There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

That’s funny, since the Bible is full of stories where god supposedly intervened to change the outcome of events. Parting the Red Sea for Moses wasn’t an intervention?

15 The Lord said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. 16 Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground.

Who parted the sea?

According to the Exodus account, Moses held out his staff and the Red Sea was parted. The Israelites walked on dry ground and crossed the sea, followed by the Egyptian army. Moses again moved his staff once the Israelites had crossed and the sea closed again, drowning the whole of the Egyptian army. When you make accusations about God intervening then surely it is considered appropriate to at least read the account, if only to save yourself embrassment.

Did god not intervene when Abraham was about to kill his son (on god’s own command), then promise to bless him for following orders?

That was not a intervention it was a similitude of the Father having to allow his son to die an ignominious death. It very likely was a allegorically tale.

You should be able to see that Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. And the servant represented the God the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac.

So, why did Abraham offer his son Isaac? He did so out of obedience--believing that God could raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19), and also in his obedience he acted out the true sacrifice of the true only begotten son, Jesus.

This is a teaching experience for the reader. What is being taught - obedience.

Did god not intervene when he supposedly hardened Pharoah’s heart to demonstrate his power?

God influenced them. He influences me via the Holy Ghost all the time. That is not intervention as the recipient has to recognise it and then use free agency to carry it through.

And if it were the case that god doesn’t or can’t intervene in human affairs, why do people even bother praying?

The act of prayer is to lock into the influence of the Holy Ghost. That influence will give you the answer to anything that can be asked, dependant on your motives. The scripture will also give most answers to prayers. It is not God intervening it is us asking him.

How so? Was Doubting Thomas’ free agency removed? How about Paul’s? According to the Bible, the devil has seen and interacted with god, and yet still apparently has free agency somehow. If it’s good enough for them, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Thomas was a special witness for Christ, a Disciple. If he did not have an unmoveable testimony of divinity then no one has. Paul was an Apostle. the Devil is a disembodied spirit, a son of God. How would we know. Satan does not have free agency. He has no body to use free agency on.

I see no reason why anyone one should not question the whole thing but at least do it without such bigotry and bias for the outcome to be in your favour. I have asked many questions but have always analysed the answers.

Well, there’s no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood. So yeah, we kinda do know.

No, what we do know is that it was not a naturalistic event. That is all we know.

 

[starlite]

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human,

When you use the word "another" human I think that lets God out...he is a spirit

 

[Serenity7855]

So you just said god is not an interventionist, and also not a murderer, but now you say he could have altered the chemical makeup of oxygen to more effectively kill us all?

Huh?

Yes, now, by using your knowledge of science and religion show me why that is not a perfectly adequate answer.

 

[outhouse]

As I am the messenger .

good lord! holy mother of lack of comprehension.

 

[Serenity7855]

Um, there actually is evidence that a train will arrive at Paddington. The first line of evidence is that day after day, it arrives at Paddington, all day long, at fixed time intervals. Another line of evidence that the train will arrive in Paddington, is the train schedule that I can view online. I can even check if it’s on time. I can phone and talk to a person that works in the station about it, if I want to. You can check the schedule before you leave your house, no faith required. Another line of evidence would be people that I can speak with that have actually seen, and been on the train. So yeah, there’s that. More than enough evidence to go on, if you ask me.

Maybe because it’s not obvious at all. See my other post on this.

Read my allegory. I walk to Paddington and arrive for the 9.15 train to King's Cross. I have no schedule I'm my pocket. I have no need to ring the station or go on line to check as everyday I go to the station, at 9.15am, there is a train there that will take me to King's Cross.
Just the regularity of the train always being there tell me that there is a good chance that it will always be there, but do I know that it will be there tomorrow morning. I do not have a clue. Even if I follow it throughout the day there is still no certainty that the train will not break down a 100 metres outside of Paddington. Up until the moment that the train pulls into the station and opens its doors to me, inviting me in, I will be exercising faith. When I am sat in the train purchasing my ticket, I have knowledge that the train will be providing it's usual service. Then I must exercise faith that the train will get to King's Cross safely, like it usually does

Only when I arise on the morning of the first resurrection will my faith in God turn into knowledge, and that is the point I am making and the point you are dissecting, for whatever reason.

