There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

God never changes, he is the same today, tomorrow and forever. He is the bigging and the end Alpha and Omega. Our book has been a best seller throughout history.

harry potter was a best seller too.

 

[outhouse]

the time wasted studying a book for its history when it is not even chronologically correct

We all know wallowing in ignorance is the proper way to learn and advance our knowledge

 

[outhouse]

Maybe one day you will understand.

Mythology does not study history, going blindly through life.



History studies mythology.

 

[outhouse]

it is not even chronologically correct

It is not even historically correct. That is a fact. And you refuse to learn about this.

History is the truth, why avoid the truth.


Its rather ironic that OP makes a historical statement, but refuses to even study about history. flat refuses education and knowledge on a topic HE STARTED

 

[Sonofason]

We are not any more evolved than any other species.

Honestly, I would love to see some evidence to back this statement.

 

[McBell]

God never changes, he is the same today, tomorrow and forever. He is the bigging and the end Alpha and Omega. Our book has been a best seller throughout history.

Except from the OT to the NT...

But don't let facts get in your way.

 

[adi2d]

I am a reasonable man and am still reading. Maybe it is time to look at some of the other reasons to believe. This thread is becoming side tracked with a lot of trivia

 

[McBell]

I am a reasonable man and am still reading. Maybe it is time to look at some of the other reasons to believe. This thread is becoming side tracked with a lot of trivia

This thread went from a blatant attack on atheists to a test of the back peddling capabilities of Thread Starter, just to end up being a bait and switch.

 

[SkepticThinker]

For your amusement, I do link it again. It's the blue arrow button in the blue box.

Nice, thank you!

 

[Password]

God does not change, we do. It may take eons for us as a collective whole to understand life with a sound purposeful existence. There is a reason why man is limited, unworthy perhaps. The ages of collective communicative knowledge that even comes remotely come close to what we had at the beginning of our origin "is" written to be a personal relationship. God does not change, the change is limited in us until the revelation of our doom sets us free. Doom and death are not limited to physical understanding within the spiritual growth. What we get from scripture is not always a revelation for all, you have to put the seeking efforts into it. And of course if you don't you will become the fool to those who have, but the real ones know its part of the process.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Gosh darn, why didn't you link us to it?

This is what Serenity really said "That is a tad condescending and arrogant, don't you think? Militant Atheists, after all, are void of moral accountability. They have no consequences to their actions, so there is no reason for them to account for them"

He did link it for us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That does not mean that militant atheists, with narcissistic psychopathic tendencies, do not see themselves as top dogs on metaphysical beliefs. They do, and if they try and exert their diabolical beliefs and coercion on me, which they have, many times, I will defend myself and my beliefs vigorously.

Can you please elaborate on what you think narcissistic psychopathic tendencies are to you?

And can you also elaborate on what specific diabolical beliefs you think [militant] atheists are trying to force on you?

We’re talking about being responsible for our own actions. Why are you talking about metaphysical beliefs?

Yes, I accept that they are in the minority, but so was Hitler when he set out on his mission to control the world. You should never undermine the power of the minority.

Hitler was defeated by the majority and I don’t think most people consider him an atheist.

Secondly, you always find them on these kind of forums. I rarely get a chance to debate with someone of a different faith to mine about their interpretation of Scripture without some antitheist drawing the topic to "we are idiots for believing in fairy stories" .

So ignore the atheist and speak to directly to your fellow faithful posters.

Atheists shouldn’t be expected to just shut up because you don’t like what they have to say. What happens when someone wants you to shut up because they don’t like what you’re saying? Should you just have to go away? Not to mention that there are more than enough atheists on this board qualified to discuss scripture with anyone looking to do so.

I am afraid that most posts here are anecdotal. Experience can be a valuable commodity.

Our personal experiences are colored by our own perceptions and biases and the data set is much too small to draw any general conclusions. Such are the problems with anecdotal evidence. This is why we look to scientific evidence which has a built-in, self-correcting mechanism to weed out bias, personal opinion and erroneous data.
Obviously we have to rely on our own experiences to some degree, but we should recognize that we could easily be wrong, especially in light of actual (scientific) evidence to the contrary.

So unless you have some kind of studies backing up your claim that all or most psychopaths identify as [militant] atheists, I have to question your assertion. I mean, what would you say if I said that the leaders of the Inquisition were clearly narcissistic psychopaths, therefore all people who identify as Christians are narcissistic psychopaths, would you agree with that line of reasoning, or not?

