Is God real?

Ok, I did not read every single page of this thread to see if there were more questions, but here is my opinion.
I personally believe that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit (The trinity) exist. Please note this is the beliefs that I personally believe in.

“God is known as the all powerful and all knowing. Why does he not give us all the knowledge he knows so we can live in a peaceful society?”

The reason he does not give us all the knowledge to the bad things/good things that will happen is because he gives us free will. He gives us a choice. For example, your parents tell you not to touch the hot stove. You choose to touch it, it hurts. You learn not to purposely touch a hot stove again. This doesn't mean God wants you to get hurt, just like your parents don't want you to get hurt. They give you a choice to obey them or not, and your actions give a consequence, good or bad. Another question that relates to this is, Why doesn't God just make all mankind believe in him? It's because he does not want to force us to believe in him. It would just be a planet of mindless robots that do his every whim.

“Why has he killed more people than the devil himself? God = about 25 million. Lucifer = 60.” I think Lucifer should be God since he spared humanity more than God himself.”

Ok, please explain how God has killed 25 million and Lucifer only 60? Lucifer brought down 1/3 of the angles in heaven with him. The only reason we have sin in our lives is because of Satan. Because we are God's creation, and Lucifer hates God, he wants to bring down as many people as he can to hurt God. Lucifer has not “spared humanity”, how has he done that?

I understand that not every question about Christianity, God, and why sin happens can be answered. Thank you for reading.

 

So because God makes it into a game it is okay, the question is WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE A GAME.
JUST GIVE EVERYONE HEAVEN WHY TF IS HELL EVER NECESSARY.

 

Wait how did I say it was a game?

 

that means nothing
no one remembers what it was like before they were born

--- Double Post Merged, May 1, 2016, Original Post Date: May 1, 2016 ---

my favorites <3

 

Why make it a matter of choice, there is no point to creating people that you know will burn anyways. There isn't a way to justify an all knowing, all powerful God to create. See the very known diabolical of Epicurus
"God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

 

That's the point.

 

Allow me to bring a new face to the table. I have quite a few issues to discuss.

• The Theory of Evolution

Scientifically speaking, Darwin's Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts: microevolution and Macroevolution.
Microevolution is a gradual development of a species into a more specialized form of that organism. Paticular evidence for this was recorded by Darwin himself on the HMS Beagle in the Galapagos Archipelago. He noticed that the many species of finches shared most of their characteristics. The variation occured in the beak. The different kinds of beaks allowed each species an advantage over those who could not. Thus, he summarized that they evolved over many years from common ancestors. I would be a fool myself if I dismissed microevolution as an idiot's idea. There is simply too much concrete evidence backing it up.
Macroevolution is the hypothesis that over a very long period of years, species gradually developed into other classes, orders, even kingdoms. The issue with this is we simply do not have any evidence of Macroevolution occurring today. If you observe species development worldwide, you will find birds creating new species of birds, dogs breeding new kinds of dogs, and insects developing new kinds of insects. The thing we do not see is fish becoming amphibians.
At best, Macroevolution is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

• Concerning Theology

Using legal analysis, an Atheist by the name of Lee Strobel set out to prove Christianity wrong. The book, The Case for Christ, is the result of his work. Particularly focused on the centerpiece of Christianity, Jesus, he compared evidence; not "feelings" or even science, but the same general processes legal analysis use to determine truth from witnesses.

Regarding Motives​

Obviously, if the claims of Jesus are false, it makes Jesus himself one of two things: a liar or a lunatic.

Lunatic?​

If he was a lunatic, he did not show any of the symptoms. Symptoms of mental issues include:

1. Depression
2. Irrational Anger
3. Misperceptions or Paranoia
4.Cannot Reason, Irrational​

Jesus did not show any of these symptoms, as shown in the following examples:
1. Wept at the death of his friend, Lazuras (John 11:1-44) Depression
2. Only direct anger shown was at mechants taking advantage of the poor (Luke 19:44-45). Is this what you describe as "irrational" anger?
3. Accused one of his closest followers of betraying him; but was right(Matthew 26:14-15, 47-50). Remained calm for the duration of his trial. (Mark 15:1-15) Paranoia or Misperceptions
4. "The crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who has authority."-Matthew 7:28-29. Cannot Reason/Irrational
Clearly, he was not insane.

Liar?​

Thus, if the claims of Jesus to be the "Son of God " are false, he would be a liar. As every one who has lied knows, you lie for one reason, and one reason alone: personal gain. No matter what the issue was, when you lied, you were hoping to avoid some punishment, or trick one into doing/believing what you want them to.
Jesus knew the punishment for blasphemy, which he did by claiming he and the Father were the same. He did it anyways, well aware he would be executed for it. Going back to your own personal lie, would you willingly die to keep that lie intact? I highly doubt any lie is worth that to us. Even if that falsehood is deemed worthy by us to cause another's death, it is instinct for us to put self-preservation above everything else, unless in sacrifice for others. Does this not describe exactly what Jesus described His mission as? In addition, the faith of the Disciples also shows us something. Do you honestly think they would have all chosen death for something they knew to be a lie?

Regarding the Resurrection​

Many theories have come about over time attempting to dismiss the resurrection.