 

[Serenity7855]

When you use the word "another" human I think that lets God out...he is a spirit

I do not know what his physical make up is, but he is divinity and we are not, so you are right. He is not mortal.

 

[outhouse]

He is not mortal.

Either is Santa.

but he is divinity

They gave divnity to plenty of mortal living men back then.

we are not

Factually we can be, and thisis factualy recorded.

I do not know what his physical make up is,

Apparently you know it is a "he"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human,

Okay, so your god supposedly premeditatedly killed all of mankind, and every living animal on earth.

That is murder.

 

[SkepticThinker]

15 The Lord said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. 16 Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground.
Who parted the sea?

So, Moses had magical powers? Or what?

Oh wait, there’s more:

13 Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. 14 The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.”
15 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. 16 Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground. 17 I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. 18 The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen.”
19 Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel’s army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, 20 coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long.
21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

Would you like to answer the question again?

According to the Exodus account, Moses held out his staff and the Red Sea was parted. The Israelites walked on dry ground and crossed the sea, followed by the Egyptian army. Moses again moved his staff once the Israelites had crossed and the sea closed again, drowning the whole of the Egyptian army. When you make accusations about God intervening then surely it is considered appropriate to at least read the account, if only to save yourself embrassment.

According to the Exodus account, Moses held out his staff and the Red sea was parted BY GOD.

How embarrassed are you?

That was not a intervention it was a similitude of the Father having to allow his son to die an ignominious death. It very likely was a allegorically tale.
You should be able to see that Abraham represented God the Father. Isaac represented God the Son. And the servant represented the God the Holy Spirit. The sacrifice of Christ was typified in the sacrifice of Isaac.

Hmm, so Moses and the Red Sea is a literal story while this one is not. How are you making these distinctions? It sounds to me like you’re just making it up as you go along.

So, why did Abraham offer his son Isaac? He did so out of obedience--believing that God could raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19), and also in his obedience he acted out the true sacrifice of the true only begotten son, Jesus.

He ended up sacrificing a ram instead, so your goes does enjoy a good sacrifice.

I’d love to know why this is a moral story of any kind.

This is a teaching experience for the reader. What is being taught - obedience.

How about teaching the reader how to use their own ability to exercise morality?

God influenced them. He influences me via the Holy Ghost all the time. That is not intervention as the recipient has to recognise it and then use free agency to carry it through.

Influencing by hardening their heart is different from intervening? How does that work?

I don’t see any mention of free agency.

The act of prayer is to lock into the influence of the Holy Ghost. That influence will give you the answer to anything that can be asked, dependant on your motives. The scripture will also give most answers to prayers. It is not God intervening it is us asking him.

Otherwise known as intervention.
People who pray for their mother’s cancer to be cured are looking for their mother’s cancer to be cured.

Thomas was a special witness for Christ, a Disciple. If he did not have an unmoveable testimony of divinity then no one has. Paul was an Apostle. the Devil is a disembodied spirit, a son of God. How would we know. Satan does not have free agency. He has no body to use free agency on.

Okay so only “special” people get direct evidence of god. One or two out of billions. The rest of us schlubs have to go on faith alone?

Weren’t you saying earlier that you believe in demonic possession, because you seem to be contradicting that here.

I see no reason why anyone one should not question the whole thing but at least do it without such bigotry and bias for the outcome to be in your favour. I have asked many questions but have always analysed the answers.

What bigotry and bias are you referring to besides your own?

No, what we do know is that it was not a naturalistic event. That is all we know.

Which equates to – it didn’t happen. We don’t believe things until evidence against it is produced – it’s the other way around.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, now, by using your knowledge of science and religion show me why that is not a perfectly adequate answer.

