Atheism Exercise For Christians #1

[Poonis]

I am an atheist and an ex-christian, and contrary to what Christians may think about atheists, I willing to accept that the Christian god exists. Although I post this in the Colosseum, I am debating no one specific save for any one Christian that can show me their god exists. But because I have been subject in the past to believing lies as truth, I desire to remove falsehoods, lies, myths, speculation and such and have written the below test as the only way that a Christian may possibly aid my return to Christianity. Below the actual test is an example of where I myself am stuck. Christians, can you show me your god?

 

==== Atheism Exercise for Christians #1 ====

 

1. Provide your definition of "exist."

 

2. Using your definition of "exist", relate something that you know does not exist but reference thereof is available.

 

3. Using your definition of "exist", relate something that you know does exist and reference thereof is available.

 

4. List the type and specified evidence you use to support your answer for #2.

 

5. List the type and specified evidence you use to support your answer for #3.

 

6. To use types of evidence found specific solely to something that exists, deduct and list the types of evidence you listed in #4 from the types you listed for #5.

 

7. The same types of evidence used to support the existence of your answer in #3 can be used to prove the Christian god exists. Using only the types of evidence used to prove something that exists from your answer in #6, provide the specific evidence of each type that can be applied to proving the Christian god exists, so that you may supportively declare the same.

 

 

==== My example to show Christians where I am stuck ====

 

1. "Is real" is my definition of "exist."

 

2. Peter Pan is not real.

 

3. An apple is real.

 

4. Types of evidence in support of Peter Pan:

Types of evidence: Specific Evidence

books: 'Peter Pan and Wendy' by J. M. Barrie, 'Peter Pan in Scarlet' by Geraldine McCaughrean

movies: 'Peter Pan' (2003), 'Hook' (1991)

costumes: http://www.clicket.com/kidscostumes/hallow...umes/peter.html

bus line: peter pan bus lines http://www.peterpanbus.com/

belief: I can believe Peter Pan exists

followers: http://www.pixyland.org/peterpan/pixyFriendsPage.html

 

5. Types of evidence in support of an apple:

Types of evidence: Specific Evidence

books: I can read 'Apples' by Roger Yepsen

belief: I can believe apples exist

touch: I can pluck an apple from a tree and hold it in my hand

sight: I can see an apple with my eyes

scent: I can smell an apple

taste: I can eat an apple and taste it with my tongue

 

6. Remaining types of evidence used to prove something exists: touch, sight, scent, taste.

 

7. I am unable to provide specific evidence through touch, taste, scent, smell, or sight to show the Christian god exists.

[roman]

Show us your Poonis.

[Guest ExPagan]

Your question is flawed to begin with because you are comparing the spiritual with the worldly, the tangible with the intangible, infinite with the finite. You are attempting to assess something spiritual by using scientific or logical, finite means and you simply cannot do that and get an accurate answer. It’s like trying to prove love exists using a thermometer.

 

A person would not be able to give proofs of God’s existence using physical methods because God is Spirit. We cannot touch, taste, see, or smell Him. But that has not always been the case. Jesus is fully God and He walked the earth until AD33 and you could touch Him, smell Him, see Him, and taste Him if you were so inclined.

[Dhampir]

A person would not be able to give proofs of God’s existence using physical methods because God is Spirit. We cannot touch, taste, see, or smell Him. But that has not always been the case. Jesus is fully God and He walked the earth until AD33 and you could touch Him, smell Him, see Him, and taste Him if you were so inclined. silverpenny013Hmmm.gif

So...essentially, not only can god not be perceived, but he can also only be proven by positing...uh...unproven claims, like that he did exist in a perceivable way once?

 

If you can't show us this spirit realm, in any fashion, Why do you even bother trying to demonstrate, or argue it's existence?

[Guest ExPagan]

So...essentially, not only can god not be perceived, but he can also only be proven by positing...uh...unproven claims, like that he did exist in a perceivable way once?

 

Respectfully, I have no idea what you just said. Can you please rephrase it?

[Dhampir]

Hmm... So, we can't use any of our senses to gain any understanding of god, nor is there any scientific or philosophical method by which we could gain or process any information, because god's spiritual nature precludes it.