Professor Richard Dawkins. He has made it blatantly clear that he wants to rid the world of religion. He said that we were well on the way to achieving it until the Golf War erupted. He writes books to line his pockets for his retirement. He is a popular antitheist so his beliefs flood the earth with his militant agenda. How many people have been indoctrinated and encouraged to get rid of religion by his influence on them.

Well, just going on what he says, he writes books to educate people about science. And he doesn’t run any indoctrination programs, as far as I can see. I think his problem with religion can be summed up by something he has said, “to a scientist, however, what's really objectionable about religion is that we should be satisfied with a non-explanation to a difficult question instead of working hard to provide a real explanation.” I tend to agree with the sentiment.

He has also said, “Well I consider myself deeply spiritual in one sense, in the same sense that, perhaps, Carl Sagan would have done where I feel deeply moved in a poetic way by the sight of the milky way, by contemplation of the size of the Universe, by contemplation of the immense span of geological time, by looking down a microscope at a single cell, and seeing the intricate structure of a single cell and then reflecting that that cell is multiplied up trillions of times in my own body"...

That doesn’t sound very diabolical to me, how about you? It sounds kind of beautiful to me.

I don’t know what morals you think he is trying to instill beyond thinking, questioning and reasoning. Can you elaborate on that at all? And is he your only example?

Comparing verbal abuse with physical abuse is not really plausible is it? I understand what you mean though, which is why, in hindsight, I should have been more specific as to who I was referring to, antitheists.

Well it’s just an analogy to make a point. A point which you say you understand.

I did not say what you are accusing me of saying. I said "void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists" I did not say that they were "close-minded, mindless bigots" in my OP, you have tagged that onto it. I should have said ""void of the brain washing techniques of antitheists"

Oh come on. You most certainly suggested that atheists are close-minded and mindless bigots. A sentiment you have repeated more than once on this thread.

It is my daughter not my sister. My daughter did much of her studies, and 4 years as a professional, in a secured unit with Criminal psychopaths, schizophrenic and sociopaths. Almost 80% of them had no religions. That is not anecdotal, it is fact. Thank goodness she left and now looks after patients with eating disorders.

My apologies. It’s still anecdotal information unless she’s carried out some kind of scientific studies on the subject indicating some kind of causal relationship between the two things. I too have some experience dealing with mentally ill people and have spoken to some schizophrenics who think they’ve been chosen by god to carry out his will in order to change the world. So where does that leave us here?

Look, you do not have to believe a word I say. I am not pressurising you into believing me, but yes, I have that information from an authorised source.

There’s no authority in atheism. We don’t have spokespeople.

So you have a single atheist person who told you that they only reason they feel guilt about something is because they got caught?

It don't work like that, if you are a narcissistic psychopaths, schizophrenic or a sociopaths

So you’re trying to tell me that not only are you qualified to diagnose schizophrenia and psychopathy, but that these people are exclusively found in the atheist community? What are you saying?

I have taken literally hundreds of polls, both for the commercial sector and for governmental use. I have conducted a poll recently for the government, as a result of the riots here, that is thought to have been caused by the moral decline of our society, that the experts feel started them. Guess what, this is it. Please do not ask for details. It is confidential at this time.

Well if you can’t cite them, they’re basically worthless because I simply have to take your word for it.

Again though, I still don’t think I know what you’re saying here. You appear to be saying you’ve conducted a poll that indicates that, “Most atheists recognise that there is a objective morality which most of us recognise and adhere to … “ and that atheists are the cause of the moral decline of our society? How do those things go together? I’m confused.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Serenity7855]

Can you please elaborate on what you think narcissistic psychopathic tendencies are to you?

What I think is exactly what they are defined as being. If you check them on the free Internet dictionary you will be as wise as I am.

And can you also elaborate on what specific diabolical beliefs you think [militant] atheists are trying to force on you?

Antitheists not atheists. Their belief that they know better then we do about our own faith in deity. Their belief that we are delusional for believing in a God that they cannot see or feel. The underhanded method the use to stupify Christians because they believe we are pious. Their belief that hostility that they use to Bully and coerce will somehow make us see what they see.

We’re talking about being responsible for our own actions. Why are you talking about metaphysical beliefs?

Why not?

Hitler was defeated by the majority and I don’t think most people consider him an atheist.

Not before he had 6 million Jews executed. Little groups have a tendency of becoming larger groups so, for the benefit of our society we need to be vigilant.

So ignore the atheist and speak to directly to your fellow faithful posters.

