Is God real?

Allow me to go back to said OP.

Ironically, you seem to keep putting the Bible off as some sort of fiction. Yet does "fiction" have more historical accuracy than any other book in ancient history? One particular archeologist, Sir William Ramsay of Oxford University, spent more than twenty-five years attempting to prove the books of Luke and Acts wrong. He went to 9 islands, 54 cities, and 32 different countries, but only found evidence for Luke's accounts.
"William Ramsay was known for his careful attention to New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study . . . showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay
Careful what you read, some of those works of fiction might be true.

 

Let's take a closer look at the bible.

In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

• 
  Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

"Ask, and it will be given to you"
"For every one who asks receives"

Okay. As I am writing this I have attempted to pray to god to cure cancer. I'm updating a news site, but for now, it looks as if it didn't work. Because of this, we can already determine that the bible in fact does lie.

In Matthew 21:21:

• 
  I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Okay, once again I went and tested this, I prayed to god to cure cancer. Didn't work. Again.


I could keep going all day. These are 2 out of many lies in the bible. The bible can not be trusted as a piece of evidence. Harry Potter also takes place in London, should we take that as a factual book because it takes place in places that actually exist?


I 'seem to be putting the bible off as some sort of fiction' because it is full of lies.

• 
  

 

This is not a "lie" as you describe it, as it refers to not "every prayer will be answered in the way you want it right when you want it."

Note the parts of this verse you point out,

Yet the part you left out is the difference,

Regarding Matthew 7:7, it does not say, "Ask, and get what you asked for, seek, and you will find what you sought, knock, and that door will be opened." This scripture promises we will always get a response from God, not what we wanted.

For Matthew 21:21, the part you casually leave out, "if you have faith and do not doubt." Are you honestly telling me you had no doubts whatsoever while doing this?

Again, you disregard the Bible's historical accuracy. Every amount of evidence we possess today cannot shake it's historical accuracy.

In addition, the Jewish prophecies (specifically those in Isaiah) were all fulfilled by Jesus. Some, he could make happen to him, but do you honestly think a man can control where he is born, where he is raised, and soldiers mocking him and casting lots for his garments?

 

I'm not religious
I don't go to church
I basically don't care.

 

Still, you must answer the question for yourself.
"What do I believe, and why do I believe it?"

Also, if you think "going to church" makes you a Christian, you're dead wrong.

 

I'm atheist..
I do not believe in God or any gods.

I don't want to become Christian?

 

I am not implying you do follow Christ, merely that church does not define you as a Christian. Care to explain why you do not believe in any kind of deity?

 

The sentence goes "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer". Okay, you can say I don't believe and therefore my prayers aren't valid. I tested this and got a friend of mine who is a strong Christian to pray to cure cancer. He did last night, and, well, cancer is still here.

The bible also talks about Jesus walking on water. That is a lie. A man can not physically walk on water. It is impossible. It is a fictional story and therefore the rest of the bible should be treated as such.

 

Every religion claims to have miracles and every religion claims their book is more valid than all others, but all the arguments are exactly the same.

I think this is poor reasoning as this is one of the miracles, you should go for something that isn't true but is not a miracle.

 

Whether or not it is considered to be a miracle doesn't change the fact that walking on water is impossible. I could write a book where I say I flew around the world, it doesn't matter how historically accurate the book is, ultimately the book is fiction.

 

Also, your quoting of this scripture is invalid. According to the NLT translation, Matthew 21:21 is "Then Jesus told them, 'I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, "'May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,"' and it will happen."
Therefore, I believe you are referring to verse 22; "You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it." Again, this is a misinterpretation of scripture.

This question can be answered through yet another scripture, the most obvious answer is there are several ways this can be interpreted. The most obvious is "pray for whatever you want, and you will get it." 1 John 5:14 tells another story, "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us."
The thing one must understand is the various Gospels were written for different purposes. In the ancient world, a story could be told with up to 40% variation, but they were required to keep central parts the same. This is why the 4 Gospels tell the same story, but include or leave out certain parts.

Yet, if Jesus was the Son of Man, he could perform miracles science cannot explain. In later Jewish writings, Jesus is referred to as "the sorcerer who lead Israel astray." This acknowledges he performed miracles. Scientifically, walking on water is impossible, but so is rising from the dead. One must remember how all scientific laws are proven or disproven: observation. Generally, science relies on inductive reasoning. Thus, if we have not observed anyone walking on water, we assume it is impossible.
Walking on water is quite possible if one believes there is something more than what we can see with our eyes alone. To use the term, it would be referred to as the "supernatural."