 

But, at the same time, we have the unproven and unprovable story of a time when this god supposedly was knowable by those means (touchable... tastable , scientifically studiable), and that is proof?

 

Also, since nothing we know hasn't come to us through our perceptions (the 5 senses), how can you argue for the existence of the spiritual, which is outside those perceptions, and how can you prove that any knowledge you have about it isn't either a misunderstanding or a delusion or something like that?

[Guest ExPagan]

Hmm... So, we can't use any of our senses to gain any understanding of god, nor is there any scientific or philosophical method by which we could gain or process any information, because god's spiritual nature precludes it.

 

But, at the same time, we have the unproven and unprovable story of a time when this god supposedly was knowable by those means (touchable... tastable , scientifically studiable), and that is proof?

 

Also, since nothing we know hasn't come to us through our perceptions (the 5 senses), how can you argue for the existence of the spiritual, which is outside those perceptions, and how can you prove that any knowledge you have about it isn't either a misunderstanding or a delusion or something like that?

 

Let's just say for arguement's sake, that I told you that I have touched God, seen God, smelled God etc. That still wouldn't give you proof because it only happened to me. My claim would still not be acceptable to you because you could give numerous claims as to why I experienced those things and not you. It's a trap of a question really.

 

The only proof you might accept of God's existance is if you actually saw Him standing in front of you. Since that will never happen, and because God is Spirit, and because He said that a sinful man cannot withstand His holiness and purity in His sight, then we will never see Him as long as we're in these sinful bodies.

 

There's is no physical proof to give that would satisfy you. But...there is evidence and plenty of it in the scientific community - from secular scientists btw. There's archeological evidence which validates the Bible and the people who existed back then, numerous transcripts from non-Christian authors attesting to the Biblical events, places and people etc. There is also prophetic evidence. Hundreds that have been fulfilled exactly according to prophecy. There is no other religion that can make these claims or offer evidences or proofs like the Bible and Christianity can.

 

Now for the personal reasons....I know God is real because He has literally transformed my heart and my life. He truly has made me a new creature and this is something I've EXPERIENCED and continue to experience daily and that cannot be argued with. Perhaps if you knew me before I was saved, and knew me now, you would believe.

[Poonis]

Let's just say for arguement's sake, that I told you that I have touched God, seen God, smelled God etc. That still wouldn't give you proof because it only happened to me. My claim would still not be acceptable to you because you could give numerous claims as to why I experienced those things and not you. It's a trap of a question really.

ExPagan,

 

Can you show me your god? yes or no

 

Perhaps if you knew me before I was saved, and knew me now, you would believe.

If belief is necessary for something to be true, then without belief it is a lie.

[Dhampir]

Let's just say for argument's sake, that I told you that I have touched God, seen God, smelled God etc. That still wouldn't give you proof because it only happened to me. My claim would still not be acceptable to you because you could give numerous claims as to why I experienced those things and not you. It's a trap of a question really.

You would be one of the few, and just as disbelieved by other christians as us unbelievers. For your claim to be worth investigating, would require a large portion of people to have the same experience. It would then need to be reasonable to rule out more mundane explanations for it, like, collective delusion, or something like that. Not impossible, but admittedly, rather difficult.

 

The only proof you might accept of God's existance is if you actually saw Him standing in front of you. Since that will never happen, and because God is Spirit, and because He said that a sinful man cannot withstand His holiness and purity in His sight, then we will never see Him as long as we're in these sinful bodies.

And whose fault is that? And, how do you know he won't appear to me? He appeared to Moses. He could appear in a less glorious form. On the other hand, if that is the only thing I'll accept, then why won't he do it? He'd know he'd be condemning me to hell--I simply can't believe in something that gives me nothing to grab onto but a feeling, that could be mistaken for something less spectacular.

 

 

There's is no physical proof to give that would satisfy you. But...there is evidence and plenty of it in the scientific community - from secular scientists btw. There's archeological evidence which validates the Bible and the people who existed back then, numerous transcripts from non-Christian authors attesting to the Biblical events, places and people etc. There is also prophetic evidence. Hundreds that have been fulfilled exactly according to prophecy. There is no other religion that can make these claims or offer evidences or proofs like the Bible and Christianity can.

