Does God Exist?

[outhouse]

just do a wiki search for galileo and read yourself.

 

[TheKnight]

like many christians you pick and choose scripture to meet your needs, lucky i know the bible

does the bible not say the highest mountain was covered by 20 feet???

does the bible not say its a worldwide flood to kill all mankind and animals to?

You keep sidetracking because you cannot stand up for ancient mans mistakes in the so called "gods words"


there was no world wide flood

the sun doesnt revolve around the earth

the earth was not created with man and animals in 6 days

The bible is not a accurate history book or a science book.

I'm only commenting on this to say that the Tanakh does not say worldwide flood. The Hebrew terms used only convey that there was a flood in the land. If the authors had intended to say worldwide, they would have used different words which are must clearer in conveying the concept of worldwide.

Also, the Bible doesn't say that they sun revolves around the Earth

Neither does it say that the world was created in 6 24-hour days.


Also where does it say the highest mountain was covered by 20 feet?

 

[TheKnight]

just do a wiki search for galileo and read yourself.

Oh...you don't have any actual knowledge....that's what I thought.

I knew your claims sounded like some retard's list from an anti-Bible website based off of hatred of the Christian faith....

 

[outhouse]

Oh...you don't have any actual knowledge....that's what I thought.

I knew your claims sounded like some retard's list from an anti-Bible website based off of hatred of the Christian faith....

first of all the text can be read both ways as far as a geocentric earth is concerned but we know the early church condemed galilieo because he stated the earth revolved around the sun. He died in his home under house arrest.

another story of the church murdering people because of the bible

would be Giordano Bruno

I asked you guys to search so you could learn real history in a book with facts not the religious fiction you have been reading. in my opinion.

must suck athiest know the bible better then you do


genesis 7:20 mountains. The words “high hills” and “mountains” are the same in the original Hebrew. The waters were 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains, patently including Mount Ararat, which is now 17,000 feet high. In the “local-flood” theory, Mt. Ararat would have had the same elevation before and after the Flood, but it should be obvious that a 17,000-foot flood is not a local flood!



please learn the facts before you speak.

the bible also states a day is a 24 hour day so please quit interpreting what you do not know

 

[PolyHedral]

There is no book that will say Neanderthalis ever existed:no:

Other than the libraries worth of archeological studies, you mean? No book could ever describe Neanderthal first-hand, but there are tons of books studying their remains.

30,000 years ago could have started some oral history. 40,000 years ago people went to Australia to build boats and do many things communication was necessary. I even said oral history in an earlier post if you had paid attention. Oral history passed down and recorded thousands of years later (25+ thousand years).

Except it'd be nigh-impossible for an ancient tribe to distinguish "neanderthal" from "foreign human." And it would be nigh-impossible for any information, even myths, to survive 25,000 years of Chinese Whispers.

What caused the Big Bang? We had a point that contained everything and then went boom. No reason unless there was something here before that was being drawn in and it reached critical mass. I say God did it. I also know that the true age of what we call the universe is a good guess and I am sure it is close but; with expansion and the fact that when expansion and movement are combined time becomes a little harder to tell we could be wrong.

You appear to be under the impression that every event must have a cause. This is false. At the atomic and sub-atomic scale things happen for literally no reason at all. There does not need to be any cause to the Big Bang, despite what your intuition might tell you. Hence, no (apparent) need for God.

(Though I'm not saying that I can say for sure God doesn't exist, only that He isn't needed to explain anything.)

Did I say world wide flood? Regional over the earth that was inhabited which in the Hebrew it says earth and that earth did not mean globe.

So what's important about a regional flood? Why that particular one, (which we're not even sure happened at all) out of umpteen million?

 

[Archer]

Other than the libraries worth of archeological studies, you mean? No book could ever describe Neanderthal first-hand, but there are tons of books studying their remains.

Neanderthal yes, Neanderthalis no it was a hit on the word you used.

As to the rest of your post, well I do not necessarily agree or disagree I am at the other end of things though.

Would it not be neat to actually find out what these people were like and how they did communicate.