Um no. Point out why your post was not contradicting itself. You say god is not an interventionist or a murderer, then you went out to explain how god could alter (or intervene with) the chemical makeup of oxygen to murder humans and animals.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Read my allegory. I walk to Paddington and arrive for the 9.15 train to King's Cross. I have no schedule I'm my pocket. I have no need to ring the station or go on line to check as everyday I go to the station, at 9.15am, there is a train there that will take me to King's Cross.
Just the regularity of the train always being there tell me that there is a good chance that it will always be there, but do I know that it will be there tomorrow morning. I do not have a clue. Even if I follow it throughout the day there is still no certainty that the train will not break down a 100 metres outside of Paddington. Up until the moment that the train pulls into the station and opens its doors to me, inviting me in, I will be exercising faith. When I am sat in the train purchasing my ticket, I have knowledge that the train will be providing it's usual service. Then I must exercise faith that the train will get to King's Cross safely, like it usually does

Only when I arise on the morning of the first resurrection will my faith in God turn into knowledge, and that is the point I am making and the point you are dissecting, for whatever reason.

Sorry but the analogy doesn't work. You have a ton of evidence to work with.

You can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that the train will be there when it is supposed to be, barring an accident or disaster. Train schedules are carefully crafted not to be ignored and broken, but to be followed. If the train didn't run with some kind of regularity, people would stop trying to take it. The very fact that a station exists at all lets you know that trains pull into it.

And if there is some accident on the tracks, you'd most likely here about it either on the news or over some kind of loudspeaker at the station. You wouldn't just be sitting there in mysterious darkness wondering if the train will ever come again.

There isn't really much faith involved at all, actually. I'm "dissecting it" because the comparison is quite weak.

Enough with this silliness please.

 

[Serenity7855]

Okay, so your god supposedly premeditatedly killed all of mankind, and every living animal on earth.

That is murder.

No, that was not God that was the people who became wicked. Your not getting this are you. I am not trying to convert you, or anything, but you are looking for away for it to be wrong rather then trying to understand the Christian perspective.

I know that whenever anybody asks you to define a word that takes seconds to define on the internet, that they are setting a trap. But I knew when you asked the question that the word "murder" is only mentioned in the bible 80 and they all refer to Commandments not to murder. God said he will destroy mankind with the earth. He did not say he would murder them so you really should have asked me to define the word "destroy" and not an irrelevant word like "murder" for your trap to be effective. How do you intend getting out of this one and save face. The method you have used is dishonest and destructive to those who seek honest debate

Genesis 6

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Come back when it is knowledge that you genuinely seek and not that desire to embarrass and stupify. You do not seek truth, you seek to destroy the faith of Christians, in a dishonest manner. You are an anti-theist, a anti-theist. Those other Christian here would do well to avoid you after reading this expose of your tactics.

Oh, it does not matter if 99% is knowledge and 1% is faith, faith is still involved and the allegory works because it still remains that you a using a degree of faith that the train will come in, which will be turned into 100% knowledge when it arrives. You have admitted that a very small amount is faith so you have confirmed my allegorically tale. Thank you

 

[outhouse]

I will destroy them with the earth.

OR

I will become the biggest mass murderer of innocent people there has ever been.


But since it factually never took place, where does that leave your opinion???

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, that was not God that was the people who became wicked. Your not getting this are you. I am not trying to convert you, or anything, but you are looking for away for it to be wrong rather then trying to understand the Christian perspective.

I know that whenever anybody asks you to define a word that takes seconds to define on the internet, that they are setting a trap. But I knew when you asked the question that the word "murder" is only mentioned in the bible 80 and they all refer to Commandments not to murder. God said he will destroy mankind with the earth. He did not say he would murder them so you really should have asked me to define the word "destroy" and not an irrelevant word like "murder" for your trap to be effective. How do you intend getting out of this one and save face. The method you have used is dishonest and destructive to those who seek honest debate

Genesis 6

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Ah, but the word "murder" is perfectly fitting and not irrelevant at all. Hence my question to you.

Whether the world was corrupt or perfect or whatever excuse you wish to use, the god you believe in, premeditatedly killed every living thing on it. It's right there in black and white and you agree with me even though you don't agree with the definition of the word (that you gave me, by the way) or the terms in which the killing or murder took place.

There's nothing dishonest in pointing that out. The dishonesty comes in when someone attempts to explain away what is obviously murder or to justify the suffering and killing of babies and children, as you've also done.

 

[Blackdog22]

I know that whenever anybody asks you to define a word that takes seconds to define on the internet, that they are setting a trap. But I knew when you asked the question that the word "murder" is only mentioned in the bible 80 and they all refer to Commandments not to murder. God said he will destroy mankind with the earth.