You are joking, right. On every religious forum that I have been on the atheists far out number the theists. Christians do not like confrontational situation so they would rather cease posting then be confronted with the odious behaviour of the antitheist. Unfortunately, the same rule applies here. Christians attract atheists by doing nothing. Atheist love to gather in packs to taunt and ridicule Christians. It has always been that way, when you have two groups of people, where one thrives on humility and the other on confrontation.

Atheists shouldn’t be expected to just shut up because you don’t like what they have to say. What happens when someone wants you to shut up because they don’t like what you’re saying? Should you just have to go away? Not to mention that there are more than enough atheists on this board qualified to discuss scripture with anyone looking to do so.

It is absolutely nothing to do with what they say, it is the manner in which they say it. I know what the resolve is but I just cannot see atheists stopping their fun in bullying Christian.

If someone asked me to shut up because they didn't like what I was saying I would genuinely respect their wishes and I would shut up. That you obviously think differently suggests that you are confrontational and you would say it anyway. Our society is full of people who do what they want and not what the ought to do. In this case, to be a peace maker and cease the discussion.

Our personal experiences are colored by our own perceptions and biases and the data set is much too small to draw any general conclusions. Such are the problems with anecdotal evidence. This is why we look to scientific evidence which has a built-in, self-correcting mechanism to weed out bias, personal opinion and erroneous data.
Obviously we have to rely on our own experiences to some degree, but we should recognize that we could easily be wrong, especially in light of actual (scientific) evidence to the contrary.

You do not have to sell science to me. I have worked within the science world for many years. I am an advocate of the scientific method, however, I use a great deal of common sense and intuition

So unless you have some kind of studies backing up your claim that all or most psychopaths identify as [militant] atheists, I have to question your assertion. I mean, what would you say if I said that the leaders of the Inquisition were clearly narcissistic psychopaths, therefore all people who identify as Christians are narcissistic psychopaths, would you agree with that line of reasoning, or not?

No, but if you said that there is a off shout of the Christian religion was practicing Devil worshipping, as I have done with atheists and Antiatheists, I would believe it. You have to trust the words of everyone until such time as they let you down at which time you treat what the say with scepticism.

Well, just going on what he says, he writes books to educate people about science. And he doesn’t run any indoctrination programs, as far as I can see. I think his problem with religion can be summed up by something he has said, “to a scientist, however, what's really objectionable about religion is that we should be satisfied with a non-explanation to a difficult question instead of working hard to provide a real explanation.” I tend to agree with the sentiment.

Well, he did say it.

The Unbelievers Plan to Rid the World of God
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on May 7, 2013

Following the opening of their documentary The Unbelievers, outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discussed the merits of their approaches to “ridding the world of religion.”

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/tv/the-unbelievers-plan-to-rid-the-world-of-god/

He has also said, “Well I consider myself deeply spiritual in one sense, in the same sense that, perhaps, Carl Sagan would have done where I feel deeply moved in a poetic way by the sight of the milky way, by contemplation of the size of the Universe, by contemplation of the immense span of geological time, by looking down a microscope at a single cell, and seeing the intricate structure of a single cell and then reflecting that that cell is multiplied up trillions of times in my own body"...

That doesn’t sound very diabolical to me, how about you? It sounds kind of beautiful to me.

To be honest it matters not who we are that description is awesome. It is one reason why I am a firm believer in God.

I don’t know what morals you think he is trying to instill beyond thinking, questioning and reasoning. Can you elaborate on that at all? And is he your only example?

I suppose I could but I would be digressing.

Well it’s just an analogy to make a point. A point which you say you understand.

As I said, his description is awesome, but I cannot believe that there is not some kind of designer behind it.

Oh come on. You most certainly suggested that atheists are close-minded and mindless bigots. A sentiment you have repeated more than once on this thread.

Not in the OP I haven't

My apologies. It’s still anecdotal information unless she’s carried out some kind of scientific studies on the subject indicating some kind of causal relationship between the two things. I too have some experience dealing with mentally ill people and have spoken to some schizophrenics who think they’ve been chosen by god to carry out his will in order to change the world. So where does that leave us here?

We can agree to differ or we can conclude that mental illnesses are frequently a part of the antitheits make up.

There’s no authority in atheism. We don’t have spokespeople.

Yes you do. You are a spokespeople.

So you have a single atheist person who told you that they only reason they feel guilt about something is because they got caught?

No, it is anecdotal, a part of a poll conducted 2 years ago.