 

Is it our choice that cancer exists? Do you have a choice, whether or not you contract terminal cancer tomorrow?

What about Ebola, Smallpox, Malaria, etc? For hundreds of years in some cases, humans were left to die in the most excruciating circumstances while your god watched with indifference. While we prayed to him, begged to him, for these to stop. I don't think the existence of these gruesome diseases has anything to do with free-will.

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't let my kid touch the hot stove. I would teach them not to. Educate them, and protect them.

What you're saying, is that we should learn purely from experience. That we shouldn't teach our children *NOT* to eat broken glass. We should watch them cut their mouths open, and hope that this teaches them a lesson. What sort of parent would do such a thing?

If you believe in a god, the Christian god? You have to believe that he purposefully watches on the sidelines, as paedophiles rape and murder innocent children. That your deity stands there, refusing to intervene, because... "free-will". *That* is the difference between me and your god. That's why I think almost every Christian is far more moral than the god they believe in. *We* would intervene. We would stop someone from raping an innocent little child. Whereas your god practically ignores the most grotesque barbaric acts one can think of.

Then why did 'skeptical' Apostle Paul get a 'Damascus Road Experience' as his proof of God, while we get ancient books+stories?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

Is this a violation of free-will?

The flood?

Let's start from the beginning here. Otherwise I reckon we could be talking about this for years!

Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true?

And, if so:

Why do you believe in a god?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 2, 2016 ---

I don't believe this is the case, though I could be mistaken here. Can you cite the proof that you reference for me, please?

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 2, 2016 ---

This was rebutted in another thread. Please refute the evidence I gave (and spent quite a long time doing so) in favour of Evolution, rather than continuing to re-use claims that have been addressed previously.

I could also name hundreds of prominent Atheists that did the opposite as Lee. That were Christians, but are now Atheists. Coming to the determination that the fundamental claims in Christianity are false.

Liar/Lunatic/Lord is a false trichotomy, as there is clearly a 4th option here. Myth. By setting up this false trichotomy, and by eliminating the other two options, Lee can easily portray Christianity's claims as something they arn't.

This also ignores the fact that the burden of proof should easy for the person making the positive claim. If you claim Jesus existed, and that he's a lord? It's up to you to prove that. Lee tries to find a way around this, with his false trichotomy. Yet, it hasn't been taken seriously by anyone* in the scientific community and for good reason. It seems odd that for someone that touts his degree in law, he doesn't seem to understand the 'Burden of Proof'.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 2, 2016 ---

You seem to rely quite heavily on the authority of religious apologists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Let's look at the evidence and get into the meat of the discussion here. Heck, I doubt you'd find it all that convincing if a Muslim, Hindu or Sikh came into this thread and started to cite anecdotes from religious apologists that agreed with their conclusions.

With that in mind, let's tackle the 2 most important questions here.

Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true?

And, if so:

Why do you believe in a god?

 

Let me ask you this, have you ever actually read The Case for Christ? Concerning the option of myth, I highly doubt you have ever read it for yourself. There is very blatant proof of the existence of Jesus. Please read the works of Jewish scholar Josephus if you have not already (The Antiquities). Every key point about Jesus can be confirmed outside of the Bible.

Concerning disease, one also can look at it from another perspective. Death from the Atheist point of view is the end. How you die is the end of your story. In Christian theology, it is merely a transition. One thing I particularly note about this is the diseases themselves. One thing we must know about the time in between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance, is the sheer lack of clean living conditions. Trash was literally thrown into the street. This would not be learning from experience, as the Law of Moses has several laws concerning hygiene. If these laws had been followed, much disease could have been prevented. In addition, parasites are ironically evidence for some kind of inspiration within the Old Testament. Jews were forbidden from eating the meat of pigs. Ironically, most pigs contains parasites, and is now safe because we cook it thoroughly (most of the time). Therefore, this "pointless" law was keeping the Jewish population in a greater state of health before we even knew parasites existed.

If you truly look, you will find there are many stories of radical transformations even today. We do not have to rely on just the Bible alone. There are too many "coincidences" for it to be random chance, which is what Atheism would require for these modern-day conversions. I will share some of these stories as soon as I possibly can, as I must deal with proper copyrights.

