florduh

Existence of the God of the Bible

Recommended Posts

On 6/30/2017 at 9:55 PM, DarkBishop said:

I was reading @Citsongas "letter to parents" which he wrote to explain the reasons behind his deconversion to his parents. I want to add this excerpt from his writing because it contains a valid point against the arguement I was trying to make when debating LB. 

 

"Another common Christian response is to bring up the quote, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Thus, it is argued, nobody has an excuse for not knowing, because "the creation" around us is proof. But is it really? If this verse was true and the natural world we see clearly depicted the Christian God, then everyone who looks at nature would automatically be convinced of the Christian God! Yet, throughout the world there are varying cultures with different religious views, and many of those people look at the exact same nature and see evidence of their gods! And other people look at nature and see no evidence of any god at all! How could this be if "creation" was so clear regarding the Christian God? Obviously, this argument from "creation" is simply false.
    Think about this. You were raised in a Christian culture that convinced you that Christianity is true, but in the same way people raised in a Muslim culture are convinced that Islam is true, and people raised in a Hindu culture are convinced that Hinduism is true, and so on and so forth. The fact is that people's religious beliefs are primarily dependent upon demographics instead of logic, reason and indisputable evidence.
    You cannot believe Islam to be true because you were programmed to believe Christianity. But the opposite is also true: Those who are programmed to believe Islam simply cannot believe Christianity. Put yourself in their shoes. What if you had been raised and indoctrinated with Islam, and therefore you could not believe Christianity? That would be no fault of your own, it would simply be the result of being raised in that culture. Would it then be fair to torture you in "Hell" forever and ever and ever, with no mercy and no relief, simply because you did not believe something that you had no ability to believe? Do you not see the absurdity and injustice in that? Do you really believe that a righteous, loving God would do that to his creation?"

 

After reading this I felt that I wouldn't be doing this thread justice without including it for anyone who might read through this thread.

 

DB 

well according to Christianity's "holy doctrine"(bible) regarding your last question,hell wasn't made for "mankind" it was made for lucifer and his fallen angels,so a Christian would make the rebuttal that God not only didn't make hell for people only lucifer and his angels,and that he doesn't send people to hell but rather that God "allows" them to die in sin and they go to hell of their own accord,something like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

To that I would have to say that if this "all loving, all powerful, everpresent, and all loving" god really loved everyone of us. Why doesn't he come around from time to time. Isn't it obvious with all The various interpretations of the "good" book floating around that no one really knows what the right teachings are anymore? 2000 years of an absent God. And no verifiable proof of a present God at any  point in time before that. Oh sure his bible makes claims of his acts. Even gives locations that they supposedly occurred but apparently he must have dug up all the proof and hid it. Maybe he has shadow boxes of his exploits on the walls of his heavenly mansion. Souvenirs even! Kinda like that rapist that likes to take the panties with him when he leaves. 

 

Not all of God's biblical exploits were to be believed on faith. He supposedly showed his might in the old testament! GREAT FLOODS! PLAGUES! PESTILENCE! HE OBLITERATED CITIES! AND SPLIT SEAS!  But none of that has been able to be verified. Many archeologists through the years tried to find evidence of God's history and have failed time and again because it isn't there. It was all made up. And if there is a God out there I can tell you it isn't the bibles God. Because the bibles God lies. Even his foundations are false. I don't how I believed in a God that has been caught in so many lies. I guess I was kinda like that battered wife that believes her husband loves her even though he has just blacked her eye. I mean after all the church is his bride right? So that's a perfect analogy. The bible God is a manipulative wife beater that likes to play mind games with his wife and children. 

 

You'll have to forgive me for being so cynical. Ya see when I was a christian my God wasn't present. I preached his word for years and even tho he could have made a difference he allowed an ex wife to cheat on me with a man that also new I was a preacher. Even tho I saw the signs, prayed for his intervention, had faith in his power to soften people's hearts and to take care of his servants, he wasnt there. Then I blamed myself for it for years to come thinking I may not have been faithful enough, that I must have committed some grievous sin, or something to that effect. (That's the mind games I spoke of) because in his words he can not fail. All powerful, all knowing, and all present doesn't give much room for failure so it must be that fault of the servant that his prayers weren't answered. 