So you’re trying to tell me that not only are you qualified to diagnose schizophrenia and psychopathy, but that these people are exclusively found in the atheist community? What are you saying?

No, I am not saying that I am qualified to make such a diagnosis. I am using common sense. schizophrenia and psychopathy rarely feel remorse or guilt for their actions.

Well if you can’t cite them, they’re basically worthless because I simply have to take your word for it.

No, You make your own mind up. Don't listen to me, I could be wrong. Do your own research and satisfy yourself.

Unfortunately, once these polls have been given to those who commissioned it they become their property so to give details is against the data protection laws.

Again though, I still don’t think I know what you’re saying here. You appear to be saying you’ve conducted a poll that indicates that, “Most atheists recognise that there is a objective morality which most of us recognise and adhere to … “ and that atheists are the cause of the moral decline of our society? How do those things go together? I’m confused.

Objective morality is the belief that there is a universal moral code. Morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." in order for a feeling of guilt to be felt by an atheist he has to look at non-Christian sources. Objective morality is one of those sources.

Objective morality does not produce a perfect society for us to live in. If objective morality exists then it wouldn't mean that everyone would comply with it. We all have free agency There is always exception to every rule. Besides, objective morality is not a proven phenomenon. It is a postulation.

 

[Agnostic75]

Well, I have not said that science can prove the existence of God. It can't. I said that using science one could come to the conclusion that a God exists.

That is not what you said in the opening post, but let's discuss your revised claim that "using science one could come to the conclusion that a God exists."

My reply to that is that using science one could come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence that God does, or does not exist, and that there are not any good reasons to currently make any scientific conclusions about the existence of God, and that that issue should be left to other disciplines, such as theology, and philosophy.

Now you have finally departed from science, which is good since you should not have discussed science in the first place. If supernatural events point to design, then obviously there is no need to discuss science.

I disagree as the big bang incorporates science, as does abiogenesis and fine tuning.

No, the Big Bang does incorporate science, and so does Newton's third law of motion, which you said provides evidence for the existence of God. With your permission, I will start a new thread about whether or not the Big Bang incorporates science, and whether or not Newton's third law incorporates science, and I will quote your claims about those two issues.

In the opening post, you used the Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for the existence of God. The KCA is a scientific argument. Wikipedia says:

William Lane Craig has defended the first premise as rationally intuitive knowledge, based upon the properly basic metaphysical intuition that "something cannot come into being from nothing", pointing out that such knowledge is assumed as a critically important first principle of science.

So according to Craig, and surely most physicists, the Big Bang incorporates science.

Wikipedia says:

Cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities. Religious cosmology (or mythological cosmology) is a body of beliefs based on the historical, mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation and eschatology.

So there are two kinds of cosmology, physical cosmology, and religious cosmology. Surely the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an example of physical cosmology, which would incorporate science.

Religion does not try to explain the phenomenon it uses the phenomenon to corroborate it's belief in God.

Are you referring to the Big Bang? If so, how do you wish to use the Big Bang to corroborate belief in God?

I do not believe that I have used the science behind they theory. I believe that I have just used the theory.

You used the Big Bang, and Newton's third law as scientific evidence for the existence of God.

Discussing supernatural events will take months of discussions just to get started, so please present your evidence of supernatural events that were caused by the God of the Bible. The Bible promises eternal rewards only to Christian theists, not to all theists, so merely proposing that an unknown God has caused any supernatural events to occur is not helpful from a biblical perspective.......

Oh my word. That is to much of a tall order to fulfill, I am afraid. I dare say that I will touch on most of it over time here but the subject is vast.

Well, you mentioned supernatural events as evidence. If you do not wish to discuss that issue now, that is fine, in which case, what do you want to discuss?

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. How could Paul have known that? Why isn't it just as possible that God is an imposter? If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?

A really simple answer. The Holy Ghost, who testifies of that which is true. Without him, I would not be a Christian today.?

I said:

"If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?"

If God was an imposter, your answer would not make any sense since God would not be who the Bible claims he is. Your answer would only make sense if God is who the Bible says he is, and you cannot provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that God is not an imposter since if he was an imposter, no mere human would be able to know that. An omnipotent evil God would be just as powerful as an omnipotent God. In addition, an omnipotent evil God would be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that under different circumstances, many Christians would not be Christians today. Simple proof of that is that the percentages of people who are Christians who live in predominantly Christian countries is much higher than the percentages of Christians who live in predominantly Muslim countries.

