Does God Exist? (2 Viewers)

[Monkey Butler]

But one of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith is the accuracy of the Bible. If it's the word of God, how can it be false? If it's just a myth, why is it still in the Bible? And by the way, just who wrote Genesis anyway?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

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

Good, at least you are sounding like an agnostic now

 

[superbird]

Good, at least you are sounding like an agnostic now

How? I dont doubt the existence of God.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

How? I dont doubt the existence of God.

Well now your argument seems to be that we can't disprove the existence of God. A shift to agnosticism (as opposed to positively proving the existence of God).

 

[sayuru]

how can u demand things from god?

firstly just like to say im not a christian, very far from it, im buddhist, BUT i have a firm belief in God, i know his there around. Alot of ppl say u want concrete evidence that God exists, its almost like ur demanding God to show himself to u, well think abt this, who the living fuck are u to demand anything? uv earned no right to be making demands to such beings. i went to a catholic school for 4 years, and i said i wasnt christian, and in those 4 years i did not believe in god, in fact i think i disliked him, but as i got older i began to understand things a little better, and ppl just have to stop demanding stuff from God, his given u enuff to work with, try recognize that. imagine if god did decide to show himself how many ppl wud scrutinize him and tell him to prove he is real? we have alot to learn still. i know god exists and i always will, i think i understand how his plan works and its just little things in life that make u aware of his existence u just have to look and think a little deeper.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

firstly just like to say im not a christian, very far from it, im buddhist, BUT i have a firm belief in God, i know his there around. Alot of ppl say u want concrete evidence that God exists, its almost like ur demanding God to show himself to u, well think abt this, who the living fuck are u to demand anything? uv earned no right to be making demands to such beings. i went to a catholic school for 4 years, and i said i wasnt christian, and in those 4 years i did not believe in god, in fact i think i disliked him, but as i got older i began to understand things a little better, and ppl just have to stop demanding stuff from God, his given u enuff to work with, try recognize that. imagine if god did decide to show himself how many ppl wud scrutinize him and tell him to prove he is real? we have alot to learn still. i know god exists and i always will, i think i understand how his plan works and its just little things in life that make u aware of his existence u just have to look and think a little deeper.

I have a firm belief in the flying goat-God Gorgamel. A lot of people say you want concrete evidence that the flying goat-God Gorgamel exists, its almost like you're demanding the flying goat-God Gorgamel to show himself to you! Well think about this, who the living fuck are you to demand anything? You've earned no right to be making demands to such beings. I went to a catholic school for 4 years and I didn't believe in the flying goat-God Gorgamel, in fact I think I disliked him, but as I got older I began to understand things a little better, and people just have to stop demanding stuff from the flying goat-God Gorgamel, he's given you enough to work with, try to recognise that. Imagine if the flying goat-God Gorgamel did decide to show himself, how many people woudl scrutinize him and tell him to prove he is real? We have alot to learn still. I know the flying goat-God Gorgamel exists and I always will, I think I understand how his plan works and its just little things in life that make you aware of his existence, you just have to look and think a little deeper.

 

[lengstar]

HEY! there's not such thing as a flying-goat God. Its a Red Dragon by the name of Brutus!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

HEY! there's not such thing as a flying-goat God. Its a Red Dragon by the name of Brutus!

But my one had alliteration

 

[lengstar]

I also believe in Leprachuans and Fairies.

 

[Vezzellda]

Ok,

Re: contradictions in the bible, especially dealing with different accounts in the gospels of the specifics of Jesus' death, rooster crowing, etc.
I think that these slight variations (and they are slight, they do not affect the overall message) support the accuracy of the bible instead of disporve its accuracy. These variations show that the gospel accounts are indeed eye witness accounts from 4 different viewpoints of people who were actually there. Think about it, if it were people making up the story years later wouldn't they carefully collaborate to make sure that their accounts matched up and faults couldn't be found? Instead they are genuine accounts that have not been written with knowledge of the others' but have still come out in the end as remarkably similar and dealing with the same core issues and message.

Re: 7 day Genesis creation account, vs. theory of evolution.
Genesis is not meant to be a scientific account but is written in a poetic form. It aim is to say who: God, what: created everything, and why humans created: to have a relationship with him. It does not aim to say how all this happened. If evolution is proved to be true that's fine with me, i'll believe it because it can explain how God went about creating everything. The word "day" in Genesis in the original language can actually mean just a period of time and so 7 days could have actually meant 7 million years or however many billion years or whatever it is.

 

[Vezzellda]

It will be a relief when we die and get to find out who is right.

 

[Sophie777]

Ok,

Re: contradictions in the bible, especially dealing with different accounts in the gospels of the specifics of Jesus' death, rooster crowing, etc.
I think that these slight variations (and they are slight, they do not affect the overall message) support the accuracy of the bible instead of disporve its accuracy. These variations show that the gospel accounts are indeed eye witness accounts from 4 different viewpoints of people who were actually there. Think about it, if it were people making up the story years later wouldn't they carefully collaborate to make sure that their accounts matched up and faults couldn't be found? Instead they are genuine accounts that have not been written with knowledge of the others' but have still come out in the end as remarkably similar and dealing with the same core issues and message.

Re: 7 day Genesis creation account, vs. theory of evolution.
Genesis is not meant to be a scientific account but is written in a poetic form. It aim is to say who: God, what: created everything, and why humans created: to have a relationship with him. It does not aim to say how all this happened. If evolution is proved to be true that's fine with me, i'll believe it because it can explain how God went about creating everything. The word "day" in Genesis in the original language can actually mean just a period of time and so 7 days could have actually meant 7 million years or however many billion years or whatever it is.