 

[Archer]

I'm only commenting on this to say that the Tanakh does not say worldwide flood. The Hebrew terms used only convey that there was a flood in the land. If the authors had intended to say worldwide, they would have used different words which are must clearer in conveying the concept of worldwide.

Also, the Bible doesn't say that they sun revolves around the Earth

Neither does it say that the world was created in 6 24-hour days.


Also where does it say the highest mountain was covered by 20 feet?

Oh...you don't have any actual knowledge....that's what I thought.

I knew your claims sounded like some retard's list from an anti-Bible website based off of hatred of the Christian faith....

Thanks for the back up Frubs

Outhouse it was and is about power and corruption controlling the will and money of the ignorant.

Many have and do take God outside of nature. God works with what is not what is not.

 

[PolyHedral]

Neanderthal yes, Neanderthalis no it was a hit on the word you used.

As to the rest of your post, well I do not necessarily agree or disagree I am at the other end of things though.

Would it not be neat to actually find out what these people were like and how they did communicate.

Oh, oops, sorry. I was talking about homo neanderthalis.
Homo Neanderthalis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(EDIT: No I'm not, because I missed an n.)

 

[Archer]

you are done sir because you do no research, you dont know history, and your bible has led you into a corner in which, you sir! cannot get out.

This thread is about the question if god exist, i say he is mans imagination based on previous pagan myths and you sir cannot prove me wrong.

You cannot prove a myth exist no matter how hard you try there has never been a shred of proof for your one of a thousand different gods.

I do enjoy your snide remarks, it shows your lack of class, education and debating ability.

Have a nice day

Nothing of thew sort I know he has researched as nothing he has said it taught conventionally. Get a KJV Strong Numbers a concordance and a Greek/Hebrew/English dictionary with Strong Numbers and then educate yourself out of your apparent willful ignorance. If you do not do this you will have no foundation to even contemplate the formation of a half *** argument against someone who actually has studied the Bible or Hebrew/Jewish scriptures and has the knowledge of how to use the tools I mentioned.

 

[outhouse]

Nothing of thew sort I know he has researched as nothing he has said it taught conventionally. Get a KJV Strong Numbers a concordance and a Greek/Hebrew/English dictionary with Strong Numbers and then educate yourself out of your apparent willful ignorance. If you do not do this you will have no foundation to even contemplate the formation of a half *** argument against someone who actually has studied the Bible or Hebrew/Jewish scriptures and has the knowledge of how to use the tools I mentioned.

This thread is about the question if god exist, i say he is mans imagination based on previous pagan myths and you sir cannot prove me wrong.

You cannot prove a myth exist no matter how hard you try there has never been a shred of proof for your one of a thousand different gods.

I do enjoy your snide remarks, it shows your lack of class, education and debating ability.

Have a nice day

 

[outhouse]

The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology

heres a link for sciptual geocentic earth and how the bible states it.

AND

how they thought it was a flat earth

 

[Archer]

This thread is about the question if god exist, i say he is mans imagination based on previous pagan myths and you sir cannot prove me wrong.

You cannot prove a myth exist no matter how hard you try there has never been a shred of proof for your one of a thousand different gods.

I do enjoy your snide remarks, it shows your lack of class, education and debating ability.

Have a nice day

Your apparent willful ignorance is only slightly out weighed by your arrogance. It is a debate and you can only draw on hot air so you sink to a level that shows you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. I have an education and you can't debate a childish acting person such as yourself and as far as class you have not got a clue.

 

[Erebus]

I am defining God to be the Judeo-Christian God. There is no reason to say God exists any more than there is to say that unicorns exist because there is no evidence of God. This is a very common argument and is very persuasive.