Okay, so when I utterly destroy 10 civilians with an AK47 I suppose that makes me an alright guy. The courts would totally accept that. All I would have to do is show them the Bible and explain that destroy isn't the same as murder.

I do wonder Serenity, how exactly do you stay moral and sane while bending the rules, to such an extreme, for your God.

 

[Serenity7855]

Okay, so when I utterly destroy 10 civilians with an AK47 I suppose that makes me an alright guy. The courts would totally accept that. All I would have to do is show them the Bible and explain that destroy isn't the same as murder.

I do wonder Serenity, how exactly do you stay moral and sane while bending the rules, to such an extreme, for your God.

I do not know why this principle does not sink in for you. Genuinely. You do not believe in what I believe in but you used what I believe in, completely ignoring the extenuating circumstances, to discredit what I believe in. That is weird and confrontational on its own because you are actually trying to tell the world that Christians believe in taking babies from their cots and then torturing them. You are telling the average Joe that Christians believe in a genocidal God who wilfully kills without reason. Kinda makes my opening remarks about atheists quite tame in comparison to the picture you, and the other anti-theists here, paint of murderous Christians.

What if you walk down the street, with your AK47 killing people who have just torn apart a baby and are in the process of eating it, then to walk a little further to kill some people raping and murdering little children, then a little further to see men setting fire to people using tyres filled with petrol around their necks and laugh it the struggling dying person, and finally, you kill two men raping screaming babies whilst sticking needles in their eyes to make them tense their muscles to heighten their sexual experience. Now that would be a better example of what was happening and a better reason for you to not even be in court because you would be praying to God to come and destroy these people.

Yet you maliciously try and create the illusion of our God destroying babes in arms rather than wicked and dispecable psychopathic uncontrollable poeple. Do you know what a psychopath is? The PCL describes psychopaths as being callous and showing a lack of empathy, traits which the PPI describes as “coldheartedness.” The criteria for dissocial personality disorder include a “callous unconcern for the feelings of others.” People killing and torturing others with a smile on their face, not caring about the calamity they cause. You, yes YOU, try to tell everyone you can that this is the evil character of the God we worship. How dishonest and evil is that? And you ask how I remain morally clean. But God has warned us of you when he said

Isaiah 5

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

If you want to use words defined to win a point then I will try and stop you, why? Because it is dishonesty. Destroy and murder are not the same thing.

Destroy
[dih-stroi]
Submit
VERB (USED WITH OBJECT)

1.to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2.to put an end to; extinguish.

To destroy suggest that it is to be dismantled and used again. God made us and decided that it was wrong so he destroyed mankind and used them again. Murder is the permanent deprivation of life in mortality.

 

[Blackdog22]

Serenity, whatever the reason, it would still be murder. If I walk into a prison and gun down everyone there I will be charged with murder, even if it makes me look like a good guy. I am not arguing that some people don't deserve to pay for their crimes, I am simply pointing out that your argument, that destroying someone is fine, when murder isn't, is morally bankrupt. If your God murdered, with good reason, he still murdered. That is all that is being argued here, nothing more. Also, you pointed out that babies were being tortured in the city, but then the city was destroyed. So....we aren't painting a picture of God torturing babies... YOU ARE!

Also, believe it or not, you aren't most Christians and the things you have argued for and against would be ridiculed, even in a Christian community, in my town.

 

[viole]

Ah, sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

No sense of humor....lol.

Lack of evidence, you say? Not really is it?

If the cause of the big bang happening simultaneously, at t=0, then the evidence is Newton's 3rd law of motion. Could the cause be a God.

It could be the other way round, since the 3rd law, even if were applicable, is totally symmetric. So, maybe God is the effect and the Universe the cause. Who knows? By using this "evidence" alone you cannot really tell.

You can replace God with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Blue Fairies, or whatever, since they all enjoy the same evidential status of being the uncaused cause (or uneffected effect), if any.

If the big bang was uncaused that would make the event outside of our natural understanding., in other words, supernatural. Could it be a God?

I would not generalize. I have no problems to imagine an uncaused Universe. And since I am natural, presumably, uncaused causes are natural again. Or maybe I am supernatural; could I be God?