 

And now...... NOW that I have a wife which has been faithful to me, whom I love with my whole heart, and whom I want to spend my life with. Apparently since I have deconverted he wants to show up in her life again. Nah nah he doesn't show up through the years of me BEGGING him to show me his truth. TO GUIDE me to the true church! To let me feel the fire I once felt when I was a young christian. No he doesn't show up then. But now that I've deconverted and apparently crossed a line he shows up in my wife's conscience. 

 

But all of that adds up to this. This was a debate on the bible God's existence. Which you weren't really invited to. And your two cents doesn't pertain to the overall subject. As far as his existence goes it isn't there. Through science, through archeology, and even through personal experience his existence isn't there. Not the bible God anyway. Now if the bible didn't make such great claims on God's abilities then maybe there could still be some possibilities there. But the bible does make many great claims and tells many stories that have been proven to be false. Ya see it wasn't that I had committed some grievous sin or that God had failed me, but simply that I had believed a fairy tale. And just like all other fairy tales it is fiction. There is no fairy God mother, tooth fairy, Santa clause, easter bunny, Jack frost, or a biblical God. 

 

If there is some supernatural God he pretty well stays out of the affairs of men and probably doesnt have a heaven or a hell. He is probably just some old hippie smoking a doobie on the spiritual plane laughing his ass off at all of us.

 

Dark Bishop

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2017 at 8:02 PM, DarkBishop said:

 This article absolutely amazed me. And made me wonder why scientists shoot down the idea of panspermia so easily. My thoughts are that if a human embryo can survive decades or longer having been frozen the right way. And considering our own fragile nature as compared to other animals. Why couldn’t embryos from animals such as the Tardigrade with such extreme survival capabilities travel through space in a frozen block of ice, splash down to earth, and be allowed to finish the process of life? I think that the biggest problem facing the theory of panspermia is outlined well in the last paragraph of the article in the Helix.Northwestern link above.

“An important thing to note about the panspermia hypothesis is that it gives no explanation for how life that arrived on Earth came to be. Even if we are able to show that life on Earth was a result of panspermia, the question of where and how life originated will be a lot harder to answer. So far our knowledge of the solar system suggests that life is unique to Earth, but, as science and technology advance, we will have to modify ideas that we currently regard as facts. It remains to be seen if the questions regarding the origin of life on Earth and the origin of life in the universe have the same answer”

I

 

DB, my thoughts on Panspermia.

 

As far as I'm aware this is a hypothesis, not a theory. Its a possibility, however no direct data has been collected to even try and make it a scientific theory.

 

An issue with pamspermia, apart from it doesn't answer the question of where life came from, is that the probabilities of some rock carrying life, flying through space outside our solar system and hitting earth is astronomically small. It could have come from Mars but this would require a colliding event to brake a piece of Mars off.

 

So the reason I think it is rejected at this stage is because of the difficulty of gathering data and evidence.

 

Regarding the Cambrian explosion - it doesn't pose a problem for evolution.

 

 

 

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LogicalFallacy

 

This is where science has limited itself. It assumes that the big bang that created us was a singular event that created everything. I wish we could see to the ends of the universe from our view point but that is most likely never going to happen. But if we could we may find that there are other universes which were created by other big bangs which we may have passed through billions of years ago before life ever began or before the earth was anything more than a hot molten rock with a bunch of gasses around it. 

 

Science is limiting itself to making the evidence fit the theory. While I agree that at this point panspermia is more of a hypothesis than a theory. A theory is really only another hypothesis with better evidence. As I stated above I like to think outside the box. I think that anything surviving on a rock which traveled through our atmosphere is probably impossible. However a larger chunk of ice traveling through our atmosphere may have been a better arc for life from another planet than a rock from mars.

 

I'm not saying that this Is the only way to explain the Cambrian explosion but it would be nice to see this hypothesis taken seriously, because I don't think science is explaining it without a reasonable doubt. Even Darwin himself said that if there was proven to be no lifeforms leading up to the Cambrian forms that it is troubling for his theory. But it is the only period that is troubling for his theory in my personal opinion. Otherwise the fossil record has proven his theory to be true.