"Jesus didn't die on the cross"​

Obviously, this is the first theory that comes to mind. If Jesus had merely gone into a coma on the cross, he could have easily woken up on the day we observe as Easter. In order to understand the insanity and inanity of this idea, you must comprehend why hanging a person from a cross is fatal. (Warning: this section can be very . . . gruesome . . . to picture.) When a person is nailed to a cross, large, iron spikes are driven into their wrists (not palms) and ankles. They are then hung on the "tree." The manner in which the nails supporting the wrists causes the victim's body to sag. Each time they breathe, they must raise themselves slightly. Eventually, sheer exhaustion prevents them from raising themselves, and they suffocate. That is why the cross was the symbol of death itself. In addition, the Roman soldiers tasked with carrying out the execution impaled him with a spear. The very author of the books of Luke and Acts, Luke, was a physician, as well as historian. If Jesus did not die on the cross after being tortured before he was even raised up on that tree, then this would be even more evidence he was God, as it is medically impossible for the human body to endure torture, crucifixion, and impalement.

"The tomb wasn't empty"​

Again, this can be proven wrong given the context. Would Christianity have taken root as quickly as it did if these disciples were saying things the audience (who would have witnesses some of these things for themselves) knew to be false? The point is, any idiot in Jerusalem could have made the disciples look like idiots by pointing to a sealed tomb. Even the Jewish leaders (who wished Jesus would have stayed in a sealed tomb) openly admitted the tomb was empty. When two parties agree on one fact, even if they hate each other, that thing tends to be true.





Now, due to a lack of time, I will end my argument there. I would be happy to answer previous questions next time.

 

Makes what into a game?

 

To be completely honest, I don't think God exists. My family is supposedly thinking that God is real, but we refer to him about once a year. I'm a science guy, and there is no solid evidence that God or Jesus or anything else exists/existed. So, I don't think God is real. When you die, I think you are reborn as something else.

 

liiife

 

Like @OKNEM said, there is no evidence that God exist/existed. I too am a science guy.

Oh and Jesus did exist, it had been proven. However, I do not believe the miracles he supposedly performed were true and I don't believe he's the son of God.

 

oooooh

 

like kinda kinda not. my friend says that when the world ends, God will bring us all to heaven. like, wouldn't that technically be killing us all? I believe the world will end when the sun explodes. It has to explode because it's a star. And second of all, there isn't any evidence he does exist. What if he's just some old time troll and he made everyone believe he was all magical and stuff? Like please, no. But then the other half of me believes in God because I want to believe there is afterlife. I'm in the middle of believing and not.

 

This thread is so old. I just want to know how you did in the debate at school?

 

Oh god that was a long time ago. I was forced to debate for the affirmative team and so our constant getting shut down by scientific arguments, and the fact that it's hard to debate for something you strongly disagree with, meant we lost big time.

 

Let me ask you this, if the "miracles" we're false, how then could he "convince" more than 5,000 people at once?

​

 

​

He could well have been a lunatic, as there is no evidence that he did or did not show any of those symptoms. (And no, a 2000 year old book which could well have been a lie from the moment it was written is not evidence)

To answer the question, would you willingly die to keep that lie in tact?, I think if you look through Jesus' eyes it's pretty easy to see that yes he would. He could either come out and say it was a lie and be forgotten, or he could die and be remembered as God's son. Knowing that quite possibly someone would write a bunch of stories about the great son of God.

 

Also looking through his eyes, you think he cared if anything was written about him later if he was dead?

In case you were unaware, cross referencing the Bible against itself clearly shows he did not act like a lunatic. Besides, do you really think a lunatic is going to go around saying, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Let me ask you, do you believe Jesus was a good man, if not the Son of God?

We also can be quite certain we are reading the original context, even if there are variations in spelling and grammar, as there are more than twenty-four thousand manuscripts of the New Testament alone. Yet, they all carry the same message.

Even if Jesus was lying or a lunatic, consider the position of his followers. "Hmm, follow the lying lunatic, and get persecuted by everyone, or stick with the authorities and live a peaceful life. Definately following the lunatic!" It was taught that Jesus was resurrected within 5 years of the actual event. Do you honestly think not one of the witnesses who lived during that time would have called them out if the disciples were telling something they knew was false? The audience the disciples preached to knew a good deal about Jesus's life. They knew he had been crucified. More than 500 witnesses claimed to have seen the resurrected Christ. Christianity would not have spread so quickly around Jerusalem if everyone knew the story the disciples told was false.

Concerning the New Testament itself being a lie, consider the context. We have concrete evidence Jesus existed as a man. In addition, every single historical fact listed has either been proven to be correct, or has not been proven wrong. Returning to those 500 witnesses, they bore testimony that they had seen the risen Christ, and many were executed for it. Would every single eyewitness risk their own life for a lie? They knew they would never go down in history. We don't even know their names!

Jesus also exists in the writings of ancient historical writes including Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger. He also exists in an ancient Jewish work known as the Talmud. The intriguing part, none of these are Christian works. None of these writers believed Jesus was actually the Son of God.

 

nobody is gonna be like "yeah man I see where you're coming from, i'm a believer" what's the point of this

 

There is no evidence that he ever said this.
The bible is not evidence. Below is what I said on the OP, and the point still stands.