Awwww spoilsport

ok if it's the Judeo-Christian God we're talking about I would say no, it doesn't exist. My reasoning is that it is one of the gods who has not interacted with me in any way. It hasn't answered prayers, spoken or even given me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Since I place a lot of importance on personal experience, this lack of interaction leads me to believe that either the judeo-Christian God does not exist or he is uninterested in me. Since Christians tend to say that God loves everybody, it seems more likely that he doesn't exist (at least not in the manner he is usually portrayed) than existing and being uninterested.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

I actually have never read the original documents talking about Julius Caesar. I have not even directly talked to the people who makes claims about his existence. I have simply read about him in textbook and watched documentaries about him on the history channel. This is not to say that I believe everything that comes on that show, and they also put on some controversial stuff that I don't believe.

I find that whenever ideas are presented by authoritative sources as absolutely true, and that they say that there is no controversy about the idea, this comes from multiple sources, and there is no visible resistance to the idea, I generally believe what they tell me about Caesar. They also show me images of statues of Caesar, some of his writings, and places surrounding his story. The fact that they have made a detailed story about him also indicates that they may have a lot of facts. Some of the info about him may not be 100% certain because there is error in everything, however, his general existence is the most certain thing about him.

I find that whenever smart people support an idea, provide some samples of evidence, claim that this idea is not controversial, and I see no one challenging it, that idea almost always ends up to be true when I get around to testing it. The existence of Canada was considered a fact and it was validated when I went there, free-fall acceleration being 9.80 m/s^2 was validated when I did physics experiments myself, the existence of Barrack Obama was validated when I saw him during a rally. However, I once considered the existence of Jesus to just be a fact until I saw some evidence questioning that and realized that there was some controversy.

This is what it means to trust something. We trust things because we do not have the time to test everything. Trust is when you believe something without full evidence because of authority, workability, and evidence. however, there are some provisions.
1. Past experience must have validated the source.
2. The trust is not 100% and can be broken.
3. The source must be authorative.
4. In many cases, if the source was wrong, there would be people speaking out, but there are not.

We do not see this sort of credibility when it comes to mythological claims. There is little authority to validate it, it has never been observed or proven to me, mythological claims have never been validated to me when tested, they conflict with each other, many have been disproved by science, and there are often logical problems with them.

This means that your reason for believing in historical people are open to mistakes. Your reasoning also applies to your belief in historical places and things as well. So far, I can think of three flaws to your trust in historical figures:

1. Scholars can be paid to lie about people and things.
2. Scholars can be silenced by threats and death who disagree with the popular or dominating thought.
3. Absence of controversy does not mean that there were none; because the opposing evidence may have been destroyed, hidden, or not recorded.
4. No opposing arguments may exist because people are not interested in these historical figures. :magic:

Furthermore, your reasoning would have led you to believe that Biblical people like Aedam, Noach, Aebraham, and Masheh (Moses) existed.

Also Julius Caesar claimed to be a god and was honored as such. He also believed and worshipped other gods. And since you found no controversy of Julius Caesar existence, then I guess you too consider him as "the invincible god". :unicorn:

According to your thesis, you just believe something just because a book tells you. That is a Pandora's box to all sorts of insane myths.

I have neither to discuss my thesis with you nor anyone in this forum; so your assumption has deceived you yet again about me (It would have been better if you had ask me first). My belief in someone takes into account several factors such as (but not limited to) the following:
1. The Holy Scriptures of Yahweh (aka The Holy Bible).
2. Historical documents surrounding events in the Bible.
3. Archaelogical evidences surrounding events in the Bible.
4. Theological comments supporting God and His Holy Bible.
5. Anti-god comments attempting to discredit God and His Words.
6. The Sons of Yishrael and their current events.
7. My personal experiences with God.

"There is a difference between mythology and theology. What is with this myopic insistence that all super-beings are solely based mythology? You know, there are liars on both sides of believers and non-believers. " ---- LovePeaceHappiness

"You can't just pigeon-hole the true diety with mythological creatures without proof; or do you just believe it." ---- LovePeaceHappiness

Mythology refers to unproven claims about Gods, spirits, ghosts, and the supernatural that have never been scientifically validates. Your claims fall under this definition.