Out of interest, are there historical records and accounts of those who wrote the bible actually existing and existing as those who they say they were?

 

[Sophie777]

Ok,

Re: contradictions in the bible, especially dealing with different accounts in the gospels of the specifics of Jesus' death, rooster crowing, etc.
I think that these slight variations (and they are slight, they do not affect the overall message) support the accuracy of the bible instead of disporve its accuracy. These variations show that the gospel accounts are indeed eye witness accounts from 4 different viewpoints of people who were actually there. Think about it, if it were people making up the story years later wouldn't they carefully collaborate to make sure that their accounts matched up and faults couldn't be found? Instead they are genuine accounts that have not been written with knowledge of the others' but have still come out in the end as remarkably similar and dealing with the same core issues and message.

Re: 7 day Genesis creation account, vs. theory of evolution.
Genesis is not meant to be a scientific account but is written in a poetic form. It aim is to say who: God, what: created everything, and why humans created: to have a relationship with him. It does not aim to say how all this happened. If evolution is proved to be true that's fine with me, i'll believe it because it can explain how God went about creating everything. The word "day" in Genesis in the original language can actually mean just a period of time and so 7 days could have actually meant 7 million years or however many billion years or whatever it is.

Evolution would disprove theists belief that 'adam and eve' were people and would put other animals on the same level as humans and we are hence not the supreme being. Evolution wouldn't explain How God created things, it is the process of gradual variation due to environmental selecting pressures and differing ecological roles of species. If it were true (evolution, which it is) then it would explain the process of change which God could not have envisaged.

 

[ur_inner_child]

That's what she's saying: that God DOES NOT explain how the universe became - the importance is that GOD created the universe, not the HOW.

It doesn't matter "how". It's "WHO".

(just repeating what she said)

 

[malkin86]

Ok,

Re: contradictions in the bible, especially dealing with different accounts in the gospels of the specifics of Jesus' death, rooster crowing, etc.
I think that these slight variations (and they are slight, they do not affect the overall message) support the accuracy of the bible instead of disporve its accuracy. These variations show that the gospel accounts are indeed eye witness accounts from 4 different viewpoints of people who were actually there. Think about it, if it were people making up the story years later wouldn't they carefully collaborate to make sure that their accounts matched up and faults couldn't be found? Instead they are genuine accounts that have not been written with knowledge of the others' but have still come out in the end as remarkably similar and dealing with the same core issues and message.

I don't mind about the variations on facts, but strangely, I do mind on ideas. Like the general desirability of vegetarianism or restricted diet in Christianity, or when divorce is allowable, or is there an unforgivable sin? And when the bible does contradict itself on moral issues, which bit is given preference above the others?

 

[joujou_84]

helllllllllllllooooooo. y are ppl still using the bible to prove god. that isnt going to prove anything to an athiest............hell it dosent prove anything to me and i believe in god. the bible is not sufficient evidence for gods existence. its sufficient ONLY for CHRISTIANS who believe in god. also i would like to know exactly how u can base ur evidence on the bible........................its a series of stories. and also there are many editions to the bible, therefore somehwere along the line some parts of it were changed

 

[ur_inner_child]

Some people are merely pointing out the fact that Evolution and the belief in God aren't exactly 100% oppose each other. *shrugs*

But yeah, some couldn't be bothered reading the BAZILLION pages this thread has made hahahahahaha.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: contradictions in the bible, especially dealing with different accounts in the gospels of the specifics of Jesus' death, rooster crowing, etc.
I think that these slight variations (and they are slight, they do not affect the overall message) support the accuracy of the bible instead of disporve its accuracy. These variations show that the gospel accounts are indeed eye witness accounts from 4 different viewpoints of people who were actually there. Think about it, if it were people making up the story years later wouldn't they carefully collaborate to make sure that their accounts matched up and faults couldn't be found? Instead they are genuine accounts that have not been written with knowledge of the others' but have still come out in the end as remarkably similar and dealing with the same core issues and message.

Claim:
The Bible's internal harmony around a central theme testifies to its divine authorship. It is 66 books written over 16 centuries by some 40 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.
- Many people have noticed the difference between the Old Testament God, who is vengeful and bloodthirsty (e.g., Genesis 6-8; Exodus 7-11) and commands and aids the slaughter of one's enemies (e.g., Exodus 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.

- 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. - source

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

Re: 7 day Genesis creation account, vs. theory of evolution.
Genesis is not meant to be a scientific account but is written in a poetic form. It aim is to say who: God, what: created everything, and why humans created: to have a relationship with him. It does not aim to say how all this happened. If evolution is proved to be true that's fine with me, i'll believe it because it can explain how God went about creating everything. The word "day" in Genesis in the original language can actually mean just a period of time and so 7 days could have actually meant 7 million years or however many billion years or whatever it is.

As you said it doesn't expain 'how,' ie. it doesn't actually give an explanation.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It will be a relief when we die and get to find out who is right.

The only valid position to take is that of agnosticism. As for the other two, neither one might be right - God might exist but he might be a She who isn't ominpotent or omniscient, or even 'good.'

 

[acmilan]

From the small amount that i have read in here it is very hard to debate this issue when most of the people are devoid of any depth in understanding of the Bible, Tenach and any other holy books, and the spiritual beliefs of religious traditions. There are many commonalities between religious traditions that many people do not realise. Speaking from a Christian viewpoint from now on. There IS physical evidence of the people who wrote the Bible existing and even of Jesus existing. Even athiests admit to this. The issue is not whether Jesus existed, but whether what he proclaimed was true. As to whether God exists, there is just as much evidence for as there is against it. Everything discussed in here is purely opinion