c) it is hung on nothing.

Ancient men believed many errors. How did Job know the truth?

>>>Read PSALM 8:8. <<<

*11* What is found in the sea according to this verse? (a) mountains, (b) paths, (c) seaweed, (d) fish.

Men knew of no paths in the sea until Matthew Maury read this verse and determined to find them. He discovered the ocean currents, and became known as the Father of Oceanography. (Impact, 9/91, pp. 3,4).

>>>Read ECCLESIASTES 1:7. <<<

*12* What does this verse tell us about rivers? (a) rivers run to the sea, (b) the sea does not get fuller, (c) rivers go back where they were before, (d) all the preceding.

Today we understand how this happens by the water cycle and evaporation. How did Solomon know?

The Bible has contradicted unproved theories, but properly understood it has never contradicted any proved scientific fact. Yet it has often stated scientific truths centuries before men knew them.

While the Bible has been repeatedly proved accurate, those who criticize the Bible have been consistently unable to disprove it. This surely strengthens our faith in other Bible teachings.

 

[moseley]

here is a quote i found on the net about the bible

"the bible is collection of stories that help guide you through your life, not to be taken literally or seriously".

religion is just a faith in which people think they need to believe in as they have been brian washed all their lives through schools government and even their parents. the bible is no more real than santa clause or the tooth fairy. if u believed the bible you may as well pick a a wand and broom and read the harry potter series.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I still dont think many of you have made the effort to visit the site yet. Anyways here's another extract for ur viewing pleasure

Witness #2: The Accuracy of the Bible

Although the Bible is a textbook on religion, it often touches on other subjects such as history, geography, or science. When it does, we can check it out by comparing it to archeology, etc. If the Bible is written by the all-knowing Creator, we would expect accuracy.

Further, the Bible was written 2000-3500 years ago, when scientific error abounded. Skeptics have searched it mercilessly to find error in it. But if, in spite of this, we find that it contains none of the common errors of its day -- if it actually speaks truths that were unknown to scientists till centuries later -- then this would greatly strengthen our confidence that it is not from men but from God.

Consider the following examples in which the Bible has been proved to be accurate, even when "scholars" disagreed with it.

A. History and Geography

1. The Hittite nation

The Bible frequently mentions this ancient nation (2 Sam. 11:3ff; Gen. 15:19-21; Num. 13:29; Josh. 3:10), but for years skeptics said the Bible was wrong. Then in 1906, Hugo Winckler excavated Hattusa, the Hittite capital. We now know that, at its height, the Hittite civilization rivaled Egypt and Assyria in glory! (See Biblical World, pp. 290ff.)

2. Pithom and Raamses

The Bible says that Israelite slaves built these Egyptian cities using bricks of clay mixed with straw, then clay and stubble, then clay alone (Ex. 1:11; 5:10-21). In 1883, Naville examined the ruins of Pithom and found all three types of brick. (See Biblical World, pp. 458,459.)

3. The Book of Acts

Sir William Ramsay was a skeptic who sought to disprove Acts by tracing Paul's journeys. Instead, his examination made him a firm believer in the accuracy of the book! The turning point came when he proved that, contrary to accepted scholarship, the Bible was right when it implied Iconium was in a different region from Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:6). (See Archaeology and Bible History, Free, p. 317.)

Consider these quotations from prominent archeologists:

"...it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries." -- Dr. Nelson Glueck (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31)

"...archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts ... Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges ... are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy ... We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong." -- Dr. Joseph P. Free (Archaeology and Bible History, pp. 1,2,134)

B. Science

>>>Read ISAIAH 40:22. <<<

*9* What is the shape of the earth? (a) circle, (b) flat, (c) cylinder.

Isaiah wrote this when men thought the earth was flat ("circle" = "a circle, sphere" -- Gesenius). Today we have pictures taken from space to show the earth's shape, but how did Isaiah know?

>>>Read JOB 26:7. <<<

*10* How is the earth held up? (a) by 4 huge pillars, (b) on the back of Atlas, (c) it is hung on nothing.

Ancient men believed many errors. How did Job know the truth?

>>>Read PSALM 8:8. <<<

*11* What is found in the sea according to this verse? (a) mountains, (b) paths, (c) seaweed, (d) fish.

Men knew of no paths in the sea until Matthew Maury read this verse and determined to find them. He discovered the ocean currents, and became known as the Father of Oceanography. (Impact, 9/91, pp. 3,4).

>>>Read ECCLESIASTES 1:7. <<<

*12* What does this verse tell us about rivers? (a) rivers run to the sea, (b) the sea does not get fuller, (c) rivers go back where they were before, (d) all the preceding.

Today we understand how this happens by the water cycle and evaporation. How did Solomon know?

The Bible has contradicted unproved theories, but properly understood it has never contradicted any proved scientific fact. Yet it has often stated scientific truths centuries before men knew them.