Every one of your counters in the previous thread does confirm evidence for evolution. The difference can be found in which form of evolution. Allow me to quote points from said thread

If I am not mistaken, this is the passage you were referring to. Here was my later statement

If this is the kind of evolution you are referring to, I will openly confess I agree. The science is too thorough to doubt, and it fits perfectly with everything we know.

One must also remember, this thread debates the existence of God, not which form of belief is correct. I make my points from the source I hold to be true. If a Muslim or any other came I to this discussion, we would shift from Biblical discussions to a broader theology.

In this area, you assume God is quiet, doing nothing. Consistently, you use this example. I have found every single struggle, no matter how vile, can be used to one's advantage. One of Christ's fundamental policies was forgiveness. In the OP of this thread, it claims,

Yet you yourself say

Care to explain these contradictory opinions, @n00bslayer_99 @TheDebatheist ?

 

I just want to hop in (hopefully for no more than one post) with an illustration I saw on Facebook this week.

If I drew for you a circle that represented all there was to know - Number Theory, psycholgy, astrophysics, literally everything that could be known - and asked you to fill in the area of the circle that was everything you knew, how much do you think you would fill in? Probably not that much compared to the entire circle. Now I ask you, is it possible that God could exist somewhere in the circle outside of the area you filed in? I would thus argue that you are not an athiest, but an agnostic, and one step closer to knowing Jesus Christ.

 

Let me ask you this, have you ever actually read The Case for Christ? Concerning the option of myth, I highly doubt you have ever read it for yourself. There is very blatant proof of the existence of Jesus. Please read the works of Jewish scholar Josephus if you have not already (The Antiquities). Every key point about Jesus can be confirmed outside of the Bible.

Let me respond to that question with another. Have you read 'God is not great'? 'Letter to a Christian Nation'? 'The God Delusion'?

I don't think it's a good investment of my spend my free time to read Christian apologetics from someone (Lee) who doesn't even understand basic logical principles. Liar/Lunatic/Lord are clearly not the only 3 options. It *is* a false trichotomy. That, along with his failure to apply the 'Burden of Proof' (something that everyone with a law degree should understand), is enough to discredit him as nothing more than another shill trying to cash-in on Christians looking for ways to defend their faith. The man is unforgivably ignorant.

A̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶J̶e̶s̶u̶s̶,̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶c̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶e̶v̶i̶d̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶c̶e̶.̶ Or, more importantly, the Christian god.

Concerning disease, one also can look at it from another perspective. Death from the Atheist point of view is the end. How you die is the end of your story. In Christian theology, it is merely a transition. One thing I particularly note about this is the diseases themselves.

I don't believe this addresses what was said. I'll try and break this down from my perspective to try and wade through (my) confusion.

Atheist: The problem of evil/suffering. Ugh.

Christian: It happens because... free-will.

Atheist: Destroying/preventing/creating disease has nothing to do with our own free-will. Plus, did Paul's Damascus Road Experience mean that his free-will was shattered? Why does he get evidence, and we don't?

You: Death is the end for the Atheist.

Me: Whaaaa?

I'm a little baffled as to this exchange. Can you help me out here, and please explain how your comment refutes/rebuts what I've just said? We were talking about free-will regarding the problem of evil. If you want to talk about life after death, that's another issue.

IIRC this is similar to the events in another thread. We were talking about Evolution and Abiogenesis, and then morality was suddenly brought into the fray. I think we get the most out of these conversations when we discuss 1 key issue at a time.

One thing we must know about the time in between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance, is the sheer lack of clean living conditions. Trash was literally thrown into the street. This would not be learning from experience, as the Law of Moses has several laws concerning hygiene.

Please don't do this. We have science to thank for our advancements in hygiene, not the Bible. The information about hygiene in the Bible is useless to humanity if it's never applied. If the information within was so valuable, why wasn't it applied for literally millennia? For the Bible to be given credit, it needs to be causal to the increase in quality of civilization.

If you truly look, you will find there are many stories of radical transformations even today. We do not have to rely on just the Bible alone. There are too many "coincidences" for it to be random chance, which is what Atheism would require for these modern-day conversions. I will share some of these stories as soon as I possibly can, as I must deal with proper copyrights.