It is no surprise that men have tried to distort the truth through lies and myths for thousands of years. However, the presence of myths do not discount that the events in the Holy Bible had actually occurred. That is why God has left behind true believers to keep the truth available to all who really thirst for truth. One ounce of truth can outweigh a thousand pounds of myths in any balance. :seesaw:

"Early Christian writers often avoided applying the label "myth" to stories in canonical scripture.[1] By the time of Christ, the Greco-Roman world had started to use the Greek word muthos (which evolved into "myth" in English) to mean "fable, fiction, lie".[2] Paul warned Timothy to have nothing to do with "godless and silly myths (muthos)" (1 Timothy 4:7). This meaning of "myth" passed into popular usage.[3] However, some modern Christian scholars and writers have attempted to rehabilitate the term "myth" outside academia, describing stories in canonical scripture (especially the Christ story) as "true myth"; examples include C. S. Lewis and Andrew Greeley." ---- Christian mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :knight:

"And neither do you on establishing a fact of non-existence; and you still have not answer my original question on your method of proof in historical men." ---- LovePeaceHappiness

I do not have to prove a negative. All I simply have to show is that you do not have enough evidence. However, I will try to prove a negative anyway just to have a stronger case. Before I do this, what is your religion or religious beliefs?

Ah, but you have not establish the existence of God as a negative; unless you are unable to do so. And who establishes whether there is enough evidence to prove or disprove something? That amount is purely subjective. The first evidence is the creation of the universe and earth, for starters: It was by design and not from random chaos.

My religion and my religious beliefs are not the focus of this OP. But you should already know something about my beliefs from my posts. :angel2:

 

[Dan4reason]

This means that your reason for believing in historical people are open to mistakes. Your reasoning also applies to your belief in historical places and things as well. So far, I can think of three flaws to your trust in historical figures:

1. Scholars can be paid to lie about people and things.
2. Scholars can be silenced by threats and death who disagree with the popular or dominating thought.
3. Absence of controversy does not mean that there were none; because the opposing evidence may have been destroyed, hidden, or not recorded.
4. No opposing arguments may exist because people are not interested in these historical figures. :magic:

You got it! My method of analysis is not perfect but it sure beats not believing in anything until I spend hundreds of hours on each idea such as the reality of France, the revolutionary war, atomic theory, big bang, dinosaurs, advanced calculus, Government of China, Julius Caesar, etc. I don't want to spend my entire life disbelieving everthing I am told or spending it attempting to verify even the most mundane of claims.

By the way, I don't believe what I learn in the history books just because smart people are making claims. In my last post this is only one of the tests I have for an ideas and of course is hardely sufficient alone. Here are the others.
2. There seems to be nearly unanimous consent among experts.
3. They seem pretty sure.
4. They are able to explain things in detail.
5. They show me a sample of evidence.
6. Whenever I have had the oppurtunity to test these ideas, they are almost always confirmed.
7. There is not a trace of dissent of claims of conspiracy anywhere.
8. Other verified ideas provide evidence for this one. (new)
9. A lack of motive for conspiracy.

There may be a conspiracy but the probability that any one accepted idea is a conspiracy is tiny plus there is not motive at all. What would be the point in fooling the world into believing in Julius Caesar? Sounds kind of stupid to me.

There have been times when I have had to take an accepted idea off the list. I once believed that Jesus existed, however when I realized that there was controvercy over this, I now consider that to be a questionable idea.

My method is the same reason you believe in commonly accepted ideas unless you have seen Bahrain, Paris, and dinosaurs first hand so I do not see why you have a problem with it.

The same is not true of religious claims. Religious claims are in thorough contradiction of each other, lack in evidence, have logical flaws, contradict science and rational thought, lack sufficient backing by smart people and are even opposed by many experts.

 

[Dan4reason]

First I want to respond to the part about people may not be interested in a field. There will always be somebody who is interested in something. I know a guy who has devoted his life to rediscovering old dreadfully boring scottish bagpipe tunes. There are people who will spend all their time documenting pennies, research old egyptian vases, etc.

I can assure you that there really are people who are interested in Julius Caesar and Roman history. Just trust me.