There is a landmark book that is titled "One Nation Under God," by Kosmin and Lachman. I suggest that you buy it. The book is praised by prominent Christians Billy Graham, and John Cardinal O'Connor. The book is obviously not anti-Christian, or anti-theist, but it provides a lot of documented research that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age significantly influence what people believe. For example, the book shows that women are much more likely to become theists than men are.

You will obviously counter by saying that God only holds people accountable for what they ought to know based upon the information that they have heard, and non-tangible evidence that they have experienced, but my position is that if the God of the Bible exists, he will unfairly deny eternal life to some people.

Let's say that John Smith lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly, so he was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire life. Most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was a baby, and lived there for the rest of his life, it is reasonably possible that he would have become a Christian.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

There are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since Tom not have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised. My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that some Christians would not have become Christians under certain other circumstances, and even if they knew enough about the Bible to be accountable.

For all practical purposes, John and Tom are the same person. Does Tom the clone deserve to have eternal life since he became a Christian? If so, why doesn’t John deserve to have eternal life since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same circumstances as Tom? If Tom the clone deserves to have eternal life, why don’t all skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances not deserve to have eternal life? How are they any different than Tom?

 

[McBell]

Antitheists not atheists. Their belief that they know better then we do about our own faith in deity. Their belief that we are delusional for believing in a God that they cannot see or feel. The underhanded method the use to stupify Christians because they believe we are pious. Their belief that hostility that they use to Bully and coerce will somehow make us see what they see.

What I fail to understand is why you, while claiming the higher moral ground, think that acting the exact way you claim you hate them acting is some how acceptable.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am somewhat perplexed. Why are you nit picking with semantics? What are you hoping to achieve by bring grammar to the forefront of the discussion. Are you trying to discredit my intelligence by saying "look folks, he cannot even use correct grammar, so why should we take him seriously, " or are you trying to say that I have changed my story, mid discussion, which makes me dishonest and quintessentially stupid.

I do not see anything constructive in this line of discussion. To me the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The English dictionary says that "likely," and "possibly" are interchangeable. In its Thesaurus it uses the word "possible" to describe "likely". Yes the two claims mean the same thing, but even if they didn't, you would still be able to decipher what I am trying to say, because the both describe the same thing, even if you think to a greater or lesser degree, unless you are determined to rock the boat.

In the opening post, you said "more likely," not "likely." Therefore, the issue is obviously not whether or not "possibly," and "likely" are interchangeable, but whether or not "more likely," and "possibly," are interchangeable, which they are not.

Maybe I should have said that there is a "good chance" that he exists. Would that be before "likely" but after "possible" in accuracy, or would it be less then the both of them, or even more probable. Oh no, it could be probable as well.

If you wish to claim that there is a good chance that God exists, I would not object to that as long as you did not claim that there is a better chance that God exists than not.

Anyway, you have not shown that science shows that it is more likely, or more probable that God exists than not.

I wasn't trying to.

You were in the opening post, and I just proved that you were.

I know what science believes about it.

Apparently not since you said that you could use science to show a reasonable man that it is more likely that God exists than not.

It believes the only thing it can because God does not have an empirical value to him. It will say that it does not know how the big bang happened and remain commentless on the God possibility, likelihood, chance or probability.

Good, I do not object to that.

This link will tell you what science thinks https://santitafarella.wordpress.com...-the-big-bang/

I do not object to that either.

 

[Agnostic75]

First of all, your reply did not have anything to do with my comment that "a large percentage of theists do not know enough about physics to have scientifically informed opinions about the Big Bang theory, and Newton's third law of motion," which is definitely true. Surely quantum physics is often too counterintuitive for the majority of laymen to adequately understand.

Yes, that is very true. We have around 10 theories for quantum physics with none of them being fool proof. We are in the early stages of sub-automic particles, but when we do get a better understanding of it then the doors will be opened to God science, that I am sure. I have difficulty with it as it gives me headaches just thinking about it.

My positions are as follows:

1. Since quantum physics is young, complex, often counterintuitive, and has often partly changed, there are not any good reasons for people to jump to conclusions about how much science can tell us about the existence of God.

2. The preceding is even more true for people who know very little about physics.

3. You cannot know what science will be able to tell us about the existence of God in the future, especially a particular God, and the Bible requires belief only in the God of the Bible in order for people to have eternal life.

 

[outhouse]

God does not change,.

The god concept and how he is defined factually changes all the time.


How man creates and defines god needs to evolve to meet the new cultural needs, as the cultures evolves.