I believe this is the 'Argument from Ignorance'+'Argument from Personal Incredulity'. If something seems incredibly unlikely to you, or if you have no explanation available to you, to explain the phenomena? You arn't rationally justified to insert the conjecture that seems most reasonable to you. If we don't know, the answer is “We don't know”. And there are many examples in the real world of that which is improbable or incredulous but true.

One must also remember, this thread debates the existence of God, not which form of belief is correct. I make my points from the source I hold to be true. If a Muslim or any other came I to this discussion, we would shift from Biblical discussions to a broader theology.

This is why I asked what I consider to be the 2 most important questions at the end of the last post. I'd still love some answers, as it cuts to the heart of the discussion.

Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true?

Why do you believe in a god? (Give us the primary reason)

In this area, you assume God is quiet, doing nothing. Consistently, you use this example. I have found every single struggle, no matter how vile, can be used to one's advantage. One of Christ's fundamental policies was forgiveness.

Please don't take the following statement as an insult or as malicious, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that what's said on this forum may not be easily forgotten or deleted. If I'm not mistaken, you've just justified (in defense of a god) the rape and murder of innocent children as “a struggle that can be used to one's advantage”. If true, I don't believe this reflects well on you personally, and it makes me extremely sad to see this as one way to rationalize your belief in a deity. I commend your honesty, but I would be lying if I wasn't greatly disturbed by your positive interpretations of such gross injustice and horror.

As for “I believe most Xtians are more moral than the god they believe in”. Sure. I believe most would step in if they saw someone being raped or attacked. I believe don't have the desire to send others to eternal misery and pain. I believe most don't advocate for slavery or the oppression of women. In this manner, I believe they are more moral, yes.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 3, 2016 ---

I just want to hop in (hopefully for no more than one post) with an illustration I saw on Facebook this week.

Word to the wise. Don't listen to apologetics created/propagated by convicted criminal Kent Hovind. They're quite poor, as I go on to explain.

If I drew for you a circle that represented all there was to know - Number Theory, psycholgy, astrophysics, literally everything that could be known - and asked you to fill in the area of the circle that was everything you knew, how much do you think you would fill in?

This hypothetical assumes knowledge is finite. An assumption I cannot grant, as I don't know whether it is or not.

Now I ask you, is it possible that God could exist somewhere in the circle outside of the area you filed in?

I don't know.

The existence of a god may be possible or impossible. Claiming one would mean I could disprove the other. Something I can't do. E.g. If I said this was possible, I would be claiming that it's definitely not impossible. Something that I can't prove. You're asking me to assign a probability for something I cannot assess the probability of.

As for the Christian god of the Bible? I believe that is literally impossible. Other deities or gods? I don't know.

I would thus argue that you are not an athiest, but an agnostic, and one step closer to knowing Jesus Christ.

I believe there's a slight misunderstanding here. Atheist literally means A- Theist. Not-Theist. Asexual, Asymmetrical, Amoral, Apolitical, etc etc. The A- prefix denotes a direct logical negation of 'the thing'. An Atheist is something that gives the existence of a god a Not-Guilty verdict. An Atheist does **NOT** necessarily give a god an Innocent (of existing) verdict. Agnosticism follows a similar trail of thought. Gnostic means 'to know'. Agnostic means 'to not know'. There are agnostic+gnostic Atheists+Theists. 4 categories. Almost every Atheists is an agnostic-Atheist. Myself included. I don't believe in a god, but I don't claim to know that no gods exist.

As for the last bit? Technically speaking, you're an Atheist when it comes to 99.9%+ of all gods. So technically, you're much closer to an Atheist, than I likely ever will be to a Christian.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 3, 2016 ---

@j32400 @kcschmidt

 

I would love to point something out.
So many of us were raised I'm different environments. If I wasn't raised Catholic and raised atheist I would be arguing for atheism as well. But I truly do believe in God for the fact that there is hope in another life after death, despite how unlikely it sounds I do believe in it, nothing. Not even these extremely horrifically long essays can ever change my opinion on him. God's not dead, he's surely alive

 

No.

 

And legit that isn't even an answer tbh. You have to give at least a reason why lol

 

Amen.

huehuehuehuehue

 

Doesn't that pretty much prove that God isn't real?
If he was real, he would be able to get people to believe in him whether they were raised religious or not.