While the Bible has been repeatedly proved accurate, those who criticize the Bible have been consistently unable to disprove it. This surely strengthens our faith in other Bible teachings.

Read my previous post. All your previous points have been dealt with, I'll now deal with these ones ---

 

[superbird]

here is a quote i found on the net about the bible

"the bible is collection of stories that help guide you through your life, not to be taken literally or seriously".

religion is just a faith in which people think they need to believe in as they have been brian washed all their lives through schools government and even their parents. the bible is no more real than santa clause or the tooth fairy. if u believed the bible you may as well pick a a wand and broom and read the harry potter series.

the quote was obviously from an athiest site in which case is bias anyway. Some Christians take the Bible as literal (such as the earth being created in 7 days) whilst others take it as myths with some meaning behind it. The accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection however is taken seriously by all Christians.

 

[moseley]

yeh superbird and the site you obtained your information on the bible isnt biased. i visited it (waste of time) and it is made by christians. as for the fact that there are conflicting views within your religion show its insability.

 

[Monkey Butler]

But it's all the word of God right? How can you say some things are true and some aren't? If the Earth WASN'T created in 7 days (which it wasn't), then how can you believe anything else in it?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The Bible has contradicted unproved theories, but properly understood it has never contradicted any proved scientific fact. Yet it has often stated scientific truths centuries before men knew them.

Really? As previously mentioned, 1 Chron. 16:30 and Ps. 93:1 state that the Earth is immobile, yet it not only revolves and orbits the sun, but it is also influenced by the gravitational pull of other bodies.

------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the Bible was written 2000-3500 years ago, when scientific error abounded. Skeptics have searched it mercilessly to find error in it. But if, in spite of this, we find that it contains none of the common errors of its day -- if it actually speaks truths that were unknown to scientists till centuries later -- then this would greatly strengthen our confidence that it is not from men but from God.

Claim:
The Bible's accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy.

Response:
1. The accuracy of the Bible 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 Bible is to document scientific data. There is not the slightest indication that the Bible 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. For at least some of the Bible's teachings, scientific accuracy is unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive.

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

------------------------------------------------------------

Although the Bible is a textbook on religion, it often touches on other subjects such as history, geography, or science. When it does, we can check it out by comparing it to archeology, etc. If the Bible is written by the all-knowing Creator, we would expect accuracy.

Claim:
Archaeology supports the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible's historical account has many times been substantiated by new archaeological information.

Response:
1. Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every Biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.

If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.

2. Archaeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible.
- Luke 2:4 describes Nazareth as being Joseph's home, but the archaeological evidence indicates that the town didn't exist at the time [Humphreys 2003].
- The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10 were not widely used until after 1000 BC. [Finkelstein and Silberman 2001]
- The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from 40 years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing that the Hebrews were a native people. [Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002]
- There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all. [Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002]

3. Many claims that archaeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own preconceptions.

- Source

 

[superbird]

How Christians interpret Genesis:

Differing religious beliefs about origins of the species, the Earth, and the rest of the universe have their foundation in different views of the creation stories -- in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in other passages elsewhere in of Bible:

Conservative Christians generally believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Thus they regard the creation stories in the first part of Genesis to be literally correct. Many believe that the events covered six actual 24-hour days.

Some believe that God created the world exactly as stated, and they believe that it happened circa 4004 BCE. This date was computed by Bishop Ussher by working backwards in the Bible from the year during which Saul became King.

Others have estimated creation as early as about 8,000 BCE. They base this upon the assumptions that the many "begats" in the Bible did not necessarily refer to a father begatting a son; rather, they may have described a grandfather begatting a grandson. This would insert an unknown number of generations into the calculations, and push the creation date back further into history.

Other conservative and mainline Christians have attempted to reconcile the Bible with the findings of science, and have accepted the concept of an earth that is billions of years old. They follow the day-age old earth, or gap theories described elsewhere in this web site. By harmonizing Genesis and science, they can continue their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Post-Christians, and most liberal Christians do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible. They note that that the authors of Genesis lived in a pre-scientific world. Even elementary geology, cosmology, astronomy, biology etc. were beyond their knowledge and ability to understand. These Christians may accept the creation stories in Genesis as:

A fallible human product by the ancient Israelites; an imaginative creative work that is unrelated to reality, but was the best that the authors could do with their primitive scientific knowledge.

A myth derived from earlier Mesopotamian creation stories that were re-worked by the ancient Israelites to remove the original polytheistic references and show God's superiority over nature: creator over creation.

An allegory that was never meant to be interpreted literally. A myth that is used as a vehicle to teach spiritual truths. 6

--------

Regardless, the various interpretations by Christians of the Creation story is still not sufficient evidence to disproove the existence of God.