 

At any rate I think all Exchristians on this site can agree that all evidence that science has been able to uncover. And all fossils that archeology has been able to collect have painted a very different creation than the one which the bible reflects. So whether or not we can agree on the issue of panspermia or not, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate. Because we can agree that the bibles God did not create earth and everything we see according to the bible. And since it is a proven fact that the biblical creation is false than it is just another way to show that the God of the bible just does not exist.

 

Dark Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

To that I would have to say that if this "all loving, all powerful, everpresent, and all loving" god really loved everyone of us. Why doesn't he come around from time to time. Isn't it obvious with all The various interpretations of the "good" book floating around that no one really knows what the right teachings are anymore? 2000 years of an absent God. And no verifiable proof of a present God at any  point in time before that. Oh sure his bible makes claims of his acts. Even gives locations that they supposedly occurred but apparently he must have dug up all the proof and hid it. Maybe he has shadow boxes of his exploits on the walls of his heavenly mansion. Souvenirs even! Kinda like that rapist that likes to take the panties with him when he leaves. 

 

Not all of God's biblical exploits were to be believed on faith. He supposedly showed his might in the old testament! GREAT FLOODS! PLAGUES! PESTILENCE! HE OBLITERATED CITIES! AND SPLIT SEAS!  But none of that has been able to be verified. Many archeologists through the years tried to find evidence of God's history and have failed time and again because it isn't there. It was all made up. And if there is a God out there I can tell you it isn't the bibles God. Because the bibles God lies. Even his foundations are false. I don't how I believed in a God that has been caught in so many lies. I guess I was kinda like that battered wife that believes her husband loves her even though he has just blacked her eye. I mean after all the church is his bride right? So that's a perfect analogy. The bible God is a manipulative wife beater that likes to play mind games with his wife and children. 

 

You'll have to forgive me for being so cynical. Ya see when I was a christian my God wasn't present. I preached his word for years and even tho he could have made a difference he allowed an ex wife to cheat on me with a man that also new I was a preacher. Even tho I saw the signs, prayed for his intervention, had faith in his power to soften people's hearts and to take care of his servants, he wasnt there. Then I blamed myself for it for years to come thinking I may not have been faithful enough, that I must have committed some grievous sin, or something to that effect. (That's the mind games I spoke of) because in his words he can not fail. All powerful, all knowing, and all present doesn't give much room for failure so it must be that fault of the servant that his prayers weren't answered. 

 

And now...... NOW that I have a wife which has been faithful to me, whom I love with my whole heart, and whom I want to spend my life with. Apparently since I have deconverted he wants to show up in her life again. Nah nah he doesn't show up through the years of me BEGGING him to show me his truth. TO GUIDE me to the true church! To let me feel the fire I once felt when I was a young christian. No he doesn't show up then. But now that I've deconverted and apparently crossed a line he shows up in my wife's conscience. 

 

But all of that adds up to this. This was a debate on the bible God's existence. Which you weren't really invited to. And your two cents doesn't pertain to the overall subject. As far as his existence goes it isn't there. Through science, through archeology, and even through personal experience his existence isn't there. Not the bible God anyway. Now if the bible didn't make such great claims on God's abilities then maybe there could still be some possibilities there. But the bible does make many great claims and tells many stories that have been proven to be false. Ya see it wasn't that I had committed some grievous sin or that God had failed me, but simply that I had believed a fairy tale. And just like all other fairy tales it is fiction. There is no fairy God mother, tooth fairy, Santa clause, easter bunny, Jack frost, or a biblical God. 

 

If there is some supernatural God he pretty well stays out of the affairs of men and probably doesnt have a heaven or a hell. He is probably just some old hippie smoking a doobie on the spiritual plane laughing his ass off at all of us.

 

Dark Bishop

fascinating outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

@LogicalFallacy

 

This is where science has limited itself. It assumes that the big bang that created us was a singular event that created everything. I wish we could see to the ends of the universe from our view point but that is most likely never going to happen. But if we could we may find that there are other universes which were created by other big bangs which we may have passed through billions of years ago before life ever began or before the earth was anything more than a hot molten rock with a bunch of gasses around it. 