Both situations are evidenced by the effects of the big bank and in both situations God can be a proponent of the event. I would say that is good evidence, however, there are many people who would not accept any form of evidence as it would make their opinion wrong. No one likes to be wrong.

Oh, but I like to be proven wrong. But you need to try harder.

In any cases, events make sense in the Universe; we have no idea what the word "event" means for Universes as a whole. Second: even if there was a cause, you have zillions of possibilities. What evidence do you have that it was the Christian God? It could be Satan.

No, it will not be God, it will be the results of man's wickedness. It should be a surprise either as the bible has said that the wicked will burn as stubble.

So, if God would not exist, then their wickedness would cause them to burn anyway? If no, then it is God.

God: Because you are wicked and I am disappointed by your behavior or I have given you plenty of warning that if you do not stop your wicked was I will have to cleanse the world by fire to remove it.

Do you think the eskimos in Geenland received that warning too?

By the way: what would you do if God told you to stop being wicked? I would reason like that: if I am the only one to stop being wicked than the world will be safe, but I will live miserably with all those other wicked people. And if I keep staying wicked, then there is high chance that some silly sod stops being wicked and keep me safe while I can go ahead with my wickedness.

So. It is a no brainer. It is much better to stay wicked.

WP: But you promised not to do that anymore. Remember? The rainbow and stuff?
God: You did not pay attention. I promised not to do it anymore with water or no I said I would not use water to remove the wicked, I did not say that the law on cause and effect, in as much as this amount of wickedness invokes a cleansing of evil, has been removed. It cannot be removed.

Yes, but this is odd. You are basically saying that He promised not to do it anymore if they do not get wicked again. But this is obvious, for God does not destroy worlds which are not wicked, presumably.

In other words: His promise has the same depth as "I promise not to wash my clothes anymore, as long as they stay clean". Which is ridiculous, especially when coming from the uncaused cause of the whole Universe.

I would start getting worried about the uncaused cause's IQ.

No, scientists are not believing it, evolutionary biologists are the ones making the claim. I am not an Evolutionist.

I think it a little disingenuous being told that I would invent something for gain or reward. It paints quite an inaccurate and dishonest picture of me and then insinuate that I am delusional. Was that intentional, to be offensive.

If someone tells me that the scientific community starts accepting the idea that the earth is flat, I would say that they are deluding themselves, wouldn't you. A couple of crackpots does not qualify as "scientific community".

Your claim that the scientific community is increasingly accepting the idea of independent trees of life is not different.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity, whatever the reason, it would still be murder. If I walk into a prison and gun down everyone there I will be charged with murder, even if it makes me look like a good guy. I am not arguing that some people don't deserve to pay for their crimes, I am simply pointing out that your argument, that destroying someone is fine, when murder isn't, is morally bankrupt. If your God murdered, with good reason, he still murdered. That is all that is being argued here, nothing more. Also, you pointed out that babies were being tortured in the city, but then the city was destroyed. So....we aren't painting a picture of God torturing babies... YOU ARE!

Also, believe it or not, you aren't most Christians and the things you have argued for and against would be ridiculed, even in a Christian community, in my town.

Murder is The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. God is not a human being. He cannot, therefore, be accused of murder but he can be accused of destroying.

Only a handful of mine elect will recognise the masters voice. There will be but few rooms in the celestial Kingdom.

 

[Blackdog22]

Murder is The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. God is not a human being. He cannot, therefore, be accused of murder but he can be accused of destroying.

Only a handful of mine elect will recognise the masters voice. There will be but few rooms in the celestial Kingdom.

Serenity, whatever the reason, it would still be destruction. If I walk into a prison and gun down everyone there I will be charged with destruction, even if it makes me look like a good guy. I am not arguing that some people don't deserve to pay for their crimes, I am simply pointing out that your argument, that destroying someone is fine, when desctruction isn't, is morally bankrupt. If your God destroyed, with good reason, he still destroyed. That is all that is being argued here, nothing more. Also, you pointed out that babies were being tortured in the city, but then the city was destroyed. So....we aren't painting a picture of God torturing babies... YOU ARE!

Also, believe it or not, you aren't most Christians and the things you have argued for and against would be ridiculed, even in a Christian community, in my town.

This makes your argument better how?