No, there's not. If science can't be applied to the spiritual, then science can provide no evidence. Either god is within the realm of scientific scrutiny, or he's not, which is it?

 

 

Now for the personal reasons....I know God is real because He has literally transformed my heart and my life. He truly has made me a new creature and this is something I've EXPERIENCED and continue to experience daily and that cannot be argued with. Perhaps if you knew me before I was saved, and knew me now, you would believe.

Of course your experiences are real, what's in question here is what you think is the reason you had those experiences. You can tell me all day that the christian god is the source of your new life or whatever, but you are going to have to show me something that the members of every other religion cannot when they say exactly what you just told me. What makes your feelings more real then theirs?

[Lycorth]

If you can't show us this spirit realm, in any fashion, Why do you even bother trying to demonstrate, or argue it's existence?

 

Precisely. This is just another attempt to say "I know God is real but he's beyond any method of knowing for sure, so I'm right to believe but you're not right to question, blah blah blah."

 

Been there, believed that, pulled my head out of my ass.

[Ouroboros]

Your question is flawed to begin with because you are comparing the spiritual with the worldly, the tangible with the intangible, infinite with the finite. You are attempting to assess something spiritual by using scientific or logical, finite means and you simply cannot do that and get an accurate answer. It’s like trying to prove love exists using a thermometer.

Maybe Poonis definition of "exists" should be redefined to be "something that can be measured, observed or repeatedly tested with same outcome." Kind of the scientific idea.

 

The spirit world is a big "if". Which one of the spiritual worlds do you talk about? The pagan spiritual world or do you mean a parallel universe? Can it be measured?

 

A person would not be able to give proofs of God’s existence using physical methods because God is Spirit. We cannot touch, taste, see, or smell Him. But that has not always been the case. Jesus is fully God and He walked the earth until AD33 and you could touch Him, smell Him, see Him, and taste Him if you were so inclined.

Hmm... Should a persons emotional revelations of what they think God is be overriding what can be proven physically? Put it this way, we have two worlds. One we can test with physical methods and we know for sure how certain things works, and we're constantly figuring out more and more how it works. And the other we can't test or see or smell, and the only thing we know about it is billions of peoples speculations and with hundred thousands of different opinions how that world really is. The first one (the natural one) the number of people agreeing how it works is growing, while the opinions of the spiritual world is getting more diversified. If you're a third party, which one would you trust more?

[Ouroboros]

The only proof you might accept of God's existance is if you actually saw Him standing in front of you. Since that will never happen, and because God is Spirit, and because He said that a sinful man cannot withstand His holiness and purity in His sight, then we will never see Him as long as we're in these sinful bodies.

You do understand that a majority of the members here used to be Christians.

 

I spent 30 years believing that God existed and Jesus was his son. That's 3/4 of my life. It took me about a year or two of deep thought to realize how fickle and unsupported all those ideas are, and how much it's based on a very deceiving emotional system in our mind. Religion is driven by, and only by, emotions. Facts and the observable world is secondary. If you feel that "tiny magical pixies are making things fall to the ground", then you believe that rather then believing gravity as a natural force. No one can take that delusion away from you, we can only wish that you one day wake up from it.

[Poonis]

Your question is flawed to begin with because you are comparing the spiritual with the worldly, the tangible with the intangible, infinite with the finite. You are attempting to assess something spiritual by using scientific or logical, finite means and you simply cannot do that and get an accurate answer. It’s like trying to prove love exists using a thermometer.

Maybe Poonis definition of "exists" should be redefined to be "something that can be measured, observed or repeatedly tested with same outcome." Kind of the scientific idea.

 

My definition was only for the example to show what I mean. That's why in the test I ask for the person who takes me up on it to provide their own definition so I can't be accused providing a misleading defintion or whatnot.

[Ouroboros]

My definition was only for the example to show what I mean. That's why in the test I ask for the person who takes me up on it to provide their own definition so I can't be accused providing a misleading defintion or whatnot.

Ah, okay.

[Asimov]

Your question is flawed to begin with because you are comparing the spiritual with the worldly, the tangible with the intangible, infinite with the finite. You are attempting to assess something spiritual by using scientific or logical, finite means and you simply cannot do that and get an accurate answer. It’s like trying to prove love exists using a thermometer.