 

Science is limiting itself to making the evidence fit the theory. While I agree that at this point panspermia is more of a hypothesis than a theory. A theory is really only another hypothesis with better evidence. As I stated above I like to think outside the box. I think that anything surviving on a rock which traveled through our atmosphere is probably impossible. However a larger chunk of ice traveling through our atmosphere may have been a better arc for life from another planet than a rock from mars.

 

I'm not saying that this Is the only way to explain the Cambrian explosion but it would be nice to see this hypothesis taken seriously, because I don't think science is explaining it without a reasonable doubt. Even Darwin himself said that if there was proven to be no lifeforms leading up to the Cambrian forms that it is troubling for his theory. But it is the only period that is troubling for his theory in my personal opinion. Otherwise the fossil record has proven his theory to be true.

 

At any rate I think all Exchristians on this site can agree that all evidence that science has been able to uncover. And all fossils that archeology has been able to collect have painted a very different creation than the one which the bible reflects. So whether or not we can agree on the issue of panspermia or not, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate. Because we can agree that the bibles God did not create earth and everything we see according to the bible. And since it is a proven fact that the biblical creation is false than it is just another way to show that the God of the bible just does not exist.

 

Dark Bishop

an interesting and popular theory though rather bizarre because how can nothing create something? just saying that is pretty obviously not possible for nothing to become something,even isaac newton said that someone had to put the planets in orbit.(easy to overlook obvious details)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joefizz said:

an interesting and popular theory though rather bizarre because how can nothing create something? just saying that is pretty obviously not possible for nothing to become something,even isaac newton said that someone had to put the planets in orbit.(easy to overlook obvious details)

I think you missed the first part where single celled life was forming just fine and evolving on its own before the Cambrian explosion. It is the sudden appearance of complex life in a short time period. (30 million years er so) with no obvious ancestors leading up to those forms that rub against Darwins theory. Otherwise it is a very sound and proven theory even in human evolution. I remember preaching and making the statement that they can't find the missing link because there wasn't one. But that is not the case. There is fossilized evidence for every stage in our human evolution. 

 

Which once again is not a reflection of biblical creation. 

 

So maybe ole Isaac was mistaken. Because the conditions and materials for life were favorable on earth and single celled organisms were living. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I think you missed the first part where single celled life was forming just fine and evolving on its own before the Cambrian explosion. It is the sudden appearance of complex life in a short time period. (30 million years er so) with no obvious ancestors leading up to those forms that rub against Darwins theory. Otherwise it is a very sound and proven theory even in human evolution. I remember preaching and making the statement that they can't find the missing link because there wasn't one. But that is not the case. There is fossilized evidence for every stage in our human evolution. 

 

Which once again is not a reflection of biblical creation. 

 

So maybe ole Isaac was mistaken. Because the conditions and materials for life were favorable on earth and single celled organisms were living. 

 

DB

No I didn't "miss" the first part,I've heard "Evolution" theories many times whether while in school or out in the general world,as well as "the big bang theory" by many well known scientists,and there's one particular "flaw" I see in both but particularly "Evolution" because "the big bang theory would be more of a fact if scientists could decide who or what "caused" the big bang,so I'll focus on evolution...

I understand about all the remains found as well as human likeness to apes and other creatures but one thing stands out to me as a "Flaw" in any evolution theory which I'm rather surprised is never brought up is that if Evolution is indeed true or at the least fairly accurate then why has there been after so many thousands of years has there been not even so much as one,human being that has come out from nature,and what I mean by this is that if man has evolved from any creature then why has there never been a human in today's time that has been found to have evolved from creatures after all it has been as scientists would say millions of years since supposedly man had started out life as Neanderthals but what about now where is a "new human"I have not known anyone to bring forth any evidence that in modern times or medieval times or in even the first colonies of America that any "new human" has been evolved from creatures,so while I respect the theory I can't agree with any evolution theory because of this "lack of evidence" after all this is 2017 if any evolution could be proven by some "new humans" having evolved from creatures,then why has noone spoke about it since this would be a clear way to prove such a theory to be true?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can still see animals evolving. And maybe at some point apes may veer onto the same evolutionary path than we did. But at this point that isn't the case. I don't know why you would expect some other species to evolve into a human, other than one of our closer primates. Which still may happen at some point.