Furthermore, your reasoning would have led you to believe that Biblical people like Aedam, Noach, Aebraham, and Masheh (Moses) existed.

Yes, of course! A solid majority of historians are absolutely sure that Adam existed! No controvercy at all! Wrong!

Also Julius Caesar claimed to be a god and was honored as such. He also believed and worshipped other gods. And since you found no controversy of Julius Caesar existence, then I guess you too consider him as "the invincible god".

:unicorn:

One reason I trust historians so much is that they are not going to believe everything they read. There is absolutely no consensus among Roman historians that Caesar was a God, and actually that is usually regarded as a political move. Plus, I find religious claims to be dubious because so many are so crazy, unproven, and contradictory. I am going to have to ask for extra evidence on that one.

I have neither to discuss my thesis with you nor anyone in this forum; so your assumption has deceived you yet again about me (It would have been better if you had ask me first). My belief in someone takes into account several factors such as (but not limited to) the following:

Sorry.

1. The Holy Scriptures of Yahweh (aka The Holy Bible).

2. Historical documents surrounding events in the Bible.
3. Archaelogical evidences surrounding events in the Bible.
4. Theological comments supporting God and His Holy Bible.
5. Anti-god comments attempting to discredit God and His Words.
6. The Sons of Yishrael and their current events.
7. My personal experiences with God.

The bible is a collection of Jewish and Christian historical documents but like many of those times they have mythology mixed with reality. The fact that the bible is based on historical events does not the supernatural events true.

The fact that the bible says God exists doesn't mean he does. The fact that you have had wonderful feelings does not mean he exists. Comments do not convince me, credibility and evidence does.

 

[Vansdad]

LovePeaceHappiness and I were having a debate about the atonement and he tried to support this by using arguments that assume that God already exists. When I confronted him with this he suggested I make a new thread about this topic, so here it is. The purpose of this thread is to use logic and reason to try to determine whether God exists, or at least find out whether it is likely that God exists.

I am defining God to be the Judeo-Christian God. There is no reason to say God exists any more than there is to say that unicorns exist because there is no evidence of God. This is a very common argument and is very persuasive.

Of course it is likely He exists. And there are many things that even logically point in that direction. Of course no absolute proof but you don't seem to be saying this. One of the first things is life. Out of a few chemicals we exist as living beings. Who did this. The magical unicorn. I think not. This itself is strong evidence of God the Creator. There is no evidence for how life actually started and logically it makes more sence to belive a supreme being did it rather than it just happened or was just always there. Those arguements for how it all exists don't even make any logical sense. It actually sounds like hocus pocus to me. Is there even a logical explanation for life that does not involve a Creator such as God or His laws of nature? And when we think of the complexity of life it truly points to intelligent design which in turn points to God.

 

[PolyHedral]

Of course it is likely He exists. And there are many things that even logically point in that direction. Of course no absolute proof but you don't seem to be saying this. One of the first things is life. Out of a few chemicals we exist as living beings. Who did this. The magical unicorn. I think not. This itself is strong evidence of God the Creator.

No, it's not.

There is no evidence for how life actually started and logically it makes more sence to belive a supreme being did it rather than it just happened or was just always there.

No, it doesn't.

And when we think of the complexity of life it truly points to intelligent design which in turn points to God.

Not really.

 

[outhouse]

Of course it is likely He exists

it is unlikely a man made myth is real. in my opinion.

This itself is strong evidence of God the Creator

nature is not evidence a myth is real.

And when we think of the complexity of life it truly points to intelligent design which in turn points to God.

it points to no such thing and is a direct result of a lack of education

 

[outhouse]

The bible is a collection of Jewish and Christian historical documents but like many of those times they have mythology mixed with reality. The fact that the bible is based on historical events does not the supernatural events true.

The fact that the bible says God exists doesn't mean he does. The fact that you have had wonderful feelings does not mean he exists. Comments do not convince me, credibility and evidence does.

the bible is jewish fiction, its not even original fiction its stolen fiction and then they put there spin on it, inventing a god for there needs. nothing more.

with a little work in history it is easy to see where the jewish god came from.