 

A person would not be able to give proofs of God’s existence using physical methods because God is Spirit. We cannot touch, taste, see, or smell Him. But that has not always been the case. Jesus is fully God and He walked the earth until AD33 and you could touch Him, smell Him, see Him, and taste Him if you were so inclined.

 

So? He didn't say give proof of God's existence using physical methods. He said show him your God.

[Guest ExPagan]

Not sure if it's this thread or another one but someone was questioning the existence of the spiritual world. Of course that cannot be measured because it is spiritial, not physical. But if the spiritual world does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. Every being on the planet can tell you, without being told, if something is wrong. We instictively KNOW that it's wrong to break into someone's house and kill them. Why? And where does that come from? It came from God who wrote these 'laws' on our hearts. We instictively know if something is moral or not. The world recognizes that and that's why we have rules and organization to help keep those rules (or moral laws).

 

And I disagree with the poster that says all religion is based on emotion. The Christian faith is based on just that...faith. That means there ARE NO FEELINGS INVOLVED, that's why there's faith, belief, trust. I can't speak for other religions but I can speak for the Christian FAITH. In fact we're told not to trust our feelings because our hearts are wickedly deceived. So even Chrisitans do not go by feelings or emotions.

[Dhampir]

And I disagree with the poster that says all religion is based on emotion. The Christian faith is based on just that...faith. That means there ARE NO FEELINGS INVOLVED, that's why there's faith, belief, trust. I can't speak for other religions but I can speak for the Christian FAITH. In fact we're told not to trust our feelings because our hearts are wickedly deceived. So even Chrisitans do not go by feelings or emotions.

Okay, why do you have faith? You've admitted that no perceptual or scientific finding has led you to your conclusion, so what do you have, if not emotion? There's nothing of logic that tells you it's reasonable. What you have is the experience of... wait for it... FEELING that god exists in a way that defies the senses. You have the... umm... FEELING that your life has been transformed etc, etc. And these constitute your evidences. Sure, you're right about faith not requiring an emotional investment, such as having faith that the sun will come out-- TO-MOR-ROW! (sorry, couldn't help it ) but explain to me if you can how your faith is anything but an emotional thing.

Not sure if it's this thread or another one but someone was questioning the existence of the spiritual world. Of course that cannot be measured because it is spiritial, not physical. But if the spiritual world does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. Every being on the planet can tell you, without being told, if something is wrong. We instictively KNOW that it's wrong to break into someone's house and kill them. Why? And where does that come from? It came from God who wrote these 'laws' on our hearts. We instictively know if something is moral or not. The world recognizes that and that's why we have rules and organization to help keep those rules (or moral laws).

Now, that's just a whole slew of bad logic, and according to my spell checker, bad spelling. How do you know everyone agrees to those examples you gave, and how do you know any of them are moral absolutes? How do you jump to the conclusion that not only are our conceptualized morals (which btw are are drastically differing from place to place) instinctual, but that they come from this spirit realm, which you still can't even define, but not only that, but from a god who exists primarily therein, AND that this god is specifically the christian god?

[Lycorth]

So? He didn't say give proof of God's existence using physical methods. He said show him your God.

 

Exactly. Surely, the all-powerful god of the Babble can be persuaded to show himself and facilitate some major returns to the fold. He is said to have done it in the Old Testament, and it would logically serve both to glorify him and make him better known.

 

Of course, I won't hold my breath...

[Guest ExPagan]

And I disagree with the poster that says all religion is based on emotion. The Christian faith is based on just that...faith. That means there ARE NO FEELINGS INVOLVED, that's why there's faith, belief, trust. I can't speak for other religions but I can speak for the Christian FAITH. In fact we're told not to trust our feelings because our hearts are wickedly deceived. So even Chrisitans do not go by feelings or emotions.

Okay, why do you have faith? You've admitted that no perceptual or scientific finding has led you to your conclusion, so what do you have, if not emotion? There's nothing of logic that tells you it's reasonable. What you have is the experience of... wait for it... FEELING that god exists in a way that defies the senses. You have the... umm... FEELING that your life has been transformed etc, etc. And these constitute your evidences. Sure, you're right about faith not requiring an emotional investment, such as having faith that the sun will come out-- TO-MOR-ROW! (sorry, couldn't help it ) but explain to me if you can how your faith is anything but an emotional thing.