 

But in the limited amount of time we have had to study evolution there hasn't been time for a major evolutionary change. Homosapiens really haven't been around in our current form for long in the great span of time. So maybe in 100 million years their will be another intelligent life form that evolved from something else. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

We can still see animals evolving. And maybe at some point apes may veer onto the same evolutionary path than we did. But at this point that isn't the case. I don't know why you would expect some other species to evolve into a human, other than one of our closer primates. Which still may happen at some point.

 

But in the limited amount of time we have had to study evolution there hasn't been time for a major evolutionary change. Homosapiens really haven't been around in our current form for long in the great span of time. So maybe in 100 million years their will be another intelligent life form that evolved from something else. 

 

DB

yeah you get what I mean the theory establishes a "past" but not much on the "present",just an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really seeing where your going with this Joe........... ?

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Not really seeing where your going with this Joe........... ?

 

DB

oh I thought you did understand what I meant I'll try to be more clear,the evolution theory has alot of arguable truth concerning "mankind's" evolutionary start,but there's yet to be established more concrete evidence aside from apes and people,and old remains,if there were a creature like from the "ape" species that "evolved" as close to mankind as could be determined as a living evolution pattern of humans,then I could see evolution as a possible "truth" instead of a mere theory,because as much as can be said that "apes" are rather similar in thought process and body features,but it has not as far as I've seen been established any "present day" example that "any apes" are evolving physically and mentally overtime,I said creature before because evolution theories speak of all life coming from the sea/ocean,so really I meant particularly "apes" sorry for the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joefizz, what is your academic training in biology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, ficino said:

Joefizz, what is your academic training in biology?

well to be honest I only have a high school education,what of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joefizz

 

I think you are not understanding that they have found the "missing links" leading to our current homosapien status. Human evolution isn't a theory anymore. It's a fact. Here I will post this link again. If you are in a church like most that I attended they probably don't know that these fossils have been found. I have heard many preachers state that scientist can't find the missing link. But here they are! 😃

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

 

At the bottom of the page you can see pictures of most of the fossilized remains that have been found. It also gives a family tree of our evolution. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as far as why apes aren't showing any evolutionary sign I don't see why it matters. We were the branch in the apes family that evolved to be human. Just like other animals of other animals there are many branches in the same family that are nothing like one another. The apes are our cousins. And they may never evolve to the point that they are human like.

 

But like I said that doesn't really matter because it has already been done. You are an example of that process yourself just like I am. 

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

@Joefizz

 

I think you are not understanding that they have found the "missing links" leading to our current homosapien status. Human evolution isn't a theory anymore. It's a fact. Here I will post this link again. If you are in a church like most that I attended they probably don't know that these fossils have been found. I have heard many preachers state that scientist can't find the missing link. But here they are! 😃

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

 

At the bottom of the page you can see pictures of most of the fossilized remains that have been found. It also gives a family tree of our evolution. 

 

DB

I just checked out the site and it is fascinating,I'll keep the research in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

And as far as why apes aren't showing any evolutionary sign I don't see why it matters. We were the branch in the apes family that evolved to be human. Just like other animals of other animals there are many branches in the same family that are nothing like one another. The apes are our cousins. And they may never evolve to the point that they are human like.

 

But like I said that doesn't really matter because it has already been done. You are an example of that process yourself just like I am. 

 

DB

isn't the concept of apes evolving into us in due time implied though,it kind of sounds like this"we evolved from apes but apes don't evolve into us" kind of sounds like establishing a point then turning against that point.

Also sorry everyone I realize this got this thread "derailed",so I suppose we should move this conversation to a new thread regarding evolution,unless there is a thread for this topic available,either way we can continue this conversation in another thread,this is my last post on the subject of evolution in this thread carry on with this existence of bible God thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would please tag me in a new thread if you start it. Thank you. 

 

But remember as I stated in the previous post we evolved from a common ancestor. Not necessarily that the ape is that specific ancestor. We and the apes have a lot in common. But the evolutionary paths have separated us by millions of years. 

 

Does that mean they won't evolve into a more intelligent species as we did? No. It is still possible but it may be millions of years before that happens. 

 

We are the most advanced product of that evolutionary line at this point. 

 

Thanks for you comments @Joefizz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now