Not sure if it's this thread or another one but someone was questioning the existence of the spiritual world. Of course that cannot be measured because it is spiritial, not physical. But if the spiritual world does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. Every being on the planet can tell you, without being told, if something is wrong. We instictively KNOW that it's wrong to break into someone's house and kill them. Why? And where does that come from? It came from God who wrote these 'laws' on our hearts. We instictively know if something is moral or not. The world recognizes that and that's why we have rules and organization to help keep those rules (or moral laws).

Now, that's just a whole slew of bad logic, and according to my spell checker, bad spelling. How do you know everyone agrees to those examples you gave, and how do you know any of them are moral absolutes? How do you jump to the conclusion that not only are our conceptualized morals (which btw are are drastically differing from place to place) instinctual, but that they come from this spirit realm, which you still can't even define, but not only that, but from a god who exists primarily therein, AND that this god is specifically the christian god?

 

Dhamir,

 

You wanted to know how I came to believe in God if not by emotion? First, I have to say I was just like you. I demanded proof. I thought all Christians were brainwashed and crazy. I had never seen God or heard Him and my dad being a pastor made me want to rebel even more. (cuz I hated my dad) As my name suggests, I used to be a Pagan, and dabbled in other things because I liked it, simply put. I had no proof they existed either but I liked the thought of having power and really messing up someone's day.

 

So listening to my parents babble on about God made me want to find something to disprove His existence and everything they 'preached' about. I started looking into other religions and the Bible itself. I read many evidences of the Bible's validity from a number of sources, none of whom were Christians. I didn't want a Christian bias so I searched out things in the scientific community and found that there are PLENTY of irrefutable evidences to support the Bible. I started with evolution which is full of so many wholes, conjecture and theorgies that I couldn't believe they were teaching it in schools and institutions. But it shouldn't surprise me coming from a world and government that hates God. I found no evidence whatsoever in the validity of other religions. I found no evidence that there ever really was a god and goddess within me (when I finally was able to admit this to myself).

 

Then I looked into Biblical prophecy which could be verified historically. That means not verified by the Bible itself but by our encyclopedias. I am not the only one who thinks this....

 

External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--is a trustworthy historical document. Archaeologist Joseph Free has said that "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts." [1] Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It...may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." [2] Christian apologist Josh McDowell tells us that "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy." [3]

 

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

 

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

 

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

 

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.

 

The historical evidence clearly shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).

 

So if I was honest with myself, I had to admit that there was no proof in other religions. No 'sacred writings' could be verified that they came from deity. No prophecies could be verified. The gods that were inside us supposedly, could not be verified - but...I had all this evidence to support the God of the Bible.

 

Still, I wasn't sold - or should I say I wasn't ready to receive Jesus because frankly, I loved my sins. I didn't want to give them up. I loved going to bars and clubs and meeting new people and doing whatever I wanted.

 

Now for the personal experience (which is not emotional) God actually ACTING in my life.

 

Without getting into too much detail, I was in a very bad/desperate situation. I lived with my boyfriend who was very abusive (and had been for a very long time), he took my car so I had no transportation, he tried to get me fired, he didn't pay any bills nor allow me to and the gas was turned off in the winter (I got really sick), he tried to keep me captive basically in that house. If I tried to leave, I really couldn't because there was no bus service - I really was trapped.

 

I was on the brink of suicide (again) because I hated my 'boyfriend', I hated my life and I was staring at the knife in my hand. I cried out to God something like 'if you're real, show me, I need to get out of here, I need a car, a job so I can get a car and an apartment and Ijust have to get out of here'. Afterwards, I calmed down and did not do anything with the knife. While I was 'emotional', that is not the "proof" I offer because it is not proof. The "proof" came after. I'd say things started changing pretty much immediately. To make this brief (kind of), I got out of there, got a really good job which enabled me to buy a car (of which I still have) and I was out of that situation. I took MY car which he stole and signed the title over to the police when they escorted me to get my things. After all that, I started reading the Bible and shortly received Jesus as my Lord and Savior. That was five years ago and He has shown and taught me many things since then. Amazing!

 

God will not reveal Himself to someone who does not believe in Him, who taunts Him, who makes fun of Him, who calls Him names, who puts Him to silly tests, who mocks Him. He will leave you in your unbelief. But if you come to Him with a sincere heart, (and He will know if it's sincere), He will reveal Himself to you and answer you. No one on this board can convince you of Him except Him.

[Dhampir]

I read many evidences of the Bible's validity from a number of sources, none of whom were Christians.

What?

 

I didn't want a Christian bias so I searched out things in the scientific community and found that there are PLENTY of irrefutable evidences to support the Bible. ...To support what about the bible? And irrefutable under what criteria?

 

 

I started with evolution which is full of so many wholes, conjecture and theorgies that I couldn't beblahbeblah So you concluded from your evidently prejudiced and cursory readings of the single most accepted scientific theory there is that since it doesn't look right to you, then biblegod must be be the only real alternative? And why does evolution have to contradict god anyway?

 

I found no evidence that there ever really was a god and goddess within me (when I finally was able to admit this to myself).

I don't even know how to approach this. Except to say from a theistic standpoint, it makes you look stupid on a number of levels.

 

I generally don't go too much into the historical and archaeological evidences or what have you; I generally stand on logical and philosophical arguments, but I'll examine what I do know about the subject.

 

External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--is a trustworthy historical document...

Incredibly vague, this part. I will say that the bible couldn't have been accepted as valid as long as it has if there weren't some historical accuracy to it. Of course, the story of the Trojan War was regarded as a folktale, till we found that there actually was a city of Troy. Does that mean that Achilles the invincible, with his one weakness, and Hector were real people, that an actual gigantic fucking horse was sent into the city with 200 soldiers in it to open the gates to let the invading army in? Does it mean then, since this is your (questionable) evidence, that the gods Zeus, Aphrodite, and Apollo are real? By extension, that the entire rest of the Greek pantheon, as well as the demigods, monsters, and demons of those legends did and perhaps still do walk the earth?

 

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

I say moses couldn't have written those books because of the obvious differences in authorship, the likelihood that they were written decades apart, and the fact that Moses would have been writing of his own death. Not that I believe in Moses, sure he could have existed, but, eh. And if he did, did he really split oceans, or did he just put his jacket over a puddle?

 

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Really? Never heard that before. Show me.

 

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.

Archaeology of late has shown that a necropolis (big ol' burial ground) was what likely existed where Nazareth would later stand. Btw, can you find me any prophesy that says Jesus would be a Nazarene? Aside that is, from the one that says there's a prophesy that says that. As to the whole 'confirmed' trial, crown of thorns, etc., never heard it. show me that.

 

The historical evidence clearly shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).

If that's the case, then like I said, the historical accuracy of the accounts of every other holy book show that the gods and superheroes they depict must be at least possible. Bad logic.

 

I say again, the bible could be accurate down to the number of blades of grass on the field of gehenna for all it matters. Those are 'mundane' facts, HOW does the accuracy of mundane facts prove anything about the supernatural?

 

Now for the personal experience (which is not emotional) God actually ACTING in my life.

*choking noises, coughing, hacking* Okay, now I'm being an ass. I apologize sincerely, but it's late, and your horrendous logic has brought me to the end of my cordiality. So in this sentence, you talk about how emotion doesn't factor into your interpretation of your experiences, but every sentence thereafter says the opposite. I don't want to make light of your situation, but damn. Now, if you haven't been turned off totally by my abrasiveness, I need you to answer this question: How do you know that what happened after your little suicide thing (not trivializing, I've been there more than once) was the direct result of your prayer? I can practically guarantee that if you give a straightforward answer, it will pertain to a feeling.

 

God will not reveal Himself to someone who does not believe in Him, who taunts Him, who makes fun of Him, who calls Him names, who puts Him to silly tests, who mocks Him. He will leave you in your unbelief. But if you come to Him with a sincere heart, (and He will know if it's sincere), He will reveal Himself to you and answer you. No one on this board can convince you of Him except Him.

So, Biblegod knows I don't believe in him, knows I won't believe in anything for which there is no reason, knows that what he's given me will never be sufficient for me to believe, knows that after all my HONEST searching I have concluded that if god exists he has to come to me, but he won't reveal himself to me unless I believe?

 

You do realize belief is compulsory, right? You can't just make up your mind one day to believe in something you weren't convinced was believable the day before.

[Dhampir]

One other thing, since you appear to be citing sources, could you reveal them?

 

Edit: make sure to check my previous reply.

[Ouroboros]

Not sure if it's this thread or another one but someone was questioning the existence of the spiritual world. Of course that cannot be measured because it is spiritial, not physical. But if the spiritual world does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. Every being on the planet can tell you, without being told, if something is wrong. We instictively KNOW that it's wrong to break into someone's house and kill them. Why? And where does that come from? It came from God who wrote these 'laws' on our hearts. We instictively know if something is moral or not. The world recognizes that and that's why we have rules and organization to help keep those rules (or moral laws).

Sorry, but I need walk out of the room and start laughing really loud.

 

Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. Game theory (a mathematical branch) can explain how Evolution favored species with reasons to have innate need to follow certain rules to survive. Basically you're saying that it's moral to survive.

 

A mother loves the child, even animals do that. Apes have social structures, can learn to talk sign language and even express love and hate.

 

Did you know that in a family of lions they actually *gasp* don't kill each other? Do they feel obligated to follow a certain kind of moral to do this? How can they know not to kill each other and kill everything they possible can see in their path? They must follow the "if you see it and kill it" rule, because they're just animals and that's what immoral humans would do right?

 

Think about these things a little and if you actually do use your brain you'll discover that it's not at all like you say. There's no absolute moral implanted in our brain, but there's a genetically built in rule to avoid killing each other, because if you (this is something that can be predicted with the rules of evolution) have a species that kill each other without thought will not survive. Think about it. Let's say you had humans that didn't have the "rule" built in, everyone would kill everyone else and we would have the result of a very few severely handicapped humans or no humans at all. There's no need for a God to understand this. During the progression of evolving species the species that did kill their own are gone, away, dead, gone to the other side, finito, hasta la past, ... you get the picture?

 

And I disagree with the poster that says all religion is based on emotion. The Christian faith is based on just that...faith. That means there ARE NO FEELINGS INVOLVED, that's why there's faith, belief, trust. I can't speak for other religions but I can speak for the Christian FAITH. In fact we're told not to trust our feelings because our hearts are wickedly deceived. So even Chrisitans do not go by feelings or emotions.

Oh you very much go by emotions. You don't even know what you think you have faith in.

 

Ask yourself, why do YOU want to go to Heaven?

[Ouroboros]

I started with evolution which is full of so many wholes, conjecture and theorgies that I couldn't believe they were teaching it in schools and institutions.

Okay, I'm not gonna do this to rant on you because of your spelling and stuff, because my English is quite bad too (especially in the middle of the night like now), but I just love this new word in your sentence here, theoriges. It's beautiful!

 

I always wanted to be in a theorgie. (Oops, we actually did have one a week ago.)

[Ouroboros]

God will not reveal Himself to someone who does not believe in Him, who taunts Him, who makes fun of Him, who calls Him names, who puts Him to silly tests, who mocks Him. He will leave you in your unbelief. But if you come to Him with a sincere heart, (and He will know if it's sincere), He will reveal Himself to you and answer you. No one on this board can convince you of Him except Him.

Okay, I read bits-n-pz's of your post, and I understand, you think you did a scientific research etc and had some rough patch and religion helped you. Sorry, the "research" part you're talking about, I don't believe it. I don't believe you found extensive scientific proof etc.

 

And secondly, I was Christian for 30 years. I was a extremely serious Christian. I was knocking doors and witnessing, walked the street downtown on Saturdays, and traveled on two mission trips to win more souls for Jesus. I was very serious about my belief, because I really did believe. I also thought I had all answers and that the things I felt were real and that Jesus existed, but honestly He never supposedly gave enough physical or miraculous evidence for his existence. Even when a time when I needed God and Jesus the most in my life.

 

If religion is what you need (like a majority of humans do unfortunately) then that's what you need. I really don't care if you have your delusion or not, but don't think for one second that you really have the arguments that could convince me to go back to belief in an imaginary friend just to make me feel better. To me, believing in Jesus and God is no different that believing in Santa Claus.

[Ouroboros]

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Really? Never heard that before. Show me.

She probably picked